Comments on: Not happy with the ‘No’ recommendation on Prop. 37

By: Chuck Wolfe

Chuck Wolfe — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 01:53:52 +0000

Auntie is correct to the point that Prop 37 is an issue of information and education. If we expect people to take responsibility for their own health care, it starts with the freedom to know what is being done to our food so that we can make our own decisions. People who aren’t informed can not take charge of their own lives. People who want to eat GMO have that freedom already. 37 just lets those who choose not to partake the same freedom.

By: Phil Veerkamp

Phil Veerkamp — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 20:49:06 +0000

LINK - Séralini study does not provide evidence of GM maize (corn) health risks

By: Patrice Hocking

Patrice Hocking — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 20:40:11 +0000

Thank you Ken for your letter. I find it interesting that the American public is not absolutely horrified at what is being done to our seeds, food, and future. How can anyone expect insect and animal DNA, herbicides and pesticides to be put into our foods and not have it affect our bodies and health? Notice that they modified the CORE food supply so that there is a trickle down affect in harming us health wise. This is not by accident as with fluoride in the water. Animals eat GMO corn, soy, alfalfa – we eat and drink their meat, milk, butter, etc. Opponents to Prop 37 point out the expense of relabeling food but it is done routinely such as when transfats were called out as unsafe. No one stepped up and complained about the cost of relabeling then. I realize there is more to be done than simply relabeling within the entire agricultural and food system, but let Monsanto pay for it. They created this frankenstein food system in the first place. The larger question is when the American public will get tired of being manipulated, controlled, and some cases even die due to the large corporations who run this country and the world. Big pharma, criminal financial companies and more. We have to take our country back and Prop 37 is putting a stake in the ground and doing just that. Each year they plan to add more genetically modified seeds. Not only is it bad for us but nature. These seeds are harmful to heirloom seeds and our ultimate food supply – period.

By: Catherine

Catherine — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 17:06:27 +0000

**That comment should say “use less of it rather than more.” My bad for typing on a phone!

By: Catherine

Catherine — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 17:02:57 +0000

Also, the jury isn’t in on Roundup, and there’s quite a bit of research suggesting we might want to use l said of it, rather than more : http://responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/health-risks/reference-health-effects-of-glyphosate

By: Catherine

Catherine — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:45:47 +0000

Anyone who is interested in learning more can view the free online movie Genetic Roulette. It starts out kind of corney and alarmist but if you stick with it, you’ll learn about pesticide producing plants, which are even more questionable than those that are Roundup resistant (and called Roundup Ready in Monsanto advertising). Since 50+ countries already require labeling, there is no additional producer cost for most of these global products. The Yes on 37 ads are quite factual, for those interested.

By: AgGirl

AgGirl — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:04:57 +0000

Ken- Prop 37 is a good IDEA. But that’s all it is. Unfortunately, it’s a very poorly written bill and will cause more harm than good. As a graduate of an Ag college, I have some amazing friends in the Agricultural Industry who articulate the negatives of this proposition far better than I can. I’m including some links for you to read. I hope they help shed some light on why we should vote NO on Prop 37.

http://www.findinguncommonground.com/aimee-prop-37-labeling-of-biotech-foods-unnecessary-redundant/

http://kfolta.blogspot.ca/2012/10/im-out-no-mo-gmo.html

By: prime time

prime time — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:43:09 +0000

Monsanto’s Roundup, Glyphosate Linked to Parkinson’s and Similar Diseases

By: Auntie

Auntie — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 12:56:16 +0000

I read Mr. Wright’s letter to the Editor and feel a need to correct some misinformation.

First of all “Round Up” is not a pesticide it is a herbicide. If it hits the soil it becomes inert.

The number of weeds that have been “imported” into agricultural areas from one state/country to another is astronomical and they are quickly overtaking our country and drastically reducing the crop yields that feed and clothe us all.

Some of these weeds are dangerous and toxic to wildlife, livestock and humans such as “Black Henbane” a member of the nightshade family or “Leafy Spurge” a member of the Euphorbia esula,the latter can cause blindness.

The term “Round Up Ready” is inappropriate, it should be “Round up Resistant”. The plant is RESISTANT to Round Up, meaning it does not absorb the Round Up, if it did, the plant would die along with the weeds.

I am NOT a proponent of “Monsanto” however if you choose to vote, we need to be educated voters.

By: cookie65

cookie65 — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:45:57 +0000

From your letter is sounds like you aren’t in the dark at all. And we didn’t waste even more millions that we don’t have. Don’t buy stuff that you don’t want to eat and quit giving the government permission to run every aspect of our lives. The idea that food companies want to poison their customers is a hard sell.

By: Phillip Veerkamp

Phillip Veerkamp — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 22:39:56 +0000

GMO Compass - glossary

By: Phillip Veerkamp

Phillip Veerkamp — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 22:19:27 +0000

European Union GMO site - LINK - GMO Compass - The setting-up of this website was financially supported by the European Union within the European Commission’s Sixth Framework Programme from 1 January 2005 until 28 February 2007.