1.Prop 37 and GMO Foods: Yea or Nay?
2.Food Industry Leaders For The Win: Yes on 37

EXTRACT: There are reasonable arguments to be made for GMO foods, just as there are reasonable arguments to be made against them.

But there's no reasonable argument to be made against letting people know what it is they're eating, so that they can make an informed decision about what to buy and what not to buy.

Information is only the enemy if you've got something to hide. If Big Food wants to convince us that their GMO foods are safe, I'm willing to hear the arguments. Bring 'em on. But you don't win arguments by keeping people in the dark.

Keeping us in the dark may increase the bottom line for your stockholders, but it sure doesn't increase our confidence in you. (item 1)
---
---
1.Prop 37 and GMO Foods: Yea or Nay?
Dr. Jonny Bowden
Huffington Post, 30 October 2012
 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-jonny-bowden/gmo-prop-37_b_2035693.html

On Nov. 6, those of us who live in California will get to vote on Proposition 37, which requires mandatory labeling of genetically-engineered foods (GMOs). And the whole country is watching.

It's shaping up to be quite the battle. A quick glance at who's supporting the bill and who's against it should tell you a lot. Supporters include Joe Mercola, the Organic Consumers Fund, Nature's Path Foods, Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps, Clif Bar and Co., and Annie's. Opponents include Monsanto, Dupont, PepsiCo, DOW, Kraft Foods, Coca-Cola, Nestle, General Mills and Kelloggs.

Questions, anyone?

The issue of GMOs has been a perplexing one and not nearly as simple as people on both sides of the fence try to make it. People have been selectively breeding crops and animals for ages (how do you think we have jumbo roses, or Boston Terriers, or uniformly-red tomatoes)? And there are honest, well-meaning scientists who are trying to solve massive problems like vitamin deficiencies in third world countries using GMO techniques. Researchers at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Institute for Plant Sciences, for example, have created a strain of "golden" rice that contains an unusually high amount of beta-carotene (vitamin A) and hope to offer the golden rice seed free to any third world country that requests it.

So genetic modification -- all things being equal -- is not always evil. Whether it's used for good or for avarice depends on who's using it.

That said, there is little to no evidence that Big Food can be trusted to use the available technology for anything other than increasing their bottom line. They'll make a lot of noise about how GMO foods are pest-resistant, and drought-tolerant, and how that's so important in producing enough food to feed a world population that's expected to reach 9 billion people by 2050.

And they'll spend untold millions trying to convince you that GMO foods are no different from their non-GMO counterparts, and millions more lobbying to keep measures like Prop 37 from passing. According to the Wall Street Journal, Kraft, Coca Cola, Monsanto and their cohorts have poured more than $40 million into a campaign to persuade us to reject Proposition 37 on Nov. 6.

I think that would be a huge mistake.

The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations has put together a terrific webpage outlining the main arguments against GMOs. These include the fact that genes can end up in unexpected places and can mutate with harmful effect. There can be a tremendous impact on birds, insects and soil. There can be transfer of allergenic genes. (One allergenic Brazil-nut gene was transferred into a soybean variety and not discovered till the testing phase.) And genetic engineering has the potential to make ordinary foods toxic to some people.
 http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/focus/2003/gmo8.htm

The dairy industry fought mightily to prevent manufacturers from labeling their milk with "no rBGH." Why? Because they thought it would "confuse" consumers into thinking that bovine growth hormone was a "bad" thing. (This is the part where we all roll our eyes.) Now Big Food is doing the same thing with GMOs.

Don't let them get away with it.

There are reasonable arguments to be made for GMO foods, just as there are reasonable arguments to be made against them.

But there's no reasonable argument to be made against letting people know what it is they're eating, so that they can make an informed decision about what to buy and what not to buy.

Information is only the enemy if you've got something to hide. If Big Food wants to convince us that their GMO foods are safe, I'm willing to hear the arguments. Bring 'em on. But you don't win arguments by keeping people in the dark.

Keeping us in the dark may increase the bottom line for your stockholders, but it sure doesn't increase our confidence in you.
---
---
2.Food Industry Leaders For The Win: Yes on 37
Yes on 37, October 26 2012
 http://www.carighttoknow.org/industry_leaders_support_prop_37

Leading food manufacturers and retailers are speaking out to set the record straight about Proposition 37. These business leaders say Prop 37 is common sense and will give us the right to know what's in our food. Contrary to the claims of the opposition, they say Prop 37 will not raise costs or burden businesses.

"As a business person, I don't see any evidence of additional costs in our food system. I believe strongly that this will not add to our distribution costs."
- Michael Funk, Chair, UNFI

"Only in America can you consume GMOs without knowing it. In Europe, food costs have not gone up as a result (of GMO labeling)."
- Andy Berliner, Co-founder and CEO, Amy's Kitchen

"We believe that all consumers have a right to know where their food comes from."
- David Lannon, EVP, Operations, Whole Foods Market

"As retailers with dozens of stores around the state, we object to the false information being spread about our industry by the No on 37 campaign, supported by the world's largest pesticide and GMO seed companies. Contrary to their claims, we are not at risk of abusive lawsuits or unfair and costly litigation if a manufactuer fails to label GE ingredients in its processed food and we will not face the burden of 'reams of paperwork.' This is a simple labeling requirement that food processing manufacturers can easily meet. We are ready and happy to abide by Prop 37 rules by attaching signage to raw foods sold in our stores, such as papaya, sweet corn, and squash if they are genetically engineered  since we firmly believe that consumers have a right to know."
- Scott Roseman, of New Leaf Community Markets; Jimbo Someck of Jimbo's; Mark Squire, of Good Earth Natural Foods; Bob Gerner of Natural Grocery Company; Ron Colone of New Frontiers Natural Marketplace.

"I'm not doing this for our bottom line, but for my kids and kids all over the world. Our consumers demand transparency and the right to know."
- Jimbo Someck, CEO, Jimbo's...Naturally

"What we have in the U.S. is a food awakening, and it's largely prompted by the rates of diseases we are seeing in our country. Like eaters in other countries, we simply want to know what is in the foods we're feeding our families."
- Robyn O'Brien, Founder, Allergy Kids

"As a mom and a CEO of an organic food company, I have always believed fundamentally in the consumer's right to know what's in the food they eat. I believe that success in California and the passing of this law would create ripples of positive change throughout the United States."
- Nicole Dawes, CEO, Late July Organic Snacks

"Ballot materials prepared by the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) state that Prop 37 could be interpreted to mean 'processed food' is subject to the prohibition against 'natural' labels, even if it is not produced with genetic engineering. In our view, this is not the correct interpretation of Prop 37. The findings, statement of purpose and language of Proposition 37 demonstrate that the labeling requirements are directed to food produced with genetic engineering, NOT to processed food in general."
- Robert Uram, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Mullin LLP

"Requiring food manufacturers to label food products that contain genetically engineered ingredients and putting in place stricter regulations on the use of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in our food is prudent, fair, and the right thing to do for American families."
- John Foraker, CEO, Annie's Inc.

"Our support of California Prop 37 and the national Just Label It campaign flows from our belief that arming consumers with information to make educated choices about what they feed themselves and their families is fundamental. Industrialized food corporations may prefer that we dwell in ignorance, but we believe knowledge and transparency is the best path forward. This is not a novel notion, as 40 plus countries already require labeling of genetically modified food. It's time for us to take a stand in the United States and California Prop 37 is the front line of the battle for transparency, so that's where we stand ready to fight for our right to know."
- Ryan Black, Founder and CEO, Sambazon.