Prop 37: For and Against

I’ve written about Prop 37 and GMO foods before. It’s a complex issue. But as California goes to the polls on Tuesday, the vote on Proposition 37 looms larger than many other issues.

As of October 27, 2012, the total donations to each side were $7,300,000 in support, and $41,300,000 in opposition. A breakdown of the top 12 for and against donors (from Wikipedia) follows:

For
Organic Consumers Fund $1,334,865
Mercola Health Resources $1,115,000
Kent Whealy $1,000,000
Nature’s Path Foods $610,709
Mark Squire $448,000
The Stillonger Trust $440,000
Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps $370,883
Wehah Farm $251,000
Ali Partovi $102,893
Great Foods of America $102,000
Alex Bogusky $100,000
Amy’s Kitchen $100,000

Against

MONSANTO COMPANY $7,115,237
E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co. $4,900,000
PepsiCo, Inc. $2,145,400
Dow AgroSciences $2,000,000
Bayer Cropscience $2,000,000
BASF Plant Science $2,000,000
Syngenta Corporation $2,000,000
Kraft Foods $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

It’s interesting to see who’s supporting and who’s fighting.  Obviously, opponents are the ones who will have to shell out money to adhere to new labeling standards. There will be societal costs, including government oversight (and California’s been broke pretty much since forever), increased court fees as challenges arise, and others. Still, the incredible outpouring of opposition money, outspending supporters 8 to 1 at this point, seems a bit questionable to me: “methinks they do protest too much,” leading me to believe that there’s more at stake here than just trying to avoid administrative overhead.

As I’ve mentioned before, the long-term effects of GMO foods on human health have not yet been determined, because they haven’t been around for the long term. But I support a consumer’s right to know and choose, and so I fall squarely in the “for” camp, even though I’m not in California. The vote there will set precedent and have repercussions for all states, so it behooves us all to be informed and take a stand.

The Old Wolf has spoken.

GMO, Larry, and Curly (by Piraro)

Dan Piraro is a funny man, and an intelligent one. He falls squarely on the liberal side of the political spectrum, and while I don’t always agree with his philosophies, I love his daily Bizarro strips. Recently he published this one…

… which points out the dangers inherent in Genetically Modified Organisms, commonly labelled “Frankenfoods.”

I’ve always been nervous about eating things whose genes have been tweaked – for example, corn that produces its own pesticide – because the deleterious effects of such things might not show up for generations. But Mr. Piraro then took a public journey of self-education which I found most enlightening. After he published this cartoon, he received a veritable Niagara Falls (slowly I turn!) of information from his readership, and apparently it was sufficient to get him to do a thorough examination of the issue within the boundaries of the time he could carve out of his life.

His summary of the experience is recorded over at his blog – and it’s well worth the read. The executive summary:

  1. Peer-reviewed science is generally reliable, although there are always some nuts among the berries.
  2. Humans have been genetically modifying foods for a long time (through natural breeding and selection processes) without giving us all third eyes.
  3. Everyone hates Monsanto – but not always for the right reasons.
  4. Do your own research, because the issue is not at all clear-cut.

As a matter of fact, I’d recommend you work backward to the original post of the cartoon, and then read his following posts: Schooled!, More GMO, and his conclusions. And then go read some more.

I appreciate the effort that Mr. Piraro has gone to in presenting his findings to his readership – the links contained in his blog posts are a good place to start a serious study of the issue.

The Old Wolf has spoken.