vegimator wrote:
Nebraskalaska wrote:
I moved out of CA before the election, but I had intended to vote no on 37. I just think people need to realize that those who voted no weren't necessarily duped by confusing wording or misleading advertising. I have done a great deal of research on this issue and have simply come to a different conclusion than many folks. I just hate seeing everyone say how uninformed the people voted no are.
Yeah, I have no interest in starting a gmo argument on the ppk, but I voted no as well. Here's a really cogent vegan perspective if anyone wants it -
http://saywhatmichaelpollan.wordpress.c ... al-damage/The author of that article supports the use of gmos, which made me skeptical from the start, but I kept reading. He really lost me, though, when he compared labeling whether a fruit was picked by a left or right handed worker with labeling a gmo fruit. I think we absolutely have a right to know if food contains gmo ingredients and I don't think the bill's imperfectness should have been a reason for it not to pass. Yes, restaurants should have to label too, yes, the labels should be more specific, but that doesn't seem like enough of a reason to me to vote against it. I say pass it, bring it to people's attention, then fix what doesn't work. It's a lot harder to pass something than modify it, no? I think it's great that I can choose to buy organic products or products labeled as "non gmo" if I choose, but I don't see harm in letting people who don't scrutinize labels have the option as well. It's not forcing them to care about something they don't want to, as it seemed like the article's author was suggesting.
I paused when I heard about small businesses potentially being hurt by prop 37. But then I saw signs in small businesses near me supporting it. And I saw that most of the opposition came from big agribusinesses while most of the support came from smaller companies. Honestly, just having Monsanto as the biggest financial opposition was enough for me to vote for it. Living in LA, I didn't see any "Vote no on 37" ads. I could have just missed them, but my thought is that most of the "no" ad money was spent in more rural areas, where people were convinced that food would get too expensive and farmers would suffer. Who knows, though.
I heard that there was still a very small chance the prop could pass, though, anyone else hear that? That the margin wasn't as big as we might have thought and there are a huge number of provisional ballots left to count. Don't quote me on that, though.
