Adulterated?
Margaret
How are you voting on Initiative 522?
I’m conflicted. Yeah, “the evidence states that there is no known detrimental effect to human health from the consumption of genetically modified foods”, on the other hand there’s no known detrimental effect to human health from the consumption of dairy products made from cows treated with recombinant BGH, but I drink organic non-treated milk.
Yeah, the above “no known detrimental effect to human health” evidence probably comes from studies funded by the companies that want to block passage of the initiative. But does that necessarily mean that the evidence is skewed?
Is the initiative really so poorly written, as the nay-sayers say, that things like dog food will have to be labeled, but meat won’t?
As a Greener leftie I’m inclined to vote for it simply because the initiative strikes me as something of a good idea. But if it’s really written so poorly, and yes, I’ve read the whole initiative, that the law would be toothless and expensive, I don’t want to be part of its implementation. I have, as I said, read the initiative as it stands but I just don’t have the devious brain to winkle out the subtleties that might make the law a poopy one. I guess what I’m saying is that I’ve read it, but I don’t understand it.
Anyone with opinions?
3 Responses to “Adulterated?”
Leave a Reply
All comments containing hyperlinks are held for approval, so don't worry if your comment doesn't show up immediately. (I'm not editing for content, just weeding out the more obvious comment spam.)
All portions of this site are © Andrew Lenzer, all rights reserved, unless otherwise noted.
October 26th, 2013 at 8:56 pm
I was in the same position as you, leaning towards voting yes just based on my liberal world view. Looking at the people backing the “no” side, Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association, reinforced by inclination to vote yes. Then I saw that the Consumer’s Union (publishers of Consumer Reports) was backing the “yes” side and that pretty much decided it for me once and for all – http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2013/10/labeling-genetically-engineered-food-washington-initiative-522/index.htm
October 27th, 2013 at 8:40 pm
Given that the ‘no on 522’ campaign’s most prominent backers are Dow Chemicals and Monsanto, and given that even the Seattle Times had to admit that the ‘no on 522’ campaign was misleading and untruthful (even though they’re saying to vote no in their voter guide, hellopaideditorialbribecoughcough), and given that after having read 522, it’s not noticeably worse written than most initiatives, I’m voting Yes.
I still think ALL voter-sponsored initiatives should have to pass an editorial review and legal ‘sniff test’ revision, but that’s another story.
October 28th, 2013 at 7:14 pm
I gotta get uncle-andrew.net on my RSS feed. Sorry I’m late to the party! I-522 is the first political thingy in 35 years of existence that Seattle Tilth has publicly endorsed. Sure the board has written letters in the past, (primarily to help keep stringent organic standards) but we have a public stand on I-522 and a thoughtful web page, http://seattletilth.org/advocacy/Initiative%20522.
Let’s fight for more research not tied to Monsanto/Dow funding. And while we wait for results, let’s label our food clearly.