Town Square

Post a New Topic

Vote Yes on 37 - Unregistered

Original post made by Ngo Loon on Oct 30, 2012

This is a parallel conversation to the topic created by Susan Stasek in which she was asking people to vote for Prop 37, but restricted it to those registerd so the Against 37 crowd could know who is against the proposition. Please feel free to use this alternative thread to make your comments.

Comments (8)

Posted by Susan Sasek, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 31, 2012 at 7:32 pm

I restricted it to keep the conversation civil. All opinions welcome when they are respectfully presented. Otherwise-they are free to you this topic to anonymously rant and rave.


Posted by Rob , a resident of another community
on Nov 1, 2012 at 1:09 pm

This is a simple labeling bill. It will not increase the cost of your food. Dow chemical and Monsanto chemical is spearheading the no on 37 and are the ones spreading the lies ...Why?..because they are the ones that make these gmo seeds. I personally want to know what I eat, and I read the nutrition labels. and I will be voting yes on prop 37


Posted by concerned, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 1, 2012 at 7:19 pm

The problem I see with this initiative is the cottage industry of lawsuits this will create. You do not have to show any intent in order for a lawyer to sue you and it will cost the vendors money, most likely by an out of court settlement. I have seen this for the disabilities act. Just about every winery in California was sued by an ex-convict who studied law while he was in jail. This guy was not trying to get things fixed. He saw a very lucrative money making opportunity as even if there was no infraction, the cost of hiring lawyers to defend yourself was higher than the out of court settlement so the best business decision was to pay the extortion. This law could make sense if it allowed regulation by the government instead of the trial lawyers seeing this as a revenue generator. There are so many grains today that have been modified to help them grow in the challenging weather conditions, which makes it harder for the vendor of the end-product to manage all of this. Much of the world is thankful we have these genetically-modified techniques as it allows many countries that could not keep crops alive to now be able to do so, and feed their people.


Posted by Vote NO, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 2, 2012 at 1:20 pm

It is more than a simple labelling bill. Farmers that produce non GMO products and GMO products will have to take extra measures to ensure that there is not even a possibility of contamination. THis will require different planting strategies (avoid cross pollination), very thorough cleaning of harvest equipment and grain elevators, etc. I would guess there will need to be extra testing to back up claims of non-GMO labelling... to prevent lawsuits. Who is going to pay for the extra time and process? We are.
Additionally, GMO products increase yield. Are you prepared for rising prices as yield decreases.

And as mentioned above, the potenial of frivolous lawsuits is very real.

GMO's don't scare me. I am more concerned about the escalation of gun violence... now that is something that scares me!


Posted by David Chesterton, a resident of Beratlis Place
on Nov 2, 2012 at 2:13 pm

The above poster probably doesn't have kids. Against 37 because it might lead to more testing and cleaner farm implements. Unbelievable how short-sighted and selfish people can be.


Posted by Mittens, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 2, 2012 at 8:57 pm

Yes, David, were all selfish because we don't see it the same way as your narrow minded approach to regulating our food supply. Good thing we have you nanny stae utopians looking out for ALL of us.


Posted by VOTE NO, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 3, 2012 at 1:52 pm

what does whether or not I have kids have to do with your comment?
Actually, I DO have kids.

The testing that would be required would have NOTHING to do with making the food safer. If you want safer food then propose a proposition that deals with that (the recent Mad Cow scare comes to mind). This has nothing to do with food safety.

Maybe I could say that people who don't want GMO's are selfish because GMO's are going to be a major factor in feeding an ever increasing population with finite resources (water for agriculture).
So maybe I think DAVID is short sighted and selfish for wanting extra regulations that will increases food supply and limit production based on his unfounded belief that GMO's are dangerous.


Posted by VOTE NO, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 3, 2012 at 1:53 pm

Sorry....typo

So maybe I think DAVID is short sighted and selfish for wanting extra regulations that will increase food costs and limit production based on his unfounded belief that GMO's are dangerous.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Tough new rules on water are necessary
By Tim Hunt | 11 comments | 1,125 views

Circumstances without Pomp
By Roz Rogoff | 3 comments | 973 views

‘Much Ado’ or is it Adios for ObamaCare?
By Tom Cushing | 4 comments | 287 views