CERDAFIED - Californians will be the first state to go to the ballot box over genetically modified food labeling. At least 18 states have tried to get legislation passed to regulate GMO’s and have failed. With a huge push back from 1 million citizens who signed petitions to get this issue on that ballot, California is exactly where the first battle should be won!
Even the name - California - is synonymous with healthy lifestyles. You immediately envision joggers, yoga, beach cyclists, and farm lands filled with healthy and safe foods. Who better to say, HELL NO, YOU MUST GO, to GMO foods? Labeling their poisonous crops and food byproducts would mean certain death to Monsanto’s attempt to rule the farm land and American dinner plate.
Proposition 37, according to recent polls is winning by a significant margin. Organic trade groups, food activists and environmentalists across the states are hopeful that California voters can get done, what our lobbied senate and house could not get done.
Protecting consumers from long term health effects is only a fraction of the benefit of labeling GMO’s.
When other countries labeled the GMO foods, the products were not purchased, and they were subsequently removed from the stores. Consumers weren’t buying foods produced by the top poison producer.
Without labeling GMO’s, the genetically engineered poisonous ingredients are finding their way into our processed foods sold in America. It is estimated that between 70 – 80% of processed foods use GMO ingredients that include corn, soybeans, sugar beets and cotton oil.
These crops have been genetically modified in the laboratory to make them more resistant to pests and reduce weeds, by making the genes resistant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in roundup. Subsequently, increasing the use of roundup, and raising a higher yield crop.
When California passes Proposition 37, processed genetically engineered food products would identify "Partially produced with genetic engineering" on the front or back label. A sign will be required on the shelf for whole foods such as sweet corn or salmon. Manufacturers and stores would have 18 months to make the change. All the while consumers are at risk of eating contaminated food products.
Exempting alcohol, most meat, eggs and dairy products from labeling is another issue to battle in the future.
Opponents of the proposition, warn that manufacturing costs of requiring labels on food sold only in California would cost more. A more realistic fear comes from farmers and processed food manufacturers who believe that they would be subject to lawsuits should they fail to label the food properly. They would call these suits frivolous, but I call them the first line of defense in protecting consumers.
While supporters of the measure point out that proposition 37 would not ban the use of genetically altered foods, it would just give proper notice to health minded consumers that the food contains GMO’s. Just like labeling calories, sugars, salts, food colorants and other questionable ingredients, it helps the consumer in choosing healthy alternatives. Most industrialized nations already require labels on modified food.
Albert Straus, president of Straus Family Creamery said, "Consumers and the public have a fundamental right to know whether their food contains a genetically modified product."
The Straus Family Creamery produces organic milk, ice cream, yogurt and butter. Straus tests his dairy cattle feed regularly to ensure that none of it has been genetically engineered because, "I'm not just concerned about human health and the land," he said. "But I don't want to jeopardize my animals' health."
Straus points to research outside the United States that showed potential health problems associated with eating genetically altered foods. An increased risk of allergies, infertility and gastrointestinal problems are found in farm animals eating the GMO feed.
Many are concerned about bioengineered crops "contaminating" nearby organic crops, as airborne seedlings have mysteriously found their way across oceans, and to other farm lands where they are unwanted.
Eminent scientist Arpad Pusztai was silenced with threats of a lawsuit, when he went public about his discovery that genetically modified (GM) potatoes severely damage the immune system and organs of rats. He was suspended from the prestigious Scottish research institute where he had worked for thirty-five years. The Institute denied or distorted his findings.
Scientist Roger Salquist tried putting his laboratory mice on a diet of genetically modified FlavrSavr tomatoes but the mice would not consume it even though they typically liked tomatoes. The mice were eventually force fed the tomato through gastric tubes and stomach washes. Several mice developed stomach lesions; seven of forty died within two weeks. The tomato was approved without further tests.
According to David Schubert, "A different perspective on GM food," Nature Biotechnology, Vol. 20, 2002, p. 969
Excerpt:
New DNA chip technology has recently allowed scientists to monitor changes in DNA functioning when foreign genes are inserted. In one experiment, there was a staggering 5 percent disruption of gene expression. In other words, after a single foreign gene had been added through genetic engineering, one out of every 20 genes that were creating proteins either increased or decreased their output. According to Professor David Schubert, "while these types of unpredicted changes in gene expression are very real, they have not received much attention outside the community of the DNA chip users." He adds that, "there is currently no way to predict the resultant changes in protein synthesis."
Research is needed because the consequences are so far reaching. Who knows what kind of genetic mutations can occur over time, and what the end result will be. Our animals deserve better than this, and so does the consumers.
Powerful corporations would like to control the content of research findings, but there are ethical scientists shedding the light on the GMO crisis.
In 1989, at first dozens, then thousands fell sick. About one hundred people died, while others struggled with paralysis, unbearable pain, and debilitating symptoms.* Authorities eventually tracked its cause: contaminants produced in one company's genetically modified variety of the food supplement L-tryptophan.** This is evidence implicating genetic engineering as the cause of the epidemic, and the efforts by industry and the FDA to divert the blame. Current regulations are so loose that they would allow that same type of deadly supplement onto the market today.
Californians will say, “ halleluiah!” when they show Monsanto that that you don’t mess with the health conscious, savvy, voter.
For more information on Proposition 37, Click here.
*Phillip A. Hertzman and others, The Eosinophilia-Myalgia Syndrome: The Los Alamos Conference, Journal of Rheumatology, vol. 18, no. 6, 1991, pp. 867-873
**William Crist, Investigative report on L-tryptophan, found at www.biointegrity.org
(Lisa Cerda is a contributor to CityWatch, a community activist, Chair of Tarzana Residents Against Poorly Planned Development, and former Tarzana Neighborhood Council board member.) –cw
CityWatch
Vol 10 Issue 68
Pub: Aug 24, 2012