reposted from DogIslandFarm.com
Because it isn’t great and they know it. They know that if people see their product labeled they won’t buy it. So now they are looking at spending $100 million dollars to fight labeling.
California is the battle ground. It’s the people (you and me) against Monsanto, Dow and Bayer. They have deep pockets and will try to outspend us. What’s the fight? Labeling genetically modified foods. The people of California were successful at getting a labeling law on the ballots for the upcoming election – Proposition 37. The initiative, if passed, would require all foods that contain GMOs to be labeled with “Contains GMO ingredients” and wouldn’t allow products that have GMOs in them to use the label “Natural.” This won’t go down without a fight.
Over 40 countries including the European Union, Japan and China, yes China, require GMO labeling. It’s time the U.S. catches up. The American Medical Association is even considering supporting GMO labeling (you can sign a petition to support them here). California has 12% of the U.S. population and it’s a huge agriculture state. But this really isn’t just about California anymore. If we are successful at passing this law it will most likely spread to the rest of the country. Currently 90% of Californians support this initiative, though with big money propaganda getting ready to come out swinging I’m sure that number will decrease. It’s our job to get out there and educate our friends and families about this. Pay attention to who is paying for the ads.
“They want to make voters believe that imposed labeling would make food more expensive, that it will cause hundreds of lawsuits against small farmers and business, and that it will contribute to world hunger. All of which is completely untrue.” Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/325949#ixzz20nFt8KqC
This is a huge step in the right direction. Currently it’s a game of roulette if a company chooses to label their products as GMO-free. This simple label, which isn’t regulated by the FDA , is cause for the company that uses it to possibly be sued by Monsanto, which happened in the case against Oakhurst Dairy in Maine who chose to label their milk free from genetically modified growth hormones. Their argument is that saying a product is free from GMOs is misleading because it insinuates that GMOs are dangerous.
I think the most ironic thing that comes from all this is that Monsanto has actually stated that consumers have a right to know. Robert Shapiro, former CEO of Monsanto said in 1998:
“One can make a reasonable argument that consumers and citizens have a right to know anything they wish to know. It is they who are choosing these products and it is they who are choosing and judging their governments. So it is almost impossible to make a case that information should be withheld from consumers…. consumers’, in my view [have an] unquestioned, right to know anything they wish to know about the products they consume…. it is not my role, or Monsanto’s role, to decide these things. It is society’s role to decide those questions after appropriate debate” To the question “So you are open to labeling being introduced then?” Shapiro answered: “Yes. Of course“  (bold ours).
We have the right to know what is in our food and if Monsanto and company want us to eat it then they better make a damn good case for it. Show us it’s safe. Show us it’s healthy, but don’t lie about it. If you can’t show either of those things then you have no right feeding it to us.
— by Rachel