Support for Prop 37 dropping

[DinoDoc]

Isn't it past time to strip the proposition process from California? They don't seem to be able to use it in a responsible manner regardless of the issue.

[MRT144]

Isn't it past time to strip the proposition process from California? They don't seem to be able to use it in a responsible manner regardless of the issue.

Yup. Up here in Washington we just passed a bill that requires 2/3rds of the house legislature to approve any tax increases or new revenue methods.

[Hauldren Collider]

In Virginia we just get **** like "can the county issue debt to make a new public library" and the occasional constitutional amendment.

[Aeson]

Prop. 37 backers vow to continue food regulation efforts

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-prop37-genetic-food-labeling-20121108,0,7519439.story

The voters rejected their ideas so they're going to double down on them and try even harder. These people are even more in denial than the Republicans.

It was close even though the money spent was not, and OR and WA are even more hippy granola than CA. Seems promising (from their perspective) as long as they can get funding.

The GM industry should be supporting (or even pre-empting) labeling legislation to distinguish their product, owning it as something to be proud of. GM products really are superior products in their environmental impact, sometimes dramatically so. Running scared and playing defensive with the "there's no difference" seems to be losing ground. Anti-GM has gone from a fringe wacko movement to something that can get close to 50% of the vote. That's sad.

[Fake Boris]

Actually GM food isn't safe, hence the push against labeling.

[regexcellent]

Being against GM food is, in my opinion, more of an anti-science position than creationism. Whether humans evolved from apes or not is not of a huge amount of consequence but the benefits of GM food are just so phenomenal and obvious.

I see a lot of charities and stuff begging for money to "end hunger." GM food is how we do that. Those charities should spend that money on researching new advanced farming techniques and food production technology.

[kentonio]

If GM food is safe then it could be a wonderful thing indeed for preventing world hunger, but it's certainly not 'anti science' for people to carry severe reservations about the effects it can have on native plantlife and about companies like Montsanto using extremely questionable strategies to try and force farmers into using their crops. There were numerous stories a few years back about GM plants spreading onto the land of farmers who didn't use those plants and Montsanto suing for patent violations.

[Kuciwalker]

it's certainly not 'anti science'

Yes it is.

[kentonio]

Yes it is.

There are perfectly reasonable concerns that genetically modified plant life can become invasive and lead to the annihilation of native species. Please explain how these concerns are 'anti-science'.

[Hauldren Collider]

Has that ever happened?

[giblets]

I think genetic modifications will tend to make a plant less well equipped to survive in the wild, not more.

[kentonio]

I think genetic modifications will tend to make a plant less well equipped to survive in the wild, not more.

That kind of depends on what you're genetically modifying the plant to be more resistant to.

[giblets]

So what do we have to fear from invasive species? People getting sued by Monsanto if a GMO spreads to their land?

[regexcellent]

If a genetically modified plant occupies the same ecological niche isn't it a non issue if it becomes invasive?

[Aeson]

Most GM crops are engineered to not produce viable seed. Meaning the second generation if it ever existed would be retarded to the point it probably wouldn't have much chance to spread even as much as non-GM equivalents. If only anti-GM sentiment would be similarly as retarded. (IM NOT MAKING FUN OF HANDICAPPED PEOPLE, FLAME RETARDant)