iOS app Android app
Clicking Follow Back will add user to your friends list and may allow access to your Social News timeline..

HuffPost Social News

Your Badges and the Badge Module will be removed from your profile

SeaPalm's Comments

View Comments:   Sort:
Prop 37: Labeling For GMOs, Or Genetically Modified Food

Prop 37: Labeling For GMOs, Or Genetically Modified Food

Commented Oct 24, 2012 at 20:06:54 in Los Angeles

“The No on 37 campaign is supported by some of the biggest global players in the agrochemical, biotech and food sectors, and the pros an cons of labeling are not even being talked about, instead the discussion has been reframed as being about greedy lawyers, increasing food costs, paperwork, loopholes. Monsanto hasn't pitched in to a +$35 million warchest as a public service to defend consumers. They own the patents on GMO seeds and Round-up, both of which may be worth less with labeling. Right now food processors in the USA can get the same price for GMO's as they would for conventional. On the global market transgenic food crops are worth less than conventional, so this substitution of GMO's in our diet is making them money, and this is only possible without labeling. Keeping GMO's invisible is the key to both marketing a product with no consumer demand, and an artifical price support in the USA.”

Farmer Guy on Oct 25, 2012 at 17:38:55

“Who is the Yes on Prop 37 sponsored by?

Food Fight: Debating Prop 37, California's Landmark Initiative to Label GMO Food

Food Fight: Debating Prop 37, California's Landmark Initiative to Label GMO Food

Commented Oct 24, 2012 at 19:53:27 in Food

“Transgenic (GMO) food commodities sell for less than conventional food in most of the world, but due to a lack of labeling in the USA, they are able to sell for the same price. There is no consumer demand for GMO food, so making it invisible through a lack of labeling is the only way they can sell it and also get the same price as conventional. Lack of GMO labeling is profitable. I would save money because now if I wish to avoid transgenic food I have to buy much more costly organic, but with labeling I would have a lower cost alternative to organic, and have an alternative when organic is not available. With labeling the price of GMO foods may go down to reflect their true value on world markets.”

Foundups on Oct 27, 2012 at 12:29:25

“Also, labeling is an opportunity to ad a new more expensive product to the shelf... would you pay extra $0.25 for a Coke with no-GMO HFCS? I would.”

Cuphat Hu on Oct 25, 2012 at 19:05:23

“This is totally backward thinking that make me scratch my head trying to lower my IQ to match your level of critical thinking. "lack of label so they can sell higher price...", you got to be kidding me. How about passing cost to consumers because of costs of spending more on label and stuffs. Why the hell they want to raise they price competing with other convention foods? Unless you are telling me that they (the food suppliers) come together to jack up prices to the consumers. Unbelievable!”