http://pleasantonweekly.com/square/print/2012/10/30/vote-yes-on-37---unregistered


Town Square

Vote Yes on 37 - Unregistered

Original post made by Ngo Loon, Another Pleasanton neighborhood, 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

 +   Like this comment
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.


 +   Like this comment
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


 +   Like this comment
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.


 +   Like this comment
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!


 +   Like this comment
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.


 +   Like this comment
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.


 +   Like this comment
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.


 +   Like this comment
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.