Danny DeVito and Crew Speak Out for Prop 37, GMO Labeling | Common Dreams

We know not the effect of genetically engineered foods on disease, but common sense will tell you that it can't be good.  I don't want Monsanto dictating what I feed my body, do you?

Danny DeVito and Crew Speak Out for Prop 37, GMO Labeling | Common Dreams

Published on Tuesday, October 9, 2012 by Food & Water Watch

Danny DeVito and Crew Speak Out for Prop 37, GMO Labeling

In November, Californians will vote on Prop 37 requiring that GE foods be labeled. Just as labels list fat, sodium and sugar, labels should tell the buyer whether or not the product includes genetically engineered ingredients.

Unfortunately, major corporations like Monsanto are pouring billions of dollars into this election in order to confuse voters, and protect their bottom line.

Sign the pledge here if you plan to vote YES on Prop 37 and support the labeling of genetically engineered foods in California.

Here also is an interesting article published in 2010 by http://www.farmaid.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=qlI5IhNVJsE&b=2723877&ct=8939681&notoc=1     

"With the power to own and patent genetics, seed companies can demand even more control over the market as a whole. The seed industry has suffered enormous concentration of power in the past few decades, with at least 200 independent seed companies exiting the market in the last fifteen years and four companies now controlling over 50% of the market. This consolidation means farmers have far fewer options for seed varieties. Meanwhile, farmers have seen the sharpest rise in seed prices during the period in which GE crops rose in prominence.[13]

In this sense, the deregulation of new GE varieties comes as a slap in the face to the farmers and eaters who put their trust in the USDA and Department of Justice as they examined antitrust abuses in our food system this past year, including specific investigations into Monsanto and the seed industry. The newest wave of GE products will only further corporate control over our food supply, putting the interests of corporations far before the needs of farmers and eaters.

The bottom line? 
Surely, this is a lot to take in. Genetic engineering is a complicated topic, with a broad set of consequences for our society. There are many questions left unanswered about how GE will impact farmers and eaters, and even less clarity about how these impacts will be managed.

Until our regulatory system and the biotech companies themselves properly address the risks inherent in GE crops, farmers and eaters have a right to reject them. Releasing GE crops into the fields without mitigating their risks is gambling with our health, our environment and livelihoods of family farmers."