Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

If you have friends in California...


  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

#1 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,349 posts

Posted 16 October 2012 - 02:28 PM

...please urge them to vote yes on Prop 37 on election day!


If Proposition 37 is approved by voters, it will:
  • Require labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if the food is made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways.
  • Prohibit labeling or advertising such food as "natural."
  • Exempt from this requirement foods that are "certified organic; unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material; made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves; processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients; administered for treatment of medical conditions; sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant; or alcoholic beverages"

http://ballotpedia.o...red_Food_(2012)

I believe we have a right to know where the food we eat comes from, and how it is made. This is a step in that direction.

#2 Eco

Eco
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,109 posts
  • LocationFoxboro MA

Posted 16 October 2012 - 04:32 PM

Hopefully it passes and it spreads across the nation and for that matter the entire world.

#3 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,349 posts

Posted 16 October 2012 - 04:42 PM

If it passes, I think we'll see a lag before it's implemented...if it ever is...Big Ag/Big Food will fight it tooth and nail in the courts, and it wouldn't surprise me to see the USSC shoot it down...they're largely corporate lackeys as much as the Legislative and Executive Branches are...

#4 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,349 posts

Posted 16 October 2012 - 04:44 PM

But I hope so too...though we're already behind a lot of the world on this...

#5 Julius

Julius
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,382 posts

Posted 16 October 2012 - 05:14 PM

As usual in CA, this is a terribly written, horribly flawed bill that will lead to even more confusion in food labeling, frivolous lawsuits and power plays by state regulators looking to make names for themselves.

That said, it's a good start and should be helpful to local farmers versus huge food, seed and chemical conglomerates so I'll hold my nose and vote YES.

#6 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,349 posts

Posted 16 October 2012 - 06:23 PM

:thumbsup:

Not that you care about my thumbs. :lol:

#7 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 17 October 2012 - 05:54 PM

more government regulation!?! :panic:

#8 Eco

Eco
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,109 posts
  • LocationFoxboro MA

Posted 18 October 2012 - 12:36 AM

more government regulation!?! Posted Image


Yeah, bad idea! Why the fuc should a government regulate what companies are pushing off as food. Damn them for telling Velveta (sp?) that they can't label their chemical cheese like product as cheese since it doesn't contain dairy. When the day comes that our government tells food producers that they have to label their products so consumers can make smarter choices I might actually shop outside of the produce section.

#9 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,349 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 05:17 PM

Discouraging item today:

http://www.reuters.c...E8M2DGD20121105


Nov 5 (Reuters) - Major food and seed companies appear to be on the verge of defeating a California ballot initiative that, if passed on Tuesday, would create the first labeling requirement for genetically modified foods in the United States.
In a campaign reminiscent of this summer's successful fight against a proposed tobacco tax in California, opposition funded by Monsanto Co, DuPont, PepsiCo Inc and others unleashed waves of TV and radio advertisements against Proposition 37 and managed to turn the tide of public opinion.
Four weeks ago, the labeling initiative was supported by more than two-thirds of Californians who said they intended to vote on Nov. 6, according to a poll from the California Business Roundtable and Pepperdine University's School of Public Policy. On Tuesday, their latest poll showed support had plummeted to 39 percent, while opposition had surged to almost 51 percent.
The swing in sentiment in the final weeks was predicted by pollsters, based on the power of a $46 million "No on 37" campaign, one of the best-funded for a California ballot measure fight. The ads claim the "badly written" initiative would increase the average family's grocery bills by $400 annually and hobble California farmers. Opponents also take aim at what they call "special interest exemptions" for restaurant food and products from animals fed with grain containing genetically modified organisms, popularly known as GMOs.
Backers of the labeling initiative say consumers have the right to know what is in the food they eat. They dispute opponents' cost projections and say labeling would not be burdensome to families or businesses.
They could still prevail on Tuesday if the polling turns out to be wrong, or if a last minute push by grassroots supporters takes root.
Many processed foods sold in the United States are made at least in part with corn, soybeans or other crops that have been genetically modified - crossed with DNA from other species to do things like make them resistant to insects or weed killer.
Each side accuses the other of resorting to desperate measures to mislead voters and using science that falls short of rigorous standards.
Such polarized debate is common in California, where ballot measures play a big role in governing. But labeling proponents say it also speaks to the research gap around GMOs, specifically a lack of mandated government studies that would show whether long-term consumption of GMOs causes health problems.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has determined labels are not needed for GM crops that are "substantially equivalent" to non-GM crops. The United States does not require labeling or mandatory independent pre-market safety testing for GMOs. At least three dozen countries require labeling and mandatory pre-market safety testing, said Michael Hansen, senior scientist from watchdog group Consumer Reports.
Some food and agriculture experts predict food companies would remove genetically modified ingredients rather than label them just for California - a move that would hit the multi-billion genetically modified seed business, where Monsanto and DuPont are market leaders.
Monsanto, the largest backer of the campaign with more than $8 million in funding, and DuPont say Proposition 37 would mislead consumers. PepsiCo referred reporters to the "No on 37" campaign.
TARGETING FLAWS IN INITIATIVE
Consumer advocates say the "No on 37" campaign has employed many of the same tactics the tobacco industry used this summer in California in a $47 million campaign that defeated Proposition 29, which would have raised cigarette taxes by $1 per pack to fund cancer research and other health efforts.
Opponents of the tobacco tax overcame early support approaching 70 percent by flooding airwaves with ads, including one featuring a doctor in a white coat warning that tobacco tax proceeds would not be spent on cancer treatment and could be shipped out of state. Outgunned supporters said those claims were false.
The food and tobacco industry campaigns both employed messages that weren't "arguing with the premise of the initiatives, but rather making picky criticisms of the details of the initiatives," said anti-smoking activist Stanton Glantz, a professor and researcher at the University of California-San Francisco.
"No on 37" spokeswoman Kathy Fairbanks rejects the notion of copycat tactics and said the similarities between the two campaigns are limited to pointing out flaws in the initiatives and spending significant money on ads.
Backers of Proposition 37, including thousands of individual donors, organic food companies and natural health news provider Joseph Mercola, have been outspent roughly six to one, according to campaign reports filed with the California Secretary of State. In their final push, they are trying to trumpet cases where they say opponents have used misinformation to sway the public.
MISSTEPS ON BOTH SIDES
Both sides have made missteps.
Supporters of Proposition 37 got a boost when the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics said "No on 37" inaccurately stated in the California official voter information guide that the academy had concluded that GMOs were safe.
"We are concerned that California's voters are being misled to believe the nation's largest organization of food and nutrition professionals is against Proposition 37, when in fact, the academy does not have a position on the issue," its president said in a statement in early October.
"No on 37" said it based its information on a policy statement on the academy's website and that it was not aware the position had expired in 2010.
The FDA also set the record straight on a "No on 37" mailer that put the FDA's logo below a quote criticizing efforts like the California labeling measure as "inherently misleading." The use of the quote next to the logo made it appear that FDA had weighed in on the fight.
FDA spokeswoman Morgan Liscinsky said the agency made no such statement and had no position on the initiative. "Yes on 37" also asked the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate the allegedly fraudulent misuse of FDA's seal in that mailer - something that won't be resolved until well after the election.
Then, just four days before the vote, supporters of Proposition 37 fumbled the facts about the status of its DOJ request, releasing a statement titled: "FBI opens investigation into No on 37 shenanigans."
The U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California quickly responded: "Neither the FBI nor this office has a pending investigation related to this matter."
"Yes on 37" said it issued its statement after a field agent for the FBI called its attorney. It later revised its statement to say that the U.S. Attorney's office had referred the matter to the FDA, which like other federal agencies has its own criminal investigations unit.


Keepin' my fingers crossed...

#10 Julius

Julius
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,382 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 05:24 PM

They have convinced me to vote no. I am not willing to hurt local food markets and farmers and increase my own food costs in exchange for a label that tells me that Pop Tarts are bad for me.

And unfortunately, that's what this initiative has become.

#11 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 05:28 PM

They have convinced me to vote no. I am not willing to hurt local food markets and farmers and increase my own food costs in exchange for a label that tells me that Pop Tarts are bad for me.

And unfortunately, that's what this initiative has become.


Fair point.

#12 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,349 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 05:31 PM

I don't expect I'll change your mind, P, but if you have a couple of minutes...

http://www.carighttoknow.org/facts

http://www.anh-usa.o...-Assessment.pdf

#13 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,349 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 05:34 PM

In the be all and end all, it comes down to this for me:

Genetically modified crops/foods have not undergone the sort of rigorous safety testing that they should in order for me to be convinced they are safe to consume. We all have a right to know what's going into the food we eat.

#14 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,349 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 05:35 PM

And if the folks who create this stuff are so sure it's safe, and so proud of what they've created, why are they trying to hide where their products are being used?

#15 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 05:38 PM

Foods we eat have been genetically manipulated by nature thru the eons to become what they are today. It is concievable that humans' purpose in life's scheme is to manipulate current genomes into different directions, with outcomes having significant results eons down the line. Having a knee-jerk fear response to GMO foods that might be the reason human minds evolved seems foolish to me. No fear!

#16 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 05:40 PM

Im sure untold numbers of humans and their descendants died of poisoning while figuring out what was good to eat and what was dangerous.

#17 Julius

Julius
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,382 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 05:40 PM

Around me, one of my greatest pleasures is all these little ethnic markets who sell really tasty produce for super cheap. The store owners are not even capable of spelling "avocado" properly, so sometimes I buy "avcados" or "rodishes."

Likewise for the farmers' market. . . everything is labeled either certified organic, organic practices, or no pesticides, with the cost reflective of the practices. That's good enough for me.

So until these ballot question writers can give me a full and clear explanation of how these foodsellers will be affected by this initiative, I'm not just a "no" I am a "FUCK NO."

#18 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,349 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 05:40 PM

Foods we eat have been genetically manipulated by nature thru the eons to become what they are today. It is concievable that humans' purpose in life's scheme is to manipulate current genomes into different directions, with outcomes having significant results eins down the line. Having a knee-jerk fear response to GMO foods that might be the reason human minds evolved seems foolish to me. No fear!


And humans have tested those foods over those eons and discovered which were safe to eat, and which weren't.

Also worth mentioning, many of these manipulations take genes from one organism, and put them into an entirely different one. A huge rarity in nature.

#19 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 05:45 PM

Thats my point. Human ingenuity can do what nature cannot...purify metalic elements and combine into alloys not seen in nature, distill organic muck into various fuels, selective breeding and domestication of animals. I believe the human mind is nature in its next step. The people who fight against GMO may be out of step with nature's intentions.

#20 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,349 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 05:50 PM

Thats my point. Human ingenuity can do what nature cannot...purify metalic elements and combine into alloys not seen in nature, distill organic muck into various fuels, selective breeding and domestication of animals. I believe the human mind is nature in its next step. The people who fight against GMO may be out of step with nature's intentions.


This initiative doesn't attempt to ban GMOs. If it passes, it will give people a choice as to whether or not they wish to participate in an experiment with their health. And if those of us who don't want to consume them are out of step with nature's intentions and the next step in the evolution of the mind, then nature will select against us, and the GMO eaters shall inherit the earth...

#21 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,349 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 05:57 PM

So until these ballot question writers can give me a full and clear explanation of how these foodsellers will be affected by this initiative, I'm not just a "no" I am a "FUCK NO."


It's my understanding that they would be required to get sworn statements from their suppliers that the stuff they're selling isn't GMO if it isn't already so labeled.

I understand your concern, though I don't agree that it's a very big issue. And I'm a fan of small, local businesses.

#22 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,349 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 05:57 PM

And that oughta be enough outta me for now. :mrgreen:

#23 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,036 posts

Posted 06 November 2012 - 05:38 AM

http://www.amazon.co...tmm_aiv_title_0

#24 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,036 posts

Posted 06 November 2012 - 05:46 AM

"genetically modified foods offer the consumer nothing."

"the smart thing to do is avoid it until we know more about it."

-Mike Pollan, probably the most respected food journalist in the country.



#25 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,036 posts

Posted 06 November 2012 - 06:24 AM

They have convinced me to vote no.


If you're basing your decision on any of the ads opposing prop 37, just some info about some of their tactics:

the guy, Henry Miller (who is not an MD at Stanford), they've had filling the tv screens with misinformation is the same guy who wants to bring DDT back to the U.S., the same guy who fronts for the tobacco industry, for climate change deniers, and the same guy who, after Fukushima, said low levels of nuclear radiation could be good for us.

Those behind the vote no campaign had their first ad pulled for falsehoods, they have been accused by the academy of nutrition of misleading voters, they have also been reported to the dept of justice for lying about a quote by the FDA that was never made.

lies, lies, lies...

I think it's appropriate to be cautious of legislation, but I also wouldn't buy into the claims of the top 6 chemical corporations and the junk food industry.

#26 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,349 posts

Posted 06 November 2012 - 12:40 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pazIKlupalY


"...and this is perhaps my biggest objection to the technology. I'm not persuaded there is a health threat attached to GM - I think we still need to do a lot more work on that question. But what I know, and don't need to be persuaded of, is that this represents a whole new level of corporate control over our food supply. That a handful of companies are owning the seeds, controlling the farmers and controlling our choices..."

#27 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 06 November 2012 - 12:45 PM

"...and this is perhaps my biggest objection to the technology. I'm not persuaded there is a health threat attached to GM - I think we still need to do a lot more work on that question. But what I know, and don't need to be persuaded of, is that this represents a whole new level of corporate control over our food supply. That a handful of companies are owning the seeds, controlling the farmers and controlling our choices..."


paranoia the destroyer....

#28 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,349 posts

Posted 06 November 2012 - 12:54 PM

Two companies alone own close to half of the seed supply in the US...by own, I mean require, under force of law, that farmers who use that seed continue to buy new seed from them every year. The contracts are written in such a way that if those farmers save seed from the prior growing season's crop, they'll be taken to court and lose their farms.

You can call it paranoia if you like, but that's much more control in a few hands than I'm comfortable with.

There's a lengthy section in the movie Food Inc. about this. I'd be happy to mail you a copy to watch and return to me if you'd be interested in learning more about it.

#29 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 06 November 2012 - 01:16 PM

"The contracts are written in such a way that if those farmers save seed from the prior growing season's crop, they'll be taken to court and lose their farms."

who forces them to sign a contract?

#30 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,349 posts

Posted 06 November 2012 - 01:19 PM

Initially, no one. But when there's too much control in too few hands, they have less and less choice in whether or not they'll buy from the companies which require that. That's kinda my point here...

#31 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,349 posts

Posted 06 November 2012 - 01:20 PM

If you wanna PM me your address, I'd be happy to send that movie out today. :)

#32 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 06 November 2012 - 01:53 PM

Initially, no one. But when there's too much control in too few hands, they have less and less choice in whether or not they'll buy from the companies which require that. That's kinda my point here...


so you are thinking that these big companies are coercing farmers into signing contracts that basically are against their best interests? Who would sign such a deal?

#33 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,349 posts

Posted 06 November 2012 - 02:38 PM

Initially they weren't coerced - sold a bill of goods, perhaps, but not coerced. It's the end result which matters to me...when the big Ag companies become the only game in town, there will no longer be a choice in who to get seed from.

I'll suggest, once more, watching that movie...it discusses Monsanto's push to knock seed cleaners out of business, making it less likely still that farmers can save their own seed.

#34 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,036 posts

Posted 06 November 2012 - 02:58 PM

so you are thinking that these big companies are coercing farmers into signing contracts that basically are against their best interests? Who would sign such a deal?


sadly, many people sign contracts for marriages that go against their best interests. many people sign contracts for mortgages with adjustable rates that go against their best interests....

worth the read

http://www.iacenter....eering2-101712/

#35 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,349 posts

Posted 06 November 2012 - 06:01 PM

Posted Image

:funny1:

#36 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 06 November 2012 - 06:05 PM

sadly, many people sign contracts for marriages that go against their best interests. many people sign contracts for mortgages with adjustable rates that go against their best interests....


fools

#37 Julius

Julius
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,382 posts

Posted 06 November 2012 - 07:25 PM

If you're basing your decision on any of the ads opposing prop 37, just some info about some of their tactics:



You should know me better than that. I find their propaganda equally as distasteful as I find yours.

My opposition is based on no clarity on how this impacts the costs of food all the way through the chain, from the farmer to the small food stores where I shop, to the consumer. It's like saying "Give me GMO labeling at any cost!"

I would support a bill that uses the carrot instead of the stick. Give best practices food products some sort of seal of approval instead of essentially branding all GMOs as poison.

The whole thing stinks of soaking poor farmers and store owners so rich white people can have their pejorative labels for their little cause of the day.

#38 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,036 posts

Posted 07 November 2012 - 02:20 AM

You should know me better than that. I find their propaganda equally as distasteful as I find yours.



Pollan=propagandist? :lol:

ooh pooey. You don't even read or watch what I post. you want cliff notes and then you'll dismiss those as propaganda as well. I think some of what you are concerned about regarding prop 37 is important and worth debating but aside from the specifics of this prop... in regard to the larger issue of gmos: it seems no matter the list of sources and the credentials of those cited, you dismiss them (we did this go round on fb awhile back). I've posted films and articles with experts such as: Andrew Kimbrell Executive Director, Center for Food Safety; Dr. Charles M. Benbrook Former Director, Board on Agriculture, National Academy of Science; Dr. Ignacio Chapela Microbial Ecologist University of California, Berkeley; David Quist Ecosystems Sciences Division, University of California, Berkeley...

until we start watching, reading, and debating the same sources, guess we'll agree to disagree about what's considered propaganda.

#39 Karen

Karen
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,091 posts

Posted 07 November 2012 - 02:44 AM

Tim, I thought you don't vote?

#40 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,349 posts

Posted 07 November 2012 - 03:22 AM

Karen - I didn't in this election, but this ballot initiative is in California, and if I lived there, I would have gone to the polls for it.

#41 Karen

Karen
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,091 posts

Posted 07 November 2012 - 03:55 AM

Thanks for clarifying :thup:

#42 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,349 posts

Posted 07 November 2012 - 12:40 PM

:(

Some will think differently, but IMO, the apparent defeat of Prop 37 is a win for corporate conglomerates, and a loss for consumers and for their right to know what they're eating.

5 minutes of wound-lickin', then it's back up on the horse! :)

#43 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,036 posts

Posted 07 November 2012 - 05:08 PM

"consider this: the opposition spent $46 MILLION on a misinformation campaign that was full of lies and unethical (illegal?) tactics. And in spite of that, 4.6 million Californians (47%) STILL voted yes. This vote has brought the GMO issue into the national spotlight, and it's not going away. Onwards and upwards!" --Megan Westgate, Non-GMO Project Executive Director

labels may or may not change things, but conversation and education can. The conversation is happening :)

#44 Julius

Julius
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,382 posts

Posted 07 November 2012 - 07:44 PM

People finally came to their senses on this one. Punishing Farmer Juan because of your intense hate of Monsanto would have been pretty typical CA behavior. Now maybe we can approach the GMO issue with a GMO-free certification process instead of finding the closest big stick and beating anyone in the way.

#45 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,349 posts

Posted 07 November 2012 - 07:52 PM

People had something like $40 million worth of ads shoved down their throats, which included at least some misleading information, and sometimes outright lies.

That's an interesting way of coming to one's senses.

Not saying you should have voted for the measure if you didn't support it, but to suggest in any way that the information the average Californian got was balanced, unbiased or sensible is absurd.

Last word is yours. Have at it.

#46 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,349 posts

Posted 07 November 2012 - 09:52 PM

And if that sounded a little snarky, well, it prolly is. :blush:

#47 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,036 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 05:53 PM

haven't confirmed but worth noting if it's true

GM foods not served in Monsanto cafeteria
August 22, 2011
http://crisisboom.co....nto-cafeteria/

As reported in the Independent newspaper (no date): A sign posted by the Sutcliffe Catering Group in a cafeteria at a Monsanto pharmaceutical factory in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire [England] advises customers that “as far as practicable, GM soya and maize (has been removed) from all food products served in our restaurant. We have taken the steps to insure that you, the customer, can feel confident in the food we serve.” Monsanto confirms the authenticity of the notice, but company spokesman Tony Coombes says the only reason for the GM-free foods is because the company “believes in choice.” Coombes says in other Monsanto locations employees are happy to eat GM foods because they are “sprayed with fewer chemicals.”



Posted Image

#48 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,036 posts

Posted 19 November 2012 - 07:12 PM

t has come to our attention that Kaiser Permanente, the largest managed healthcare organization in the United States, has advised its members against GMOs (genetically modified organisms) in food.

In its Northwest Fall 2012 newsletter, Kaiser suggested membership limit exposure to genetically modified organisms.
“GMOs have been added to our food supply since 1994, but most people don’t know it because the United States does not require labeling of GMOs,” according to the newsletter.

Sounding like a radical organic health proponent, the huge corporate Kaiser continued, “Despite what the biotech industry might say, there is little research on the long-term effects of GMOs on human health.”

Independent studies have shown GMOs to cause organ damage in rats and the inability to reproduce. Kaiser gave tips on how its members can avoid GMOs, including buying organic, looking for the “Non-GMO Project Verified” seal and to download the “ShopNoGMO” app.

Since corporations are required, by definition, to augment their bottom line, we think Kaiser’s efforts to encourage GMO avoidance for the members for whose health costs they must (sometimes!) pay – is telling.

http://www.willamett...t-against-gmos/

#49 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 19 November 2012 - 11:01 PM

someone sounds like more of a communist than I am

#50 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,036 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 10:49 PM

Posted Image