Proposition 37

brianlux

whygohome wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

i don't see how anyone could vote against this ... sure, if you don't care what you eat and the consequences of that - then feel free to eat whatever you want but people want to know because their health and lives are connected to this ...

people who would vote against this - would you go into a restaurant and order a dish that said "meat and stuff"?

It all comes down to economics. The cost of labeling will be put on the consumer (how dare we ask a company to take responsibility and inform the consumer of what they are buying!!)

It all comes down to this: We are 'Merica. We are an incredibly unhealthy society and proud of it. it's part of freedom, like filling up the 25 gallon gas tank on my pickup truck. 'Merica. Freedom.
Don't touch our cuisine!

Mmmm, yum, look so good I could...



Yeah, I guess if people want to poison themselves.

We just want to know what's in our food. If someone buys a book from me, they know what they're getting. I note any flaws in books that I sell, even ones that might go unnoticed. We should expect the same from our food.

DS1119

Thi proposition is not as simple as putting a label on food. Far from it.

polaris_x

DS1119 wrote:

Thi proposition is not as simple as putting a label on food. Far from it.

no ... it's about giving information to consumers so they can make informed decisions ... as opposed to allowing corporations dictate what is relevant and allowing them to misrepresent their products ...

brianlux

DS1119 wrote:

Thi proposition is not as simple as putting a label on food. Far from it.

I believe it. I hope we do get the labeling but yeah, there's always more to any proposition that meets the eye. They're written that way on purpose and most require a degree in law to fully understand them. Very frustrating for those us us who want of make good voting choices. We just have to go with our best educated assessment.

DS1119

brianlux wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Thi proposition is not as simple as putting a label on food. Far from it.

I believe it. I hope we do get the labeling but yeah, there's always more to any proposition that meets the eye. They're written that way on purpose and most require a degree in law to fully understand them. Very frustrating for those us us who want of make good voting choices. We just have to go with our best educated assessment.

Brian...as god as my witness...if something like this gets passed say goodbye to the local farmer. Say hello to only increased production by the larger farms and say hello to food imported that doesn't fall under the scope of this law.

Prince Of Dorkness

The food industry tried to sell us hamburger that was 25% fat and called it "75% Fat Free."

They have sold us "wheat bread" that was just white bread coloured brown with molasses.

They have sold us "vitamin water" that was just water, sugar and flavor.

They have sold us "healthy choice" food that was just the same sodium, sugar and fat-filled crap in a different package.

I've seen "cholesterol free" peanut butter. No shit.

Have you seen the bags of hard candy labeled "fat free?"

Ec-Fucking-Scuse me if I maybe want them to show a bit of responsibility in their marketing and the poisons they knowingly sell us.

Vote Yes.

Prince Of Dorkness

And can we please stop it with the doomsday prophecy about every vote?

Wasn't 4 years ago they were saying that voting for Barack Obama would mean "death to Israel" and 1000 years of darkness" and that voting against Proposition 8 would mean the kids would be forced to watch hardcore gay porn in classrooms?

Honestly. :fp:

cincybearcat

DS1119 wrote:

Brian...as god as my witness...if something like this gets passed say goodbye to the local farmer. Say hello to only increased production by the larger farms and say hello to food imported that doesn't fall under the scope of this law.

Which god?

Interesting, it seem that they are trying to regulate what people put in food through labeling. I don't know enough about it, though it seems to make sense that you have to label what's in your food. Of course, what is important to label and what is not is the real question here. And I think it will cause prices to increase, which as we all know disproportionately affects the poor.

DS1119

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

The food industry tried to sell us hamburger that was 25% fat and called it "75% Fat Free."

They have sold us "wheat bread" that was just white bread coloured brown with molasses.

They have sold us "vitamin water" that was just water, sugar and flavor.

They have sold us "healthy choice" food that was just the same sodium, sugar and fat-filled crap in a different package.

I've seen "cholesterol free" peanut butter. No shit.

Have you seen the bags of hard candy labeled "fat free?"

Ec-Fucking-Scuse me if I maybe want them to show a bit of responsibility in their marketing and the poisons they knowingly sell us.

Vote Yes.

All of these examples have zero to do with this proposition but thank you for playing.

DS1119

cincybearcat wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Brian...as god as my witness...if something like this gets passed say goodbye to the local farmer. Say hello to only increased production by the larger farms and say hello to food imported that doesn't fall under the scope of this law.

Which god?

Interesting, it seem that they are trying to regulate what people put in food through labeling. I don't know enough about it, though it seems to make sense that you have to label what's in your food. Of course, what is important to label and what is not is the real question here. And I think it will cause prices to increase, which as we all know disproportionately affects the poor.

My god. Probably a bad choice in words to try and keep the discussion neutral and I apoligize but it's a phrase I use quite often.

polaris_x

cincybearcat wrote:

Which god?

Interesting, it seem that they are trying to regulate what people put in food through labeling. I don't know enough about it, though it seems to make sense that you have to label what's in your food. Of course, what is important to label and what is not is the real question here. And I think it will cause prices to increase, which as we all know disproportionately affects the poor.

incremental costs to labeling is minimal ...

i would say the proposition comes down to this:

the only downside i really see in this proposition is that a producer could be held liable for the false labeling of its source materials ... the necessity to give consumers the information required to make informed decisions trumps that by far tho ... as it relates to foreign products not falling under the same scrutiny - depending on where the food is coming from (gmo may already be banned) otherwise you can thank free trade agreements for the lack of regulation ...

there is a reason why gmo foods are banned in so many countries ... it's not to say that all gmo foods are bad but the reality is we don't know for certain that they are all safe ... and when you look at incidences of various illnesses whether they be diabetes or allergies ... one can see that those rates are climbing higher in the US vs. other countries ...

riotgrl

DS1119 wrote:

brianlux wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Thi proposition is not as simple as putting a label on food. Far from it.

I believe it. I hope we do get the labeling but yeah, there's always more to any proposition that meets the eye. They're written that way on purpose and most require a degree in law to fully understand them. Very frustrating for those us us who want of make good voting choices. We just have to go with our best educated assessment.

Brian...as god as my witness...if something like this gets passed say goodbye to the local farmer. Say hello to only increased production by the larger farms and say hello to food imported that doesn't fall under the scope of this law.

Agribusiness has helped destroy that local, family farm for the past 30 years. This law is not going to make it worse. Buying from a CSA or a farmers market, as many people on this board have said they do on a regular basis, is the one of the ways to combat the destruction of the local, family farm not voting no to this bill.

DS1119

polaris_x wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Which god?

Interesting, it seem that they are trying to regulate what people put in food through labeling. I don't know enough about it, though it seems to make sense that you have to label what's in your food. Of course, what is important to label and what is not is the real question here. And I think it will cause prices to increase, which as we all know disproportionately affects the poor.

incremental costs to labeling is minimal ...

i would say the proposition comes down to this:

the only downside i really see in this proposition is that a producer could be held liable for the false labeling of its source materials ... the necessity to give consumers the information required to make informed decisions trumps that by far tho ... as it relates to foreign products not falling under the same scrutiny - depending on where the food is coming from (gmo may already be banned) otherwise you can thank free trade agreements for the lack of regulation ...

there is a reason why gmo foods are banned in so many countries ... it's not to say that all gmo foods are bad but the reality is we don't know for certain that they are all safe ... and when you look at incidences of various illnesses whether they be diabetes or allergies ... one can see that those rates are climbing higher in the US vs. other countries ...

I'm not being a wise ass but have you read the enitre proposition and what it actually proposes? You do realize that imported foods won't be regulated? You do realize this country already has a standard for organic foods sold? It's a redundant law that will only hurt the small farmer...will only cost more to the consumer and taxpayer for the same or even LESSER a product...and will only increase imported food into the country. It's an absolutely ridiculous proposition sold on people's fears.

DS1119

riotgrl wrote:

Agribusiness has helped destroy that local, family farm for the past 30 years. This law is not going to make it worse. Buying from a CSA or a farmers market, as many people on this board have said they do on a regular basis, is the one of the ways to combat the destruction of the local, family farm not voting no to this bill.

And you truly believe the local farmer has the money to adhere to these standards? This law gets passed say goodbye to farmer's markets.

Prince Of Dorkness

DS1119 wrote:

And you truly believe the local farmer has the money to adhere to these standards? This law gets passed say goodbye to farmer's markets.

Oh please. Can you drop the silly "if you don't vote those this... say goodbye to your FREEDOM!!!!"

If the last four years of saying "vote to protect the mega corporations or the world you know it will end and the angels will weep" and people giving you the finger has taught you nothing... I'll teach you this... that shit does't work. It just makes you look nuts.

riotgrl

DS1119 wrote:

riotgrl wrote:

Agribusiness has helped destroy that local, family farm for the past 30 years. This law is not going to make it worse. Buying from a CSA or a farmers market, as many people on this board have said they do on a regular basis, is the one of the ways to combat the destruction of the local, family farm not voting no to this bill.

And you truly believe the local farmer has the money to adhere to these standards? This law gets passed say goodbye to farmer's markets.

Many local farmers already label their products as such. Who's spending all the money to convince people to vote no - Monsanto, Kraft, Kelloggs, Coke, Pepsi, etc. And most of the additional cost from labeling is because of the need to change ingredient formulations not the labeling process itself. These companies sell cheap, convenient products and using non-GMO ingredients will cost more which will cut into their enormous profits. But we know that the price will be passed onto consumers which is how they are scaring people into voting against Prop 37.

polaris_x

DS1119 wrote:

I'm not being a wise ass but have you read the enitre proposition and what it actually proposes? You do realize that imported foods won't be regulated? You do realize this country already has a standard for organic foods sold? It's a redundant law that will only hurt the small farmer...will only cost more to the consumer and taxpayer for the same or even LESSER a product...and will only increase imported food into the country. It's an absolutely ridiculous proposition sold on people's fears.

actually i did ... there is quite a bit of legalese in there that is open to exploitation but by in large it essentially says that we don't really know the long term health consequences of gmo foods ... part of that reason is because there is no mandatory labeling now ... so, when all of a sudden the number of kids who are allergic to peanuts skyrockets - we don't really know why because the gmo food has been systematically introduced into every day foods without consumer knowledge ...

i already commented about imported foods ...

what does the standards of organics have anything to do with this? ... it's not redundant unless one is to believe that ALL food that is not organic is in fact GMO ... if that is the case - perhaps there is redundancy ...

and we don't know if food costs will change ... costs related to a change in labels is miniscule ... labels change all the time ... it's printing ...

but you're right about the fear campaigning ... which is pretty much the NO campaign ...

polaris_x

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

And you truly believe the local farmer has the money to adhere to these standards? This law gets passed say goodbye to farmer's markets.

Oh please. Can you drop the silly "if you don't vote those this... say goodbye to your FREEDOM!!!!"

If the last four years of saying "vote to protect the mega corporations or the world you know it will end and the angels will weep" and people giving you the finger has taught you nothing... I'll teach you this... that shit does't work. It just makes you look nuts.

yeah ... for someone railing against a "fear" campaign ... it's completely asinine to make this leap ... especially considering many of the farmers who sell at markets support this proposition ...

cincybearcat

IS there a good source for how much $ this labeling is expected to cost? Not that everything should come down to money, just interested. I used my google machine but so far none of the articles I've read actually list the estimates.

polaris_x

cincybearcat wrote:

IS there a good source for how much $ this labeling is expected to cost? Not that everything should come down to money, just interested. I used my google machine but so far none of the articles I've read actually list the estimates.

the only objective costing is related to taxpayers ... there is a study that the No campaign funded that said food costs would skyrocket for consumers ... but it's assumptions were all pretty bad ... such as every producer will then source organics instead of putting it on gmo on their labels ...