The Global Conversation

Tag: Prop 37

  • A Right to Know…or not

    Prop 37, The Right to Know GMO labeling initiative, looks to have been narrowly defeated last week in California. It was a contentious fight with over 45 million dollars of advertising and support from major food makers who outspent their grassroots and organic counterparts in an effort to avoid labeling their products.

    GMO – Genetically modified organisms, are food crops, animals and other food products that have had their genes changed to create breeds and strains of plants and animals that do not naturally occur. Scientists have been for years now introducing genetic material into organisms to alter, create and effect changes in living plants and animals. Also called recombinant DNA technology, this practice changes the core genetic make-up of organisms. This genetic manipulation gives scientists the ability to create any trait they wish, or suppress natural traits they don’t want. Why? One argument is the world’s population growth demands scientific intervention due to a perceived inability of nature to provide the yields necessary to keep pace. My opinion is much simpler…there’s money to be made in them thar seeds.

    Little is known about the long-term effects of eating GMO foods; I ask, why fix what isn’t broken?  Nature has provided us the perfect packages to create and sustain health, and we do know the long terms outcome of that, so why mess with perfection? While some countries, including the US, have adopted GMO foods, many others have banned the production and selling of GMO, or at least have created guidelines that require GMO foods be labeled, which is what Prop 37 had proposed to do.

    Among the largest bankrollers of the NO on 37 campaign were huge multinational food and beverage companies whose subsidiaries make billions of dollars, ironically, selling some of the most well-known “natural” food brands. Could corporate greed rather than pubic good be the reason why there was such a huge effort to stop the labeling of GMO food? Don’t get me started.

    The Organic Consumers Association, who is calling on consumers to boycott the companies and brands whose money may have swayed California voters into voting No on Prop 37 said, “If we raise enough hell, maybe the parent companies of these popular brands will come to their senses and stop doing the bidding for Monsanto and the biotech industry.”  The OCA is calling on consumers to boycott the companies and brands listed below by exposing how much each spent to defeat GMO labeling in California.

    PepsiCo (Donated $2.5M): Naked Juice, Tostito’s Organic, Tropicana Organic

    Kraft (Donated $2M): Boca Burgers and Back to Nature

    Safeway (Member of Grocery Manufacturers Association, which donated $2M):“O” Organics

    Coca-Cola (Donated $1.7M): Honest Tea, Odwalla

    General Mills (Donated $1.2M):  Muir Glen, Cascadian Farm, Larabar

    Con-Agra (Donated $1.2M): Orville Redenbacher’s Organic, Hunt’s Organic, Lightlife, Alexia

    Kellogg’s (Donated $791k): Kashi, Bear Naked, Morningstar Farms, Gardenburger

    Smucker’s (Donated $555k ): R.W. Knudsen, Santa Cruz Organic

    Unilever (Donated $467k): Ben & Jerry’s

    Dean Foods (Donated $254k): Horizon, Silk, White Wave

    Most thought that Prop 37 would have easily passed in the granola state, and like me, many were shocked when it didn’t. However, to this day, questions about whether Prop 37 actually lost still linger. Was there vote tampering? According to investigative reporter Jon Rappoport, there may have been. “Media outlets made an early call on election night claiming that Prop 37 had gone down to defeat, while there were well over 3 million uncounted votes at the time of reporting.”  Rappoport goes on to question whether or not there was criminal vote tampering and asks the question, should the election have been called so early with such a close margin and so many uncounted votes?  Seems like this one may yet be challenged.

    Either way, California’s Prop 37 has spawned a national debate and consumer awareness since the “right to know” movement seems more determined than ever to fight for labeling of food that has been genetically modified. Already under way are efforts in Washington State, Vermont and Connecticut, along with a 30-state coalition that is formulating a plan to collaborate on GMO-labeling laws and initiatives. This issue is far from settled, and the same may still be true for California’s Prop 37. Stay tuned.

    America is one of the only major industrial countries that allows and promotes the production and sale of GMO foods. In Europe, Norway, Austria, Germany, the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, Greece, France, Luxembourg, and Portugal have put in place GMO restrictions. France made an important step in the no-GMO movement by specifically defining exactly what “GMO-free” means when it comes to food labeling. Ireland has banned all growing and cultivating of GMO foods, and the European Union — a governing coalition of European countries — has considered a Europe-wide banning of GMO foods. So have many other countries.

    No matter what side of the GMO food debate you fall on, it seems prudent to me that the public should have a right to know what is in their food supply, no matter where it’s grown or what company produces it. It’s not like labeling ingredients isn’t already required. As a holistic health professional, my further concern is, what are the real long-term effects of eating GMO? Are you willing to be a lab rat? You may be right now and not know it!

    Is it telling that in Monsanto’s own corporate cafeteria only organic food is offered and served? If they are so proud of their products, why are they unwilling to eat or label them? I will stick with what nature produces, and the only way to ensure that is to buy and eat organic. Or better yet, grow your own. Gardening is cheaper than therapy and you get to eat your efforts!

    So it’s clear what my opinion is…what say you? Do you have the right to know if you are choosing GMO… or not?

    (J.R. Westen, D.D. is a Holistic Health & Spiritual Counselor who has worked and presented side-by-side with Neale Donald Walsch for over a decade. He is passionate about helping individuals move beyond their emotional and spiritual challenges, transforming breakdowns into breakthroughs. His coaching provides practical wisdom and guidance that can be immediately incorporated to shift one’s experience of life. As is true for most impactful teachers, J.R.’s own struggles and triumphs inspired him to find powerful ways of helping others. Sober since June 1, 1986, J.R.’s passion for helping individuals move through intense life challenges drove him to also specialize in Addiction and Grief Recovery. J.R. currently shares his gift of counseling & coaching with individuals from around the world through the Wellness Center, Simply Vibrant, located on Long Island N.Y.  In addition, he works with Escondido Sobering Services and serves on the Board of Directors for the Conversations with God Foundation. He can be contacted at JR@theglobalconversation.com, or to book an appointment, write support@simplyvibrant.com.)

  • FOOD FOR THOUGHT:
    SHOULD WHAT WE EAT
    BE TRANSPARENTLY LABELED?

    The question seems simple enough. Should foods containing genetically engineered ingredients be required to be clearly labeled as having been genetically modified?

    Simple or not, voters in California appear to be undecided, and so ballot Proposition 37 has no guarantee of passing when the votes are counted Tuesday night. If what would appear to be a “no-brainer” decision can’t be easily made by California residents, it may be in no small part the result of the “No on  37” campaign which has received funding in the multi-millions from some major food companies.

    “Top contributors to the anti-labeling campaign include biotech giants Monsanto, Dow, Bayer CropScience, Syngenta and BASF,” according to a news report from Erika Bolstad of McClatchy Newspapers, posted on the Internet. “Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Kraft Foods and Nestle all have donated more than $1 million” to oppose labeling, her report went on.

    The anti-label forces has raised around $45 million to get Californians to vote “No” on the measure, while the campaign to make labeling the law has had to work with only about $7 million, the McClatchy story said.

    At issue is whether consumers purchasing food at retail outlets should be told clearly, on labels, if foods have been modified from their original, organic form. Many products now labeled as “natural” would have to have that word removed from the label if the initiative passes.

    Those favoring Prop 37 say that the word “natural” on food causes people to be confused as to whether the product has been genetically modified or not. Some cynics among consumer groups go so far as to claim that this is, in fact, exactly why certain food manufacturers use the term “natural” on their labels, even though the food inside their packaging has been genetically modified, with their DNA altered.

    One typical form of alteration is to “re-engineer” a food crop with genes from other plants, or even by adding animal genes to plants, as well as certain viruses or bacteria. The purpose of such alteration is to maintain the growing life of a food (some bio-tech crops are modified to combat pests or to tolerate herbicides) or to prolong the shelf-life of the food product—or to produce both results.

    Pro-Prop 37 spokespersons say that what consumers want is not to eliminate or remove genetically modified foods from the marketplace, but simply to be able to make informed choices — to be able to “vote with our pocketbooks” whether they choose to eat food that has been engineered away from its organic form, as one person put it.

    The ballot measure is an effort to “increase the transparency of the American food system,” the McCatchy story quotes Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma.

    Why would anybody oppose the measure? And why would consumers be confused about whether to vote for it?

    Big Food sources have opposed the proposed labeling law on the basis of cost, they say, which would have to be passed on to families already stretching their food budget. It could cost the average family up to $400 a more per year, their argument declares.

    Opponent also say that the measure, if passed, would provide inconsistent information to consumers, since it applies only to food purchased in retail stores, and not to food found in restaurants, for instance. Nor would it apply to some meat products—even though many animals are raised on genetically modified grains. So, Big Food says, people wouldn’t be fully informed about which of the foods they are eating are engineered or not anyway.

    Supporters of the measure say that more information is better than less, and that just the forced removal of the word “natural” from food that is not “natural” at all, plus adding the words “genetically engineered,” or other words similar, would go a long way toward making it easier for the average shopper to make informed choices about which foods to buy and eat.

    Consumer protection groups allege that Big Food does not want such labels specifically because major food producers are afraid that consumers will then shy away from their products.

    On Tuesday, California voters will decide — and that decision could have major ramifications across the United States, persons on both sides of the issue say. If it passes, the new law in California would “bring one of the biggest consumer markets and food producers in the country in line with labeling laws in 61 other countries,” the McClatchy report from journalist Erika Bolstad said. And that, observers agree, might well force the issue in other U.S. states as well.

    The New Spirituality invites a new way of creating all of society, not simply its food industry, and that way is called Total Transparency. There can be no real reason in an enlightened society not to tell everyone everything about everything, such a model suggests.

    And your thoughts…?