Natasha Longo, Prevent Disease
Waking Times

Who are these people that oppose GMO (genetically modified organisms) labeling? Have you ever met one of them? If so, who do they work for and do they have ulterior motives? Most of us have never met these people in person because they remain cloaked behind a corporate facade. If we examine the reasons the opposers of Yes on prop 37 want to hide the truth, the only conclusion we can derive is there are simply “things they don’t want you to know.”

The primary opponents of Prop 37 do not speak for the people. They are essentially companies that produce GMO and junk foods. There are no individual financial contributions to the opposition to Prop 37. 90% of all Americans support GMO labeling and the other 10% simply don’t understand what GMO is.

Prop 37 does NOT prevent genetically modified foods from being produced or sold and it isn’t the be all and end all solution to GMOs. However, a favorable outcome will educate consumers on the associated issues, especially if they are given notice and the opportunity to make a choice. This is exactly what Prop 37’s opponents do not want — to let the marketplace decide.

Looking at some of the reasons for opposition, the logic is completely absent.

Interests groups oppose Prop 37 because they say:

• GMO Crops are No Less Safe Than Non-GMO
• Will Lead To Higher Grocery Bills
• Will Lead To Special Interest Exemptions
• Conflicts with Science
• Will Lead To Shakedown Lawsuits
• Will Cost A Lot of Money To Satisfy the Curious Few

As you can see, the reasons for opposition are ridiculous and actually more excuses than anything else. If there’s nothing wrong with GMOs, why not put it on the label?

GMO crops are less safe than Non-GMO and this has already been validated in many studies. A recent and very widely publicized study on GM corn is just one of many. The only science capable of generating any truthful conclusions regarding GMO are long-term independent and carefully controlled experiments. Those amount to less than a dozen and unanimously showed GMO to be harmful to health.

They assume higher grocery bills because of the amount of changes that will have to be made on labels. Guess who would be required to absorb many of those changes? The food industry of course. Only a fraction would go to the consumer. And don’t you just love how they promote “the few” who support labeling when there are hundreds of millions who are in favor?

They also claim that Prop 37 will create a whole new category of shakedown lawsuits allowing lawyers to sue family farmers and grocers without any proof of harm. So people who have long desired a sustainable and safe food supply, cooperating with community food retailers and independent grocers are going to shakedown family farmers for everything have?? Ok, that one takes the cake.

Do you see the desperation?

Although most nations have no formal GMO-Free platform,GMO labeling is mandatory in 50 countries around the world and
Prop 37 would:

• Require clear labels on all foods containing genetically modified ingredients.
• Prohibit foods containing GM ingredients from advertising themselves as “natural.”
• Give companies 18 months to change their labels
• Allow for the GMO disclosure to appear wherever they choose on food packaging.

Let’s face it, big biotech and agribusiness are scared. They’re very scared, because if this yes vote goes through, it will send a shockwave throughout the entire country and in a matter of time we will have GMO labeling across all states. Now that would put quite the kink in the misinformation and disinformation campaigns of the food industry.

It’s not you or me or any other member of the public who opposes GMO labeling. It’s the corporate machine! That’s the real story and that’s why they oppose this proposition. That’s also why the cat is out of the bag. Regardless of what happens with Prop 37, GMO is on it’s way out and there is nothing that will stop this momentum or initiative for truthful labeling.

About the Author

Natasha Longo has a master’s degree in nutrition and is a certified fitness and nutritional counselor. She has consulted on public health policy and procurement in Canada, Australia, Spain, Ireland, England and Germany.