Message Boards

GM crops are in much of the processed food available in the States.

quote:

France's government on Wednesday asked a health watchdog to carry out a probe, possibly leading to EU suspension of a genetically-modified corn, after a study in rats linked the grain to cancer.

http://phys.org/news/2012-09-f...-gm-corn-safety.html

Here's another article on the GM corn trial.

http://sustainablepulse.com/20...mature-death-cancer/

I hope all you californians vote for the labelling come November.

Ah HAH!!! Knew it had to happen. Thanks Now What.

Thanks for article! I try to avoid processed food altogether.... there are plenty of easy things to grab in a pinch.....

The administrators held up my reply for review. I live in California and our next ele*cti*on has an initiative that will make it mandatory that all food labels list GMO ingredients. The big three including Mos*anto are trying to keep it from passing.

Here is another article that explains how the GMO corn works and why it doesn't just effect pests. "Don't Eat it: Linked to Cancer and Gets into Your Blood"

http://articles.mercola.com/si...-bans-gmo-crops.aspx

Excellent article raises questions.

[QUOTE]GMO Debate Heats Up: Critics Say Biotech Industry Manipulating Genes, And Science

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...earch_n_1904535.html

quote:

Originally posted by Now What:
Excellent article raises questions.

[QUOTE]GMO Debate Heats Up: Critics Say Biotech Industry Manipulating Genes, And Science

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...earch_n_1904535.html

Thanks for the article. I haven't seen the commercial yet but I think it is ill conceived if they are trying to convince California voters to vote no on Prop. 37. Why bring up cancer in a commercial? Now voters are going to wonder if their is a risk of cancer from eating GMO food. Most people aren't aware of the study. We simply want to our food labeled so we can make an informed choice. Bringing up cancer will make more people inclined to vote yes because there is a long history of businesses causing cancer in this state.

I glad they are airing such a foolish ad because it will help Prop. 37 pass, as well as, make more voters aware of Prop. 37. I'd be even happier if it caused more people to vote.

thanks for this information.

quote:

Originally posted by still tryin:

quote:

Originally posted by Now What:
Excellent article raises questions.

[QUOTE]GMO Debate Heats Up: Critics Say Biotech Industry Manipulating Genes, And Science

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...earch_n_1904535.html

Thanks for the article. I haven't seen the commercial yet but I think it is ill conceived if they are trying to convince California voters to vote no on Prop. 37. Why bring up cancer in a commercial? Now voters are going to wonder if their is a risk of cancer from eating GMO food. Most people aren't aware of the study. We simply want to our food labeled so we can make an informed choice. Bringing up cancer will make more people inclined to vote yes because there is a long history of businesses causing cancer in this state.

I glad they are airing such a foolish ad because it will help Prop. 37 pass, as well as, make more voters aware of Prop. 37. I'd be even happier if it caused more people to vote.

Glad to hear that still! I hope ya'al can pass prop 37 so the rest of us will follow sooner rather than later.

Now What (aka Yard Man) has posted some other interesting things about some of this over on his board, www.naturalyard.ca
Ya'al are welcome to come read, it's a public board, or you can join if you like. You'll see a bunch of familiar names over there too.

Big Ag and food processors claim labelling for GMOs will cause food prices to rise substantially. Well, that is not true.

The following article dispells 7 of those myths.

http://www.foodandwaterwatch.o...whos-deceiving-whom/

Thank you for the additional article. They can spew all the scare tactics they want it won't work. We passed this Prop. in 1986 -

Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, was enacted as a ballot initiative in November 1986. The Proposition was intended by its authors to protect California citizens and the State's drinking water sources from chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm, and to inform citizens about exposures to such chemicals.

Proposition 65 requires the Governor to publish, at least annually, a list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.

http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/p65faq.html

Businesses in California label products with a Proposition 65 warning if their product contains ingredients on our state list. There prices haven't gone up as a result. Even the natural gas companies mail to customers and publish a Proposition 65 warning label.

The other nonsense the food industry has attempted was to list ingredients on packages but not in the order of largest to the smallest amount. Of course they fought listing ingredients altogether in the beginning and some products still don't have to list all added ingredients.


The argument about frivolous lawsuits is absolute nonsense. Our courts throw out frivolous lawsuits when they are filed.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: still tryin,