.
News Alert
Update: Wildfire Continues to Grow; Containment…

Local Producers Quiet On Prop. 37 Despite Statewide Fervor

Prop. 37 has been getting much attention as the Nov. 6 Election nears, in part because big campaign donors are denouncing it and throwing massive amounts of money in advertising behind the No on 37 effort.

Does it matter to you whether genetically engineered ingredients are in your food?

California voters are being asked this very question on Election Day when they will decide whether to pass Proposition 37, otherwise known as The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act. If passed by voters, the measure would require producers to label for consumers the list of any genetically engineered ingredients in foods being sold.

“The purpose of this measure is to create and enforce the fundamental right of the people of California to be fully informed about whether the food they purchase and eat is genetically engineered and not misbranded as natural so that they can choose for themselves whether to purchase and eat such foods,” the text of the proposition states.

Prop. 37 has been getting much attention as the Nov. 6 Election nears, in part because big campaign donors are throwing massive amounts of money in advertising behind the No on 37 effort.

According to the Secretary of State's public access Campaign Finance Activity, millions have been raised on both sides of the issue. More than $32,000,000 has poured into the No On 37 side, with the largest donors being those with a big bottom-line-stake in the issue, including Monsanto, E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co., Dow Agrisciences, Bayer Cropscience, BASF Plant Science, Pepsico, Nestle USA, Coca-Cola, Conagra Foods and others.

Coffers for the Yes on 37 folks pale in comparison, with just $3,900,000 donated at press time. Major contributors include Mercola Health Resources, Organic Consumers Fund and others.

Despite the statewide attention, local growers and producers don’t seem to be too concerned about Prop. 37. Patch has not spotted any aggressive campaigning for or against the measure in Southwest Riverside County, and Peggy Evans, who heads the Temecula Wine Growers Association, said the group is not taking a position on Prop. 37.

Local growers such as Eco-Farms in Temecula isn’t campaigning for or against the proposition on its website, nor is the Inland Empire CSA. Spokespeople for the organizations were not immediately available for comment.

Arguably, the research for or against genetically engineered foods is still lacking, despite the fact that many countries around the world prohibit genetically engineered products from entering the food chain in their respective nations.

A recent controversial study published in the peer-reviewed journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, led by Gilles-Eric Séralini at the University of Caen in France, has helped fuel the argument over genetically engineered foods and has put more attention on Prop. 37.

The study followed 200 rats for two years, and concluded that the rodents fed either genetically engineered corn or the herbicide Roundup had an increased risk of developing tumors, suffering organ damage and dying prematurely.

But some have said criticized the study because it was conducted by an opponent of genetically engineered crops, and the findings have been disputed by some scientists who claim the research methods were flawed.

So how will you vote on this controversial issue? Does it matter to you? Where do you stand on the research?

trenchf00t October 01, 2012 at 10:59 PM
No, D A, Soylent Green was PEOPLE! People, I tell you! Why won't they believe me?!
Lash LaRue October 02, 2012 at 06:46 PM
Proponents for California's Proposition 37 which would require genetically-modified foods be labeled recently publicized a study in France suggesting that GMO foods can be dangerous. The study showed mice that exclusvely ate Monsanto NK603 developed tumors at an alarming rate and had high internal organ damage and death rates. University of Illinois Professor Emeritus Dr. Bruce Chassy is an expert in food science and human nutrition. He says there's little question but that the lab rats did - indeed - develop tumors at the rate the French claimed. He says that's what the rats are supposed to do. "They're used as lab rats because they do develop tumors at an alarmingly high rate and so they're a great model for studying tumor formation and carcinogenesis." Dr. Chassy said the rat study would have had the same results no matter what the rodents ate. That, he says, is a deception that proponents of Prop 37 has been using to sway an ingorant California electorate to vote for the measure. And it appears to be working. The latest Field Poll shows Prop 37 passing by a wide 2 to 1 margin.
Anyès Pelaez Vedel October 09, 2012 at 02:10 AM
I agree.
Anyès Pelaez Vedel October 09, 2012 at 02:12 AM
I think in the movie with Charlton Heston the food was...people....
Anyès Pelaez Vedel October 09, 2012 at 02:12 AM
Me too!

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »