But let's talk about what's really important...

[Honu]

The state of California and its cities need to take a few lessons from single mom's who have to live within a budget. The whole condom thing came about because the porn capitol of the world Simi-Valley had some actors and actress's come back testing positive for HIV.

Originally Posted by Honu

The state of California and its cities need to take a few lessons from single mom's who have to live within a budget. The whole condom thing came about because the porn capitol of the world Simi-Valley had some actors and actress's come back testing positive for HIV.

Uhm, is this topic something you should be commenting?


Another reason you should not, it's best to leave the nincompoopense to Genuine Crazy Lady and Yakity Danny.

[Sightseek]

Too bad Prop. 37 failed...

[Honu]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

Too bad Prop. 37 failed...

It was very poorly written, it needs to be re-written and brought back at a later date.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Honu

It was very poorly written, it needs to be re-written and brought back at a later date.

Was that the one about GMO labeling?

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Was that the one about GMO labeling?

yes

So, did CA have anything on the ballot about labeling genetically-modified genitals? I'm talking freakshow guys and pierced gals here; unreal.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

Too bad Prop. 37 failed...

The big companies like Monsanto spent about $50 million to defeat Prop 37. They know that if people see products labeled as GMO, and there are alternative products that are not genetically modified, people will go with the alternative choice.

The campaign against 37 was a based on a bunch of lies. They outspent the Yes on 37 people by about 10x. In the end, all the lies fooled people into voting "no". I don't know how anyone in their right mind could vote "no". How could it be a bad thing to have products labeled?

One of the phony arguments against 37 was that it would only apply to certain products. In reality, it was going to apply to any products that were relevant and that the state had jurisdiction over. It couldn't be applied to meat because the USDA is the governing body that oversees meat. It couldn't be applied to alcohol because the FAA oversees the labeling on alcohol.

[Honu]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The big companies like Monsanto spent about $50 million to defeat Prop 37. They know that if people see products labeled as GMO, and there are alternative products that are not genetically modified, people will go with the alternative choice.

The campaign against 37 was a based on a bunch of lies. They outspent the Yes on 37 people by about 10x. In the end, all the lies fooled people into voting "no". I don't know how anyone in their right mind could vote "no". How could it be a bad thing to have products labeled?

One of the phony arguments against 37 was that it would only apply to certain products. In reality, it was going to apply to any products that were relevant and that the state had jurisdiction over. It couldn't be applied to meat because the USDA is the governing body that oversees meat. It couldn't be applied to alcohol because the FAA oversees the labeling on alcohol.

Ah but the cows are being fed GMO corn and oats....the whole thing was written by a trial lawyer. It was poorly written by someone I can guarantee wasnt really looking out for people but looking for profit lawsuits. A pizza in a grocery store has to be labled but not the one delivered by the pizza guy made with the same products. Its was BS.....re-write it make it more defined and dont make it a hardship on farmers who make little to no money at all.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Honu

Ah but the cows are being fed GMO corn and oats....the whole thing was written by a trial lawyer. It was poorly written by someone I can guarantee wasnt really looking out for people but looking for profit lawsuits. A pizza in a grocery store has to be labled but not the one delivered by the pizza guy made with the same products. Its was BS.....re-write it make it more defined and dont make it a hardship on farmers who make little to no money at all.

I don't think the law could have covered cows because the state has no jurisdiction over meat, the USDA does.

There was no reason to vote "no". Even if the law only covered one product, I would still vote "yes". Having one product labeled is better than having zero products labeled.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't think the law could have covered cows because the state has no jurisdiction over meat, the USDA does.

There was no reason to vote "no". Even if the law only covered one product, I would still vote "yes". Having one product labeled is better than having zero products labeled.

Exactly

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The big companies like Monsanto spent about $50 million to defeat Prop 37. They know that if people see products labeled as GMO, and there are alternative products that are not genetically modified, people will go with the alternative choice.

The campaign against 37 was a based on a bunch of lies. They outspent the Yes on 37 people by about 10x. In the end, all the lies fooled people into voting "no". I don't know how anyone in their right mind could vote "no". How could it be a bad thing to have products labeled?

Maybe it was due to the additional cost of regulating the labeling (estimated at a hundred grand to a million)? To quote you:

These city and state agencies barely have the resources to do their jobs right now. Where are they going to get the resources to satisfy this new law?

I'm teasing you, Rupert, and I am sorry for CA that the prop was defeated. I didn't know much about it, and I read the SF Chronicle piece saying it was too broadly worded, but after looking into the prop more thoroughly I don't see what they were concerned about. It has some pretty broad exceptions, and as ready-to-eat food is excluded, I don't see how small stores would be affected, since it would be the responsibility of the food producer (Big Ag, in most cases) to label the food before it hit shelves, right?

I haven't been persuaded that GMOs are bad for a person, but I think people have the right to as much information about what they buy as possible, so I wish it had been passed. I really like the requirement here in NYC that stores selling ready-to-eat foods now post the calorie counts. It's really affected how I order food when I eat out.

Here's the full text of prop 37, if anyone wants to see it:
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.ph...(November_2012)

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Maybe it was due to the additional cost of regulating the labeling (estimated at a hundred grand to a million)? To quote you:



I'm teasing you, Rupert, and I am sorry for CA that the prop was defeated. I didn't know much about it, and I read the SF Chronicle piece saying it was too broadly worded, but after looking into the prop more thoroughly I don't see what they were concerned about. It has some pretty broad exceptions, and as ready-to-eat food is excluded, I don't see how small stores would be affected, since it would be the responsibility of the food producer (Big Ag, in most cases) to label the food before it hit shelves, right?

I haven't been persuaded that GMOs are bad for a person, but I think people have the right to as much information about what they buy as possible, so I wish it had been passed. I really like the requirement here in NYC that stores selling ready-to-eat foods now post the calorie counts. It's really affected how I order food when I eat out.

Here's the full text of prop 37, if anyone wants to see it:
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.ph...(November_2012)

As you said, I think we have the right to know whether the food we are buying has been genetically modified, especially considering that there is some evidence out there that genetically modified food may cause cancer.

"Rats fed a lifelong diet of one of the bestselling strains of genetically modified corn suffered tumors and multiple organ damage, according to a controversial French study published today."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz2Beakf0Dj
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

As you said, I think we have the right to know whether the food we are buying has been genetically modified, especially considering that there is some evidence out there that genetically modified food may cause cancer.

"Rats fed a lifelong diet of one of the bestselling strains of genetically modified corn suffered tumors and multiple organ damage, according to a controversial French study published today."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz2Beakf0Dj
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Hey, Rupert- thanks for the link; I read it. However, I did some additional googling on the study, and it's hugely, hugely flawed, so I don't think one can draw any conclusions from it as it was run by a scientist with an agenda, and the rats used were predisposed to develop tumors anyway. Here's a good piece on the major errors in the study, and how the media was manipulated into releasing it:
http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science...media-approach

Again, I haven't been convinced one way or another about GMOs, but I fully support labeling and letting consumers choose.