Recently, I participated in a Facebook discussion of Prop 37.
After reviewing links there and discussion, I'm voting YES on 37.
I dug into the original article Dan posted at the start of the thread. That article has zero science and is an opinion position containing ad hominem attacks on GMO study authors, no refutation of Prop 37, position that scaring people tactics will tire people from real issues surrounding Prop 37. I dug into other articles he wrote on Slate and on his Blog, plus articles he referenced in support of his positions. He likes ad hominem attacks and happily uses them against every pro-37 individual (eg, Michael Pollan).
The FDA process for GMO food testing relies on the PRODUCERS of GMO to test their product. That is, NOT A PEER REVIEWED study. This throws any arguments that the food is safe out the window. Note, that does not make GMOs inherently unsafe, but it cuts the legs out from under any safety argument.
Genetically Engineered GMO foods (the ones I am most concerned about) have the opportunity to introduce genes which may induce allergic reactions either directly or through the novel change. I, myself, have a number of food allergies and am vigilant in my consumption of those allergens.
This is a side argument not directly in support of 37, but I make it nonetheless, the economics and history of food and big ag is a complete mess, when you examine it from the world perspective (and not just the success of a business perspective). The lives of local farmers in third world countries have been decimated by first world economic farming practices. The economics of farming has been turned upside down under the auspices for the betterment of mankind. However, the results are questionable (yields often do not increase) and, more importantly, farmers are displaced losing their way of life (creating poverty, joblessness and devastating local life). I recently saw a documentary on Indian farmers and BT cotton (Monsanto) - I'm saddened by the film. It is mentioned in the radio piece (around 38 minutes) pointed at within the FB thread.
I will concede one point, I wish that the labeling was an Informational Note and not a Warning.
Here's an article countering some arguments against 37.
Whichever way you lean, get out and vote today.
