Genetically modified foods initiative will be on voters’ plate





RIGHT TO ASSEMBLY—Supporters of Proposition 37 rally at the corner of Westlake and Thousand Oaks boulevards on Aug. 25. Prop. 37, which is on the November ballot, requires that genetically modified foods be properly identified.

RIGHT TO ASSEMBLY—Supporters of Proposition 37 rally at the corner of Westlake and Thousand Oaks boulevards on Aug. 25. Prop. 37, which is on the November ballot, requires that genetically modified foods be properly identified.

A dozen people stood at the corner of Westlake and Thousand Oaks boulevards on Aug. 25 warning against the dangers of genetically modified food—just a taste of what the voters will see by the time the statewide GMO initiative goes before voters in November.

A genetically modified organism is produced in the laboratory when DNA genes of one plant are modified to make them resistant to insects and herbicides and to increase per-acre yields.

It’s technology gone amok, say proponents of Proposition 37, the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act, one of 11 statewide measures on the November ballot. If approved, Prop. 37 would make California the first state in the nation to require labels on some food products containing GMOs.

“We’re taking too much control over our food, and I just don’t think we have the know-how to know what’s best for us,” said Thousand Oaks resident Matt Walker, who joined the activists in Thousand Oaks because their message resonated with him.

Several drivers honked their horns in response to the protesters.

“GMOs are detrimental to people, farmers and the environment,” said April Parise of Newbury Park as she waved a sign urging the public to support Prop. 37. “We’re just trying to educate people and raise awareness.”

Genetic engineering has been used for the past two decades to create new varieties of corn, soybeans and other crops.

Deena Parry, who is spearheading the local Yes on Prop. 37 movement, said the crops are being sent to market without adequate testing.

The new law would require manufacturers to include information on food labels stating that products contain genetically modified ingredients, said Parry, an Oak Park resident and a former member of the community’s Municipal Advisory Council.

Food manufacturers would have until July 1, 2014 to comply with the new labeling requirement.

Recent reports say Wal-Mart will soon sell a new type of sweet corn that is made from genetically engineered seeds produced by Monsanto, one of America’s largest bio-agriculture companies.

“It will affect the entire food chain,” said Miller, pointing out that Monsanto is the same company that introduced DDT, Agent Orange and herbicides under the Roundup brand.

Not so fast

Tom Helscher, spokesperson for Monsanto, said all GMO products grown by American farmers have been thoroughly reviewed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency, as well as the World Health Organization.

“It is these public health agencies that make the determinations that GMOs are safe for people and the environment,” Helscher told The Acorn.

So far, opponents of the measure have raised about $25 million. Supporters have collected about $3 million.

“For thousands of years we’ve been breeding plants to modify the genes in them so that we can have fruits and vegetables that are safe and healthy,” said Dr. Ronald Kleinman in a video on the No on Prop. 37 coalition’s website.

If approved, the measure will add red tape costs for food producers without providing acceptable health or safety benefits, said Kathy Fairbanks, spokesperson for the No on Prop. 37 coalition.

The measure would ban the sale of California grocery products unless they are repackaged, relabeled or made with higher cost ingredients.

“The cost to California families if Prop. 37 should pass will range between $350 and $400 a year,” Fairbanks said.

She said the new law contains many irrational exemptions. For example, soy milk would require a label, but cow’s milk, eggs, meat and poultry would be exempt even though most animals associated with those products are fed genetically modified grain. Fruit juice would also need a label, but alcohol made with some of the same ingredients would not.

An educated opinion

Dr. Sam Thomas, who teaches religion and environmental ethics at California Lutheran University, said Prop. 37 aims to give people a choice by making them aware of how food is produced. But this doesn’t mean people should stop buying products containing bioengineered crops.

“Consumers should always have as much info as they can to make decisions that correspond with their values. There are no conclusive studies saying GMOs are unsafe, but that’s not the only issue,” said Thomas, who is also the faculty adviser for the university’s Sustainable Edible Education project.

“The big advantage often touted is that in a world with a growing population, GMOs are the only way we’re going to feed the people. But that’s only one side of the argument,” Thomas said.

On the one hand, bioengineered crops are seen as more reliable because they eliminate some of the uncertainties that plague the farming industry. On the other hand, the monoculture approach puts singular crops at risk of being wiped out by a lone pest or disease.

“That could wipe out a huge crop without leaving alternatives to grow something in its place,” Thomas said.

Since GMO crops are designed to grow with certain pesticides and herbicides, they could also expose more people to toxic chemicals.

“We still don’t really understand what the environmental and human consequences are with large-scale use of pesticides and herbicides,” Thomas said.

According to the professor, the new label requirement should not cause food prices to go up significantly. He said consumers should be more worried about fossil fuels and water, which have a bigger impact on the price of food.

Biotechnology is also altering the way people farm. As large corporations such as Monsanto and DuPont are increasingly controlling the seed market, “farmers become trapped in a system of reliance on a corporation that owns the rights to the seeds as intellectual property. This affects small-scale farmers in particular,” Thomas said.


LOOK THIS WAY—A pro-Prop. 37 picketer in Thousand Oaks.

LOOK THIS WAY—A pro-Prop. 37 picketer in Thousand Oaks.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *