Controversial Californian Proposition 37 test case on GM labeling defeated.

Run_to_da_hills

Prop 37 was an important landmark test case in United States and beyond concerning the possibility of food producing companies labeling and declaring what food products contain genetically modified ingredients.

Supporters rightly argued the consumers have a right to know if they are eating GM foods. Opponents overwhelmingly corporations such as Monsanto, Dupont, Pepsico and Nestle say the labels would be burdensome to retailers, and would force prices to rise.

The bill was defeated which means that corporations are now not required in future to label any of their toxic food products. Only just weeks ago it was scientifically proven that rats fed on GM corn products developed large cancerous tumors.

Video: Will Obama Fulfill His 2007 Promise to Label GMOs?

To be honest I don't think Obama could give two sh*ths about GM labeling and the peoples right to know whats contained in their products.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WveF8YjYEE

Concerned private individuals and foundations donated just $7,300,000 to support the bill.

Multinational food corporations spent $45m to defeat California GM label bill. Much of this money was spent on false advertising and main stream media bribes.

All is not lost over this defeat, the bill itself has brought an awareness on the subject and no doubt this will be challenged again in other states and countries across the globe.

Below is a lost of companies in favor of poisoning your food and their contributions towards fighting the bill. People can now avoid these products when they see them on their supermarket shelves.

Monsanto $7,115,237
E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co. $4,900,000
Pepsico, Inc. $2,145,400
DOW Agrisciences $2,000,000
Bayer Cropscience $2,000,000
BASF Plant Science $2,000,000
Syngenta Corporation $2,000,000
Kraft Foods Global $1,950,500
Coca-Cola North America $1,465,500
Nestle USA $1,315,600
Conagra Foods $1,176,700
General Mills $1,135,300
Kellogg Company $790,000
Smithfield Foods $683,900
Del Monte Foods $674,100
Campbell's Soup $500,000
Heinz Foods $500,000
Hershey Company $493,900
The J.M. Smucker Company $485,000
Bimbo Bakeries $422,900
Ocean Spray Cranberries $387,100
Mars Food North America $376,650
Council for Biotechnology Information $375,000
Grocery Manufacturers Association $375,000
Hormel Foods $374,300
Unilever $372,100
Bumble Bee Foods $368,500
Sara Lee $343,600
Kraft Food Group $304,500
Pinnacle Foods $266,100
Dean Foods Company $253,950
Biotechnology Industry Organization $252,000
Bunge North America $248,600
McCormick & Company $248,200
Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company $237,664
Abbott Nutrition $234,500
Cargill, Inc. $226,846
Rich Products Corporation $225,537
Flowers Foods $182,000
Dole Packaged Foods $171,261
Knouse Foods Cooperative $164,731

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/05/prop-37-food-gm-bill

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/prop-37-defeated-californ_n_2088402.html

FatherLen

Another classic

Where To

Unless cucumbers start growing on people's foreheads no one cares RDTH

Death and Taxes

Talk about a sore loser!
The only ones he isn't blaming are the Lizardpeople.
The luddites are still alive and kicking, his kind also tried to block the introduction of penacillin and other advances in the past.

Wacker The Attacker

This could get wild

Where To

Where To wrote: »

Unless cucumbers start growing on people's foreheads no one cares RDTH

<vegetable related pun>

Nodin

Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

This could get wild

We're all gonna die.....

Genghiz Cohen

So you ignored the link I posted in the other thread where all 6 French Scientific Academies came together to denounce that Rat Tumour paper then? And you'll continue to use it as a stick to beat all GM foods? You even say its a week old rather than months, makes it sound like a different paper, well done.

Pathetic.

1ZRed

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Below is a lost of companies in favor of poisoning your food and their contributions towards fighting the bill. People can now avoid these products when they see them on their supermarket shelves.

Fear mongering and scare tactics as always in regards to GMOs, backed up by non scientific "evidence" and sensationalist articles with no scientific credibility.

Brilliant, that must prove all GM food products, as well as other GM produced substances -insulin, vaccines, etc, to be "poisoning" our lives.

Nodin

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

So you ignored the link I posted in the other thread where all 6 French Scientific Academies came together to denounce that Rat Tumour paper then? And you'll continue to use it as a stick to beat all GM foods? You even say its a week old rather than months, makes it sound like a different paper, well done.

Pathetic.

Now now. He's under a lot of strain. Decades of fearing that cadburys were going to bake him and cover him in choclate have taken their toll.

Run_to_da_hills

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

So you ignored the link I posted in the other thread where all 6 French Scientific Academies came together to denounce that Rat Tumour paper then? And you'll continue to use it as a stick to beat all GM foods? You even say its a week old rather than months, makes it sound like a different paper, well done.

Pathetic.

$45m is a lot of cash to be spending on disinformation, lies and brown envelopes leading up to this referendum.

Death and Taxes

Nodin wrote: »

Now now. He's under a lot of strain. Decades of fearing that cadburys were going to bake him and cover him in choclate have taken their toll.

Post of the day, the week, the year!":D

super_furry

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

$45m is a lot of cash to be spending on disinformation, lies and brown envelopes leading up to this referendum.

Another convinent sidestep there. Wouldn't do to address the post or the science used to debunk your scaremongering though, would it?

Genghiz Cohen

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

$45m is a lot of cash to be spending on disinformation, lies and brown envelopes leading up to this referendum.

$7.3m is a lot of cash to be spending on disinformation, lies and brown envelopes leading up to this referendum.

It's easy to twist the truth to suit.

Death and Taxes

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

$45m is a lot of cash to be spending on disinformation, lies and brown envelopes leading up to this referendum.

You spent $45 million on that post!

Duggy747

Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes was a multi-layered documentary on the potential horrors of GM food.

*cough*

UCDVet

First world problems....

People have been eating GM food since the 40s (if not earlier and we've been using selective breeding for as long as we've been growing food) and it has saved, easily, a *BILLION* lives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug). Stop and think about that. BILLION. That's a lot of dead people.

Ohh - but it's not *our* lives. It's just the lives of poor people. People who would have starved to death because they weren't born in a country that would give them dole payments and because they don't have the resources or technology to yield enough food using the same farming techniques we used in the 1700s.

Who cares about them, right?

Let's go back to all natural farming! Why, *THIS* is what a banana should look like - NATURAL - like *GOD* intended!


Who cares if all the farms in the world couldn't possibly yield enough food to feed the population of the Earth without things like disease-resistant, high-yield strains of crop? We'll just pay 4x for our food and lots and lots of people will STARVE TO DEATH. Why should fields yield 3-4x the amount of food today compared with the 1940s? That's not natural!

A wholesome, natural death is far better than a life made possible through technology and scientific advancement! But, only so long as it's the deaths of poor, faceless people, in other countries. Am I right?

Science works: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/Wheat_yields_in_selected_countries%2C_1951-2004.png

Sorry - I'd type more, but I've got a terrible case of polio. It's a wholesome, natural disease.

Bradidup

The vast majority of those that couldn't give a damn about GM products would be the same individuals that smoke, drink, watch football and eat junk food at McDonalds etc. I could see where many posters are coming from.

Genghiz Cohen

Bradidup wrote: »

The vast majority of those that couldn't give a damn about GM products would be the same individuals that smoke, drink and eat junk food at McDonalds etc. I could see where many posters are coming from.

Baseless assertion.

McG

shouldn't this post be in the Conspiracy Theory board?

nonsense for the most part.

freyners

why does anyone even entertain him anymore, anytime he is proved wrong he'll ignore it and repeat the assertion, or else, when in doubt, blame obama

Sarky

freyners wrote: »

why does anyone even entertain him anymore

The same reason people keep bringing their untrained puppy round to those neighbours they don't really like so it can trail its bum along their expensive rug and mistake the toddler for a lady-puppy in heat.

It's friggin' hilarious.

Casillas

There is a way to determine GM food by its barcode though.

I'm not sure exactly but I think if the barcode starts with an 8 then it's GM.

Feel free to correct me if wrong however.

RobbieTheRobber

Casillas wrote: »

There is a way to determine GM food by its barcode though.

I'm not sure exactly but I think if the barcode starts with an 8 then it's GM.

Feel free to correct me if wrong however.

I thought the barcode had to have the number 6 three times and then you knew it was a GM/lizard people conspiracy

Casillas

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I thought the barcode had to have the number 6 three times and then you knew it was a GM/lizard people conspiracy

Only for tea aka mind control juice..

CruelCoin

RTDA:

GM food takes 1/3 the space as organic does.

Sure, lets go organic, but we'll have to burn down every single rainforest on earth to create the space needed to do so.

Kindly stop talking crap. Take a chill pill, you'll live longer.

Run_to_da_hills

CruelCoin wrote: »

RTDA:

GM food takes 1/3 the space as organic does.

Sure, lets go organic, but we'll have to burn down every single rainforest on earth to create the space needed to do so.

Kindly stop talking crap. Take a chill pill, you'll live longer.

So what.

People will pay the extra for organic products, (Savings will be made up on family medical bills) .

I don't give a damn about manufacturer incorporating pesticides and other chemicals into their products to 'improve'' their yields (and profits) as long as they declare it on their packaging.

People don't like the wool being pulled over their eyes.

Sarky

You don't actually have the faintest idea what you're talking about, do you?

Run_to_da_hills

Sarky wrote: »

You don't actually have the faintest idea what you're talking about, do you?

I know enough about it not to touch certain well known supermarket brands.

Overheal

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

So what.

People will pay the extra for organic products, (Savings will be made up on family medical bills) .

I don't give a damn about manufacturer incorporating pesticides and other chemicals into their products to 'improve'' their yields (and profits) as long as they declare it on their packaging.

People don't like the wool being pulled over their eyes.

I know enough about it not to touch certain well known supermarket brands

Thats the whole problem with your argument, people will and do buy organic. You're defeating your own argument by admitting your purchasing habits already allow you to avoid GM products. Organic labeling standards already exist and function like "Dolphin-free Tuna": that is, if you want it on your product, you pay for the label and it is verified. Tuna companies just happened to be publicly pressured into doing it.

Fact is, it would drive up food costs. Doesn't really matter if they are GM foods or not. Not just the printing cost of putting some extra ink on a box of corn flakes but in tracking the regulations on every product on the market.

Informed consumers do not require a label to tell them a food is bad. Not an extra one anyway. Regulations already require ingredients to be listed, you take one look at soda and "High Fructose Corn Syrup" should tell you right away it's not something that should be put into your body on the regular. And meat products can't spoof certified organic labeling, to do so would be fraud under already-existing regulations.

Really pointless piece of law when the free market, as much as it gets wrong sometimes, has already stepped in and done the work. Grocery stores are already in the regular habit of setting up their own "greenwise" (Publix's version) sections where you can shop for organic product. And those producers will regularly let you know on the label if it's pesticide-free and everything else. Again, if they are found to be lying, there are existing FTC laws that would penalize them, they already do such things to General Mills and Kellogs on the regular when they try to advertise near-pharmaceutical benefits to eating their cereals ("Scientifically proven to increase test scores, bla bla") The FDA regularly steps in and forces them to pull advertising; the only alternative is for them to send Lucky Charms through drug trials

This would have indeed just been a big waste of taxpayer money, good riddance.

Death and Taxes

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I know enough about it not to touch certain well known supermarket brands.

Are they the brands controlled by the Lizardpeople?

super_furry

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

People will pay the extra for organic products, (Savings will be made up on family medical bills) .

Any genuine proof for that?

Overheal

super_furry wrote: »

Any genuine proof for that?

couple studies i think but again, nothing stops people from doing this already.

CruelCoin

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

So what.

People will pay the extra for organic products, (Savings will be made up on family medical bills) .

I don't give a damn about manufacturer incorporating pesticides and other chemicals into their products to 'improve'' their yields (and profits) as long as they declare it on their packaging.

People don't like the wool being pulled over their eyes.

GM and pesticides are two completely different things. "genetically modified" i.e: DNA has been altered. No amount of pesticides will change DNA.

Having a greater tonnage per acre is an improvement, so what are the inverted commas for?
Also, improved profits is a problem why? You do know what the whole idea behind a business is don't you?

Also, so what? If you care about having oxygen to breathe, you should care about not turning every rainforest into organic farmland.