“Monsanto fully supports UK food manufactures and retailers in their introduction of these labels. We believe you should be aware of all the facts before making a purchase.”
This quote comes from an advertisement that Monsanto ran in the UK in the late 1990′s when consumers demanded that genetically engineered food be labeled. Monsanto may not have initially liked the idea, but as the policy became inevitable, they began running ads in support of labeling, to pretend they supported it all along. The European Union mandated labeling of all genetically engineered foods in 2003.
Nearly a decade later, California may become the first state in the US to require genetically engineered food to be labeled. With only a few days until the proposal is put to a vote, Monsanto has already given over $8 million to a front group that is blitzing California’s airwaves with anti-labeling advertisements. The “No on 37″ group has raised well over $40 million so far, with Monsanto as the largest donor.
What gives? Do Monsanto executives think it’s okay for British parents to know what’s in the food they feed their kids, while treating America’s children as “guinea kids”?
Vote Yes on Proposition 37 to ensure the labeling of genetically engineered food in California, because we have the right to know.
Read more about how companies like Monsanto have power over your food options at the grocery store.
There is already a choice for consumers who wish to consume GM-free foods – they can choose organic foods, that are already labeled. It will cost every consumer an extra $400 a year to introduce this additional labeling of GM foods for what purpose? There’s already GM free food in the marketplace for consumers to purchase if they want GM free AND there is absolutely no heath risks associated with GM foods that warrant the necessity of marking foods as containing GM ingredients. I am not employed by Monsanto or any other organisation that produces food. I just have a brain and I use it to examine the science behind GM plants – I don’t listen to the uninformed hysteria.
I am appalled that the vote in California is so close. Don’t the people there want to know what they consume? Don’t they know that Monsanto has a vested interest in preventing us to know the truth about GMOs? Why is the chemical industry so powerful in North America? Why are we calling ourselves democracies (Canada included) when in fact it is the chemical industry that calls the shots? I am being blunt but my bluntness is fully justified. If GMOs were as safe as the industry pretends they are we would not be confronted with the kind of propaganda and secrecy we are subjected to in connection with GMOs. Does the general public know that independent studies of GMOs are in fact supressed? Do we in North America live in true democracies? Hardly. A recent independent study on rats was immediately blacklisted by the industry, because the results were both highly significant and inconvenient. Meanwhile, the appearance of huge weeds in GMO fields requires a substantial increase in the use of pesticides. What about the impact on human health? Why should Australia and Europe have the right to know what to buy and consume, denied to North Americans?
Re comment by Josie, this individual claims that there is no special risks attached to consumption of GMOs, even though this is contrary to the findings of independent science. Assuming GMOs are quite safe, but some people would rather avoid eating them, surely we in North America live in a democracies and our reasonable wishes should be taken into account, as is done in Australia and Europe. As to science behind GM plants, surely this is something very new and unproven, involving as it does the mixing of animal and plant genes. The very fact that GMOs require the ever increasing application of pesticides to deal with the huge weeds GMOs generate is speaking volumes. Surely something doesn’t add up! This is not an uninformed hysteria, this is well justified caution on the part of well-informed, experienced individuals who are not impressed by youthful overconfidence.