HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Places » U.S. » California (Group) » Poll finds Prop. 37 is li...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 10:54 AM

Poll finds Prop. 37 is likely to pass

In USC Dornsife/L.A. Times poll, supporters of labeling for genetically engineered food outnumber foes 2 to 1.

By more than a 2-to-1 margin, California voters favor an initiative to require food manufacturers and retailers to label fresh produce and processed foods that contain genetically engineered ingredients.

With less than six weeks until election day, Proposition 37 is supported by 61% of registered voters and opposed by 25%, according to a new USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll. An additional 14% were undecided or refused to answer.

The poll showed broad support among voter groups, but the interviews took place before Tuesday's start of a major television advertising blitz by opponents aimed at changing voters' minds on the issue.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-prop37-times-poll-20120927,0,5015236.story

23 replies, 2638 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 23 replies Author Time Post
Reply Poll finds Prop. 37 is likely to pass (Original post)
bemildred Sep 2012 OP
KansDem Sep 2012 #1
bemildred Sep 2012 #2
David__77 Sep 2012 #3
bemildred Sep 2012 #4
pinboy3niner Sep 2012 #5
nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #10
antiquie Sep 2012 #11
roody Oct 2012 #14
David__77 Oct 2012 #15
chowder66 Oct 2012 #17
Le Taz Hot Oct 2012 #16
roody Oct 2012 #19
Retrograde Sep 2012 #7
bemildred Sep 2012 #8
pinto Sep 2012 #9
Johonny Oct 2012 #18
Tumbulu Oct 2012 #20
SoapBox Sep 2012 #6
Le Taz Hot Sep 2012 #12
bemildred Oct 2012 #13
Tumbulu Oct 2012 #21
bemildred Oct 2012 #22
Starry Messenger Oct 2012 #23

Response to bemildred (Original post)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 11:12 AM

1. Why would anyone be against this?

Why would anyone not want to know that their food contained GEOs?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KansDem (Reply #1)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 11:16 AM

2. The pubic must be kept ignorant so it can be exploited the better.

That's why. They used to work to keep the slaves and women ignorant, now it's voters and consumers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KansDem (Reply #1)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 11:31 AM

3. I have no position yet. If there is no evidence that it's harmful, then why label it?

And I'm not saying that there is no evidence - just not any that I'm aware of. I hope it's not harmful..... If it's not, then there should be no need for a label.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Reply #3)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 11:38 AM

4. Because people have a right to know what they are buying.

Last edited Thu Sep 27, 2012, 12:10 PM - Edit history (1)

The same reason that anything else has labels. What is needed is evidence that it is safe, and people ought not have that determination made for them, they get to make up their own minds about what they want to eat, like adults.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Reply #3)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 04:03 PM

5. There is cause for concern

Posted in GD by kpete:

Genetically Modified Corn Causes Cancer in Lab Rats: Higher Levels Of Cancers, Larger Tumors, ...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021426181

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Reply #3)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 03:30 PM

10. You do know that the EU has actually

said NYET to even selling this crap. There is scientific reason for that. Oh and the science is starting to pile up by the way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Reply #3)

Sun Sep 30, 2012, 09:26 AM

11. Try this: GMO Movie 2012

There have been many studies by respected scientists that have not been well-published.



After you are convinced, http://organicconsumers.org/letter-9-28.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Reply #3)

Mon Oct 1, 2012, 06:36 PM

14. Is there evidence that they are safe?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roody (Reply #14)

Mon Oct 1, 2012, 08:22 PM

15. I don't know...

Like I said, I don't know enough about it. I suppose if safety has not been reasonably demonstrated, they should not be sold. But if it has, then I don't see the need for labeling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Reply #15)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 07:00 PM

17. If you don't know enough then why would you have an issue with knowing more by seeing it on a label

It's not like it is going to be a label that says HEY don't buy this because it might be bad, or HEY buy this because it might be good. It is just a lable saying it is a GMO or partial GMO, etc.

For those of us who would like to know if our food is engineered we would like the option of not purchasing it just like if someone wants to know the sugar, wheat or caloric content of their foods.

Here's a simple way to be okay with this;

If you find out you support GMO food sometime in the future then if it is labeled you can now find it and support it by purchasing it.

If you find out you do not support GMO food sometime in the future then if it is labeled you can now find it and choose not to support it by not purchasing it.

If you don't care, skip reading the label.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Reply #3)

Tue Oct 2, 2012, 06:19 AM

16. Here's a question.

When is the last time Monsanto, DuPont and ConAgra had our best interests in mind when producing anything? These are the same people who came up with Agent Orange and told us it wasn't harmful to humans. Same thing with DDT.

If you're unsure of any proposition it helps to find out who is backing each side. Ask yourself why the special interests have poured $32 million into the "No on 37" campaign and then find out where that money came from. Then do the same with the other side.

Remember, this doesn't BAN GMO's, it just requires labeling and manufacturers change labels all the time so the cost in negligible.

There is NO reason to vote anything but "YES ON 37"!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David__77 (Reply #3)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 06:39 PM

19. Currently gmo foods can be labeled "natural."

There is nothing natural about inter-species genes. Prop 37 will not allow GE foods to be labeled "Natural." That alone is enough reason to vote YES. Manufacturers change their packaging about every six months to a year anyway. The added cost is bogus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KansDem (Reply #1)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 01:32 AM

7. Remember Prop. 65?

It was intended to notify people of possible carcinogens. What ended up happening is we have signs in practically every business in the state telling people that something in it contains known carcinogens. No indication of what that may be: the signs are contentless so they're ignored.

I haven't received my voter guide yet, so I haven't read the text. I'm of several minds. On the pro side: more detailed labeling is good, Monsanto is against it. On the con side: it's something that should be done on a national rather than a state basis, I don't know who exactly wrote it or is supporting it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Retrograde (Reply #7)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 08:42 AM

8. Yes, and I'd still vote for it.

It is a good thing that businesses have to be mindful of what they are about and post notices, and it is they, not the general public, that the law is primarily for. It means, among other things, that they cannot pretend that they did not know. Much the same thinking is why I support this law too. The idea is not so much to make me read the labels, as to make the manufacturers write them, they ought to be responsible and forthcoming about their products for their own good, as well as mine. For far too long the US economy has been based on dissembling and deceit (AKA "marketing").

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Retrograde (Reply #7)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 11:45 AM

9. It was put on the ballot by petition signatures. Unsure who initiated the petition.

Supporters of record (from the voter guide) include Center for Food Safety, Lundberg Family Farms, Consumer Watchdog, Swanton Berry Farm, Pesticide Action Network, and an individual Pediatrician.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Retrograde (Reply #7)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:06 PM

18. I agree

I will probably vote for it, but I am totally clear that Prop 65 shows labeling has little affect. The GMO companies aren't stupid. once this passes they will try to get this label on as much food as possible. Once the market is saturated, no one will read the labels. Well almost no one, I imagine a lot of DUers will read them, but the general public...

Labels are nice... actual lab testing to prove something is safe or not safe to add to our food supply is nicer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Johonny (Reply #18)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 09:07 PM

20. The Union of Concerned Scientists calls for both

testing and labeling.

Prop 37 is a start. Complete transparent regulatory testing should have been required 30 years ago....but better late than never.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Original post)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 11:12 PM

6. Wasn't there just a post that Russia had put a stop to GMO corn?

...I think it should be my decision, whether to eat this FrankenFood, NOT some giant corporation's decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Original post)

Sun Sep 30, 2012, 11:14 PM

12. Yess!!!!!

That's $32 million against $4 million and Monsanto et al are still losing. I know the media blitz hasn't started yet but these numbers are looking REALLY good. It's the first poll numbers I've seen on 37.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #12)

Mon Oct 1, 2012, 09:39 AM

13. I was very pleased too. Two-to-one is going to be hard to whittle down. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #12)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 09:07 PM

21. I have heard that the media blitz is making it a close call now

which is so upsetting!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #21)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 08:50 AM

22. I sense "a pox on all of them" sentiment rising.

Maybe it's all the lies and obfuscation. Sometimes noise IS the strategy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Original post)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 07:34 PM

23. I will be so fucking pissed if this passes and Yes on 30 loses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread