Napa Letter: "Vote Yes on Proposition 37"

A letter to the editor sent to napa@patch.com by Erica Martenson and Joyce Nichols, co-coordinators of the Napa Group of the Right to Know Campaign. Napa Patch welcomes your letters as well at napa@patch.com.

Dear Editor:

We are writing to encourage the local community to get behind the “yes” on Proposition 37 campaign to require the labeling of genetically engineered food in California, which will be voted on this November. 

Over the past decade, polls have consistently shown that about 90 percent of Americans want GE foods labeled and that a majority would prefer not to eat them. Because the government has failed to require such labeling, due to the lobbying efforts of large biotech corporations that have developed and profit from this technology, citizens in California have led a grassroots effort to bring this issue directly to the voters, bypassing the government and its corporate influence.

In the past, the biotech industry has claimed that the FDA has thoroughly evaluated GE foods and found them to be safe; this claim is untrue. FDA documents, made public from a lawsuit, reveal that in the early ‘90s FDA scientists warned that GE foods could create toxins, allergens, nutritional problems, and cancer, which might be difficult to link to GE foods, especially if they are unlabeled. Nevertheless, political appointees at the FDA, with strong ties to industry, ignored their own scientists; and, still to this day, official FDA policy claims that GE foods are "substantially equivalent" to natural foods and do not, therefore, require safety testing nor labeling. 

The fact that Monsanto Corporation is the main producer of GE foods and is responsible for ensuring its own products’ safety is even more disconcerting, since claims of its earlier products’ safety (Agent Orange, PCBs, and DDT) were later found to be untrue.  Furthermore, based on animal feeding trials that have been done linking GE foods to health problems, such as allergies, gastro-intestinal problems, toxicity to the liver and kidneys, and infertility, in 2009 the American Academy of Environmental Medicine began recommending that people avoid eating GE foods, which would be possible only if they are labeled. That organization, as well as the American Public Health Association, has endorsed Proposition 37.

During this campaign, surely the opposition will say that mandating the labeling of GE foods will cause food prices to go up, a fear it knows will resonate with people during these hard economic times.  However, the initiative was written to be of no cost to Terms the state.  It does not limit but also does not require that the government enforce the law.  Instead, it gives citizens and non-governmental organizations the right to bring an action in superior court, and allows the court to impose an injunction restraining any person from violating the law and to award all reasonable costs of investigating and prosecuting the action.  In addition, about fifty countries already require that GE foods be labeled, including major US trading partners, such as the European Union and Japan, as well as Australia, New Zealand, China, Korea, India, and many others.  Major food suppliers already know which food is GE and which is not as they already have to label it in these countries; proponents of Proposition 37 merely want that same right—the right to know if a food product has been genetically engineered or contains a GE ingredient, so they can avoid it if they so choose.

If you would like to get more involved in this campaign, please considering going online to endorse, donate money to, and/or volunteer to help out with Proposition 37 at http://www.carighttoknow.org/, or join our local Facebook group at http://www.facebook.com/groups/labelgmosnapa/.

California Right to Know Campaign, Napa Group

Erica Martenson, Co-coordinator

Joyce Nichols, Co-coordinator

Napa Patch welcomes letters to the editor. You can email them to napa@patch.com or post them directly in our Local Voices section by clicking the "start a blog" button on our home page. 

Do you have a comment? We'd like to know what you think. Napa Patch asks that commenters use human names, rather than slogans, when taking part in our community conversation. If you'd rather remain anonymous, feel free to email comments to napa@patch.com.

Napa Patch becomes Napa Valley Patch Sept. 27! Follow us on Twitter | Like us on Facebook | Sign up for the daily email with links to the latest news | Got something to say? Start a blog and share your views with the valley.

Scott Yeager September 10, 2012 at 07:17 PM
I am voting yes on 37. But I actually prefer big business being able to put whatever they want in the food they sell and not have to label it. The more pesticide, chemicals and GMO's the better. You can't infringe on their right to be secretive about what we eat when they have profits to think about!
jennifer September 11, 2012 at 12:42 AM
Is Scott being sarcastic?
MICHAEL WILSON "Republican Kid" September 11, 2012 at 01:06 AM
Vote NO More tax Wast in the Enforcement of the law
Scott Yeager September 11, 2012 at 01:13 AM
What do you think? It actually is a not so extreme parody of many people who leave comments on this site.
MICHAEL WILSON "Republican Kid" September 11, 2012 at 02:03 AM
Scott is a funny guy
Scott Yeager September 11, 2012 at 02:27 AM
Monsanto is not your friend nor are they friends to family farms or farmers. They have patents on seeds and when their patented seeds contaminate a farmers non-patented seeds they want money from the farmers, lots of money. Here's an example. Farmers don't want their seeds. Many farmers have had their own seeds for decades, even generations. http://youtu.be/OLzELDt3d2I
E September 13, 2012 at 11:46 PM
Yes, when I read the comment section of the paper, this Malcolm X quotes comes to mind: "If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the oppressor."
E September 13, 2012 at 11:50 PM
Mr. Wilson, maybe you didn't make it to the end of the letter: "(The initiative) does not limit but also does not require that the government enforce the law. Instead, it gives citizens and non-governmental organizations the right to bring an action in superior court, and allows the court to impose an injunction restraining any person from violating the law and to award all reasonable costs of investigating and prosecuting the action."
MICHAEL WILSON "Republican Kid" September 21, 2012 at 10:01 PM
The court would be the enforcement arm of the Law. Running the court is not fee
John Richards October 16, 2012 at 09:32 PM
Processed foods are already required to be labeled for potential allergens such as peanuts, eggs, dairy, etc. That has not caused a flood of law suits or other large costs. So why would labeling for GMO be problematic?


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something