"Voters in California rejected a measure calling for labeling on food products containing genetically modified ingredients."
Yeah, RIG JOBS usually leave me sour! It's enough to make ones stomach turn.
It's especially hard to get down after this:
"Calif. initiative will test appetite for GMO food; Voters will decide on disclosure labels" by Alicia Chang | Associated Press, October 07, 2012
LOS ANGELES — Calories. Nutrients. Serving size. How about ‘‘produced with genetic engineering?’’
California voters will soon decide whether to require certain raw and processed foods to carry such a label.
In a closely watched test of consumers’ appetite for genetically modified foods, the label is being pushed by organic farmers and advocates who are concerned about what people eat even though the federal government and many scientists contend that such foods are safe.
More than just food packaging is at stake. The outcome could reverberate through American agriculture, which has long tinkered with the genes of plants to reduce disease, ward off insects, and boost the food supply.
International food and chemical conglomerates, including Monsanto Co. and DuPont Co., have contributed about $35 million to defeat Proposition 37 on the November ballot. It would also ban labeling or advertising genetically altered food as ‘‘natural.’’ Its supporters have raised just about one-tenth of that amount.
That tells you which way you should vote right there.
If voters approve the initiative, California would become the first state to require disclosure of a broad range of foods containing genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. Food makers would have to add a label or reformulate their products to avoid it. Supermarkets would be charged with making sure their shelves are stocked with correctly labeled items.
Genetically altered plants grown from seeds engineered in the laboratory have been a mainstay for more than a decade. Much of the corn, soybean, sugar beets, and cotton cultivated in the United States today have been tweaked to resist pesticides or insects. Most of the biotech crops are used for animal feed or as ingredients in processed foods including cookies, cereal, potato chips, and salad dressing.
That explains why the oatmeal has a different texture and taste, and God only knows what it is doing to the animals and meat.
Proponents say explicit labeling gives consumers information about how a product is made and allows them to decide whether to choose foods with genetically modified ingredients.
Agribusiness, farmers, and retailers oppose the initiative, claiming it would lead to higher grocery bills and leave the state open to frivolous lawsuits. Kathy Fairbanks, spokeswoman for the No on 37 campaign, said labels would be interpreted as a warning and confuse shoppers.
‘‘It’s not necessary. Worse, it leaves people with the impression that there’s something wrong with the food. That’s not the case,’’ she said.
The government approves genetically engineered plants and animals on a case-by-case basis, and the US Department of Agriculture restricts the`use of GMO crops that might harm other plants. The Food and Drug Administration can only require labeling if a genetically altered food is different — in taste, for example — from its nonengineered version or known to cause allergies.
The World Health Organization has said no ill health effects have resulted from GMO foods currently on the international market. The American Medical Association sees ‘‘no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods’’ but favors stricter testing before they hit stores.
Still, some consumers are wary and are increasingly demanding to know what is on their dinner plates.
As if that is somehow unreasonable.
With California a trendsetter on other issues, whatever happens in the nation’s most populous state could spill onto the national stage.
Not now, cui bono?
Already, at least 19 states this year have introduced GMO labeling bills, but none passed.
Telling you who control$ state capitals, if you know what I mean.
Alaska, with its dominant wild salmon industry, requires labels on genetically engineered fish, though none is currently on the market. Maine allows GMO-free products to be labeled as such.
Maybe you would like some salmon for supper?
The FDA is evaluating a petition to label genetically engineered foods nationwide; the group spearheading that effort is separate from California’s initiative.
The FDA works for Big Agra.
Related: Alphabet Agency: FDA Feedbag
Sure took 'em long enough to work through it.
Also see: Sunday Globe Special: FDA Fascism
To be found at all levels of AmeriKan government these days.
The push comes as genetic engineering is expanding beyond traditional crops. Last year, agricultural regulators approved the planting of genetically modified alfalfa, angering organic farmers who feared cross-contamination. An application is pending on an Atlantic salmon that has been genetically manipulated to grow twice as fast as a regular salmon.
California’s ballot initiative would require most raw foods such as fruits and vegetables and processed foods by 2014 to bear the label ‘‘partially produced with genetic engineering’’ or ‘‘may be partially produced with genetic engineering.’’
Not now.
--more--"
No need to worry about that again, right? Maybe they can keep coming back like the same-sex marriage folk.
Related: Sunday Globe Special: India's Cancer Train Keeps Chugging Along
Pesticides a limited hangout for some of the problems?
