Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
1. My thing is...
Tue Nov 20, 2012, 06:06 AM
Nov 2012

Proposition 37 wouldn't have actually enlightened you as to what you were getting. Labeling wouldn't have been required to provide any information other than "this has been altered." Even if it had, what sort of information would you expect to get from it?

While I understand the desire to know what you're putting in your mouth, prop 37 wouldn't have done much in that direction. Plus, another bit of trouble is that "genetic engineering" would technically include any food that had a human hand in varietal development. it's an excessively broad term.

A better angle would be turning the battle against the patenting of organisms, genes, and genomes. That's the core of the problem right there, and doing away with that ability would undercut the very problems that the proponents of prop 37 were hoping[;/i] to address.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Look Out Monsanto: Campai...»Reply #1