Vote Yes on 37!

I don’t normally discuss politics on this blog. I feel that the topics we discuss under the banner of homesteading–such as gardening, alternative energy, alternative transpiration, home ec, health and fitness–unite people across the political spectrum. Overall, I’d rather focus on what we can do and what we have in common rather than the constant diet of strife and discontent served up by mainstream media.

That being said, I’m going to break my own rules.  I want to urge all California residents to vote yes on proposition 37. Proposition 37 will require genetically modified food products to be labelled. And that’s all–it’s not a ban on GMOs. If you like GMOs in your food you’ll still be able to get them in your hot Cheetos. All I’m asking is to be given a choice, through labeling, as to whether I wish to buy GMO products or not.

I suspect it’s preaching to the choir to endorse 37 on Root Simple, but if you have relatives and friends in the Golden State that aren’t part of our backyard chicken and vegetable garden subculture, please urge them to vote for 37.

Share this post

Leave a comment

7 Comments

  1. It’s a bit upsetting to me that the people that I’ve come across that are voting No are very firmly voting no, and even when presented with the facts and information will not be budged. I chalk it up to good ol’ confirmation bias.. :( I’ve tried to do my part, emailing friends, contacting my friends at Greenaid seedbombs to do a shout out on their site, even email Ben Starr, a contestant on last year’s Master Chef (and he was more than happy to do so). But like you guys I feel like I too have been preaching to the choir. I’m not sure how to reach out to those that want to vote no, seems that they’ve made up their minds.

  2. Companies like Monsanto and DuPont have spent 44 million so far on a very misleading ad campaign against 37, and sadly, I’m afraid it will pay off for them. The groups which are in favor of 37 have only managed to put 7 million towards their campaign, because of course there are no Big Corporate Bucks behind them. I’m voting yes, of course, but like your poster above, know many people who are quite firm about voting “no,” because they believe food will become prohibitively expensive and litigation will abound if it passes, neither of which is true.

  3. Thank you for breaking your own rules and endorsing this. In my opinion, Prop. 37 isn’t about politics, it’s about a fundamental right that Americans usually pride themselves on–freedom. Freedom of information, freedom to choose, freedom from being an unwitting science experiment. It’s horrifying that something so basic has been warped, twisted, and lied about to where a good portion of the uninformed public actually believes that their grocery bills will be affected (they won’t, it’s a line of ink), that unscrupulous consumers will sue to get scads of cash (they can’t–they can only sue to get the label changed if the information is incorrect), and that James Wheaton started this to cash in on it (he didn’t-Pamm Larry started this in Chico Ca almost 2 years ago and she had never met James Wheaton). And, yes, the GMOs that people are eating might have affected their thought process to the point of no return…..all the more reason to label them! I’ll climb down off my soap box now–Thank You!

  4. Pretty much with Todd. Everything else being equal, I favor labeling, because if consumers think this is relevant information for them to have, I’m not going to stand in their way just because I don’t think it is. And, generally, I think more information is better than less, so. However: I wasn’t impressed with the actual wording (lack of testing for claimed non-GMO crops, lots of exceptions to labeling, really absurd lawsuit potential, etc.), and I really don’t see how, with the logistical difficulties of having to maintain two entirely separate distribution chains for things like corn, there’s any way it couldn’t have made food more expensive besides.

    Then again, since the law said it would basically just take people’s word for it that products don’t contain GMOs (Section 35!), maybe a separate distribution chain wouldn’t really be necessary.

    I’d also like to say that although I believe/hope that Chateaudepaixinn and Anonymous were being tongue in cheek about it, there is no evidence at all that GMO foods change thought processes, much less evidence that they would do so in the specific direction of making people more approving of GMO foods. Making shit up and accusing one’s opponents of being brain-damaged, even in jest, is probably not a winning rhetorical strategy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


6 − 1 =