Food labels - GMO

There is a push to have the labels on foods changed to reflect if they contain Genetically Modified Foods. The proposition to do this failed in California. I went shopping today and saw some twinkie soliciting signatures for a similar initiative in Washington State. I asked him if he knew what the original corn cob looked like. Just like a true progressive, when confronted with a fact he didn't like, he changed the subject and started ranting how corn had no nutritional value and how he didn't eat it. I asked if he ate rice. He owned up to this. I asked if he knew about Golden Rice (here and here). He did not. I asked if he knew who Norman Borlaug (here, here, here, here and here)was. He did not. I suggested that he Google these two items and he assured me he would but I bet he will not. A shame as this guy saved a billion people from brutal slow starvation. Won the Nobel Prize for it too. Here is a nice article on the failed California Proposition 37 from Burbank, CA station KCET:

Why Prop 37 Failed
Proposition 37, the California campaign that would have required some products made with genetically engineered food to be labeled as such, was solidly defeated in the voting booth by six points (53%-47%). This failure is somewhat surprising as Prop 37 began the campaign season with a nearly 2-1 lead, according to polls. In the wake of this defeat, a discussion of why Prop 37 was ultimately overwhelmed by the opposition and what this means for the future of the food movement is of critical importance.

So far, proponents of Prop 37 have been more than happy to place the blame on their opposition and the vast amounts of capital they spent. For example, Stacy Malkan, the media director for Yes on 37, said, "I think this election was largely a story of money. We didn't have the funds to compete." Ocean Robbins made the same point: "The 'No on 37' campaign spent $46 million burying the state's voters in an avalanche of misleading ads and outright falsehoods. Their efforts defeated the proposition."

I disagree. Although the opposition outspent the Yes on 37 campaign by five to one, the ultimate reason the Yes on 37 campaign failed was the message.

"You have a right to know" is a great slogan and a very attractive message, and was right there in the campaign's name: CA Right to Know. People do like to know what it is they are eating. No wonder then that when peopled were asked this summer whether they supported Prop 37, so many answered yes.

Unfortunately, a "right to know" argument only goes so far. When the "No on 37" campaign began to push back, claiming that the proposition would raise food costs and was confusing and full of exemptions, then the "right to know" became a much weaker message. After all, I have a right to know many things, but if that knowledge will cost a significant amount (say, in grocery bills), than I might choose to forgo that knowledge.

This is just another mental disconnect in the progressive brain -- hybridization is just fine because it is "natural" and "organic". But hybridization is a scattershot breeding method and something could come over that has a potential to cause harm in ten or twenty years. With gene sequencing and splicing, the exact traits are carried over with no other baggage. One of my main reasons for not getting Organic certification for my farm is that there are some incredibly specific and good insecticides that I can use where the "natural" "plant-based" insecticides allowed to an organic farmer are actually realy toxic. Rotenone is allowed but it kills all species of insects (both bad and beneficial) as well as birds and fish. I am very much into eating from local food sources but the whole Organic movement has taken on a Frankensteinian life of its own and it is now owned by the corporate producers. I would much rather eat food where a mindful application of pesticides was made than some agri-giant 'organic' farm where broad-spectrum pesticides were applied whether needed or not.