Laura Pezzini
lpezzini@mustangdaily.net
Proposition 37, which involves labeling genetically modified food, will heavily affect California’s agriculture industry if passed this November, according to students and instructors from the College of Agriculture, Food and Environmental Sciences.
Proposition 37 is more complicated than simply making sure genetically modified organisms (GMOs) at grocery stores are labeled. If the proposition passes, foods containing any genetically modified ingredients must be labeled as such, and cannot be marketed as “natural.” Exceptions are included for meat, alcohol, certified organic foods and other various reasons.
Opponents of the proposition argue it is not written well.
“There’s an important clarification that I think needs to be made, because everybody’s all up in arms about the right to know what’s in their food,” agricultural education and communication professor Scott Vernon said. “Philosophically, I’m not opposed to that; I think that’s healthy to know that. The problem is the bill itself.”
Vernon said the bill does not make sense for the agriculture industry because it would cause not only unnecessary expenses for agricultural companies, but could also open doors to legal issues.
“Then the gates are opened for people who may have mislabeled their food,” Vernon said. “And you have to go way back in the food chain. It may be somewhere back in the food chain where GMOs got into this product. Now all of a sudden you can sue all the way back down the line, all the way to the grower themselves.”
Vernon also questioned why people are concerned about GMOs in the first place. He blamed this fear of genetic modification on a lack of knowledge.
“I believe people are illiterate about science, and they tend not to trust what they don’t know,” he said.
Agribusiness professor Wayne Howard echoed this argument.
“For a science that’s so dependent on science and technology, it’s amazing how ignorant people are of science and technology,” Howard said. “I don’t have concerns about GMOs.”
Students also have issues with the proposition. Agriculture and environmental plant sciences senior Zach Weimortz compared the double standards evident in the bill to almond production.
“Personally I feel that it has double standards against, for example, almonds,” Weimortz said. “Almonds are a natural product which are usually eaten roasted and not raw, but when they’re roasted, under that prop they’re going to be considered not natural and they can’t be labeled as natural. It’s lying, it’s still natural.”
The idea of a standard for “natural” food is at the core of Proposition 37. The bill is backed in part by organic food companies, which Vernon claims is why certified organic food is exempt from labeling.
“You have to understand who’s behind this bill, who’s for it: the organic side to the industry,” Vernon said. “And certainly that’s going to benefit them because they’re not going to have the same expenses.”
The expenses the bill would create for food companies are another issue those opposed to the proposition have.
“It’s naive to think that the companies themselves are going to absorb all that cost,” Vernon said. “They’re going to pass it right along to the consumer, and so there’s a good indication that your food costs will go up.”
Food science senior Juan Beltran also had a problem with the way the proposition would affect business.
“Labeling something as genetically modified turns people away, and I think it’s just bad business,” Beltran said.
Some students, however, are more forgiving of Proposition 37. Agribusiness senior Nick Allen said he can see the benefits in its effect on the agricultural industry.
“I feel like it would be good just to get attention out to Monsanto,” Allen said. “They can attack smaller farmers and I don’t think that’s right. I’m just kind of on the fence about it.”
What a biased one-sided article. It’s good the title ruined that particular spoiler.
Not only did the journalist continue to perpetuate a FALSEHOOD by Weimortz, she did nothing to contradict it.
No numbers to cite as to the estimated cost this would bring to businesses? Listing the organic organizations backing the bill but lacking the Pepsico, Del Monte, DOW, General Mills — BIG name corporations trying to fight the bill?
Terrible article. How could the editors let this go through?
This is a very biased article with many logical fallacies. One that I noticed right away was, “For a science that’s so dependent on science and technology, it’s amazing how ignorant people are of science and technology..” Not only does that not make sense, it is going in a circle, also known as, begging the question.
Clearly, there is a typo in the quote from Dr. Howard, it should read “For a SOCIETY that’s so dependent…” This is absolutely correct. Our society relies on fact-based science. Unfortunately, credible science has become clouded by pseudoscience, which is exactly what Prop 37 is based on.
The Yes on Prop 37 campaign has built its argument on a study linking GMOs to cancer, which has been entirely discredited by the science and research community. There is currently no peer-reviewed, credible study showing any health implications of ingesting GMO products.
Not to mention, Prop 37 was not even drafted by concerned consumers, but rather by sue-happy lawyers. Dr. Kellogg makes a valid point when he says “Now all of a sudden you can sue all the way back down the line, all the way to the grower themselves.” That’s all this proposition is about – opening to the door to frivolous lawsuits in typical California style.
Any food product that is “processed” will no longer be able to be labeled as “natural.” The almond scenario mentioned in the article is an excellent example of how many natural products will no longer be able to be labeled as such due to the unnecessary and unsubstantiated requirements of Prop 37.
Voters simply do not take the time to educate themselves on the issues that affect them directly. Furthermore, campaigns are allowed to run rampant with bogus studies that voters take as fact. I’m not sure what the biggest problem is here, that campaigns such as Prop 37 continually spew false information with no consequence, or that voters blindly accept their statements as fact?
This bill will increase food costs to the consumer, likely dissuade certain companies from selling their product in the state, and give consumers the false impression that GMOs are detrimental to their health.
P.s. @Selina – The entire agriculture community, with the exception of organics (because, let’s face it, this will likely result in a temporary boost of sales for them) is against this proposition. The California Farm Bureau opposes as well the commodity trade associations that represent farmers and operations of all sizes.
Firstly, the “processed” almond scenario is untrue. If you had read Proposition 37, you would see that it requires labeling of genetically modified processed OR raw foods. Key word: genetically modified.
I, as a consumer, have the right to know what’s in my food. And this article does nothing to address why people should remain ignorant, instead focusing on the negative business impact of this initiative.
This entire article is based on some of the ideas from students and instructors from the College of Agriculture, Food and Environmental Sciences. Who is to say that just because these few people believe that proposition 37 shouldn’t pass, that this decision is the best choice. It is made out to seem as though this is the popular belief, hence everyone agrees. The article is based fully upon a bandwagon appeal. We do not see commentary from the oppositional side, so we are left to believe that this side of the argument is the only “truth.”
“Vernon also questioned why people are concerned about GMOs in the first place. He blamed this fear of genetic modification on a lack of knowledge.”
Untrue.
IMHO the more you know about GMO the more you fear it. Ask yourself why Monsanto fears independent research to the extent that it does…
Facts can be checked at the local, state and national farm beau. I personally had a long conversation with my local rep before making any decision, and personally discussed that particular product before letting anybody quote me. Good job mustang daily I thought you did great.
I would also like to add that most of the CAFES students and teachers aren’t against labeling, but the bill itself dosent make since…. It needs some work.
“Untrue.” -are you kidding me?
How many times have we seen consumers shun and fear products that they don’t understand?
Irradiated foods anyone? The majority of “educated consumers” thought this process put radiation in food.
Do you buy foods because they say all natural or organic on them? Do you really have any idea what it takes to get that label?
Don’t kid yourself thinking that labeling foods genetically modified will not turn them away because they have NO IDEA what it really means. The bill is poorly written as it does not create a solid definition of what Genetic Modification means for this bill, and contradicts the industry and scientific definitions.
Although the article is biased, for it is titled “the aggie perspective” after all, it is instilling fear in its readers. Legal issues are always going to be present and it is only thought that food prices will rise from this labeling. The label will not necessarily turn consumers away and thus hurt business as the article points out it would.
Even from the title, The aggie perspective, they are already illustrating that the opinions will be coming from ag students. It is biased in that their ideals are not consistent with the rest of the general public. This bandwagon appeal tries to promote this information as factual evidence, without validity of facts and statistics that are essential when trying to be credible. They also make generalizations ” I believe people are illiterate about science, and they tend not to trust what they don’t know,”
“Labeling something as genetically modified turns people away, and I think it’s just bad business,” Beltran said.
Both of these insinuate a general opinion about the public that is not a consistent belief everyone holds. You never know, some people may love the idea of consuming genetically modified food.
“I believe people are illiterate about science, and they tend not to trust what they don’t know,” he said.
This quote used in the Aggie Perspective Article is a hasty generalization and isn’t useful to the argument your trying to make.
Perhaps all those people bashing on agriculture should spend a day on the farm and see what really goes into food production. Take a horticulture or crop science class and see it from the perspective of the producer. Just because Monsanto and other big name companies use GMO seed does not mean they are ruining the earth. Do some research.
I agree completely Theresa. Many people give their thoughts on this topic so boldly with so much emotion and more often then not, have no first hand connection or experience in what is really going on agriculture and farming. While discrediting and claiming bias to those, such as the individuals quoted in the article, people from the College of Agriculture who know and live firsthand what is happening in the farming community.
Last time I checked a farmer is also a consumer who just like everyone else cares that the food we ALL eat is wholesome and safe. Actually talk to a farmer and visit his farm and you might be surprised to discover that agriculture is not out to harm us.
“I believe people are illiterate about science, and they tend not to trust what they don’t know,” he said.
There is definitely name-calling in this statement and Vernon should steer away from this if he wants these “illiterate people” to be on his side. He is also rationalizing illiteracy as the reason why people are voting for Prop 37.
“Vernon said the bill does not make sense for the agriculture industry because it would cause not only unnecessary expenses for agricultural companies, but could also open doors to legal issues.”
This is an example of a non sequitur because he is missing the information between the unnecessary expenses and legal issues.
Kudos to calling out how a professor just dumbed down the people he’s trying to deceive.
This entire article shares the opinions of agriculture-based students and teachers and their oppositions toward GMO labeling. This creates the illusion that every “Aggie” must be against it, so the reader should be too (bandwagon appeal). I understand the article was presenting “the Aggie perspective”, but it would have been a more thorough argument had the opposite perspective from possibly an environmental based or health based opinion been drawn.
The “organic side of the industry” is completely polarized as attacking the agriculture business for their own benefit. This does not represent the diverse set of people and opinions behind Prop 37 and oversimplifies the complex arguments in support of GMO labeling. It’s not all about money.
The statement provided by Beltran is not effectively helping your argument, as it commits a fallacy of oversimplification. While yes, turning people away affects business, the argument that genetically modified foods leads to bad business is not at all supported and the claim is thus far too general to make a claim out of.
What are being called loopholes and exceptions are in fact following the current requirements for the nutrition label. You get a nutrition label for food in a store, but not when eatting out, or when food is delivered. Meat at the store does not have a nutrition label now and there is no requirement to add one in Prop 37, also there is no GMO (transgenic) meat on the market to label. Dairy is exempt because there are no transgenic dairy cows now, and would only require labeling if the dairy product comes from a transgenic cow. For non-transgenic animals eatting GMO (transgenic) feed there is no need to label. Organic is exempt because the National Organic Standards already exclude GMO’s (transgenic) from organics.
Monsanto is the biggest donor to No on 37 (+-7 million) and it holds many patents on GMO seeds & Roundup. Monsanto is not spending $7 million to defeat 37 as a public service to protect you from higher food costs, lawsuits and exceptions. They stand to lose money because they can only sell it now in the USA for human food by not labeling it.
Right now, food processors are able to substitute ever increasing percentages of lower cost GMO crops into the American diet only because there are no labeling requirements: the lower cost ingredients are invisible. It is a nice little racket that labeling would blow out of the water, and labeling might stop them from forcing everyone to have a GMO diet and no choice at all. Farmers are now having trouble finding non-GMO seed to plant in the USA. GMO commodities sell for less on world markets than both non-GMO (conventional) and organic because they cannot sell it for anything other than animal feed in Europe: consumers rejected it. They don’t want it, they don’t need it and there are no benefits and only risk.
Do you really believe that the governments and scientists in the 50 countries that now require labeling of GMO’s had no valid reasons for requiring labeling and are therefore unscientific and unaware? The multi-nationals opposing 37 represent the agrochemical, biotech and food sectors which all stand to gain from not labeling GMO’s. If you want a choice, vote Yes on 37.
It saddens me how people stand up for big business in scenarios like this. I see a bunch of “OH, if we begin to label GMOs then the consumer will see higher prices!!”
If we did begin to see increases in the price of food due to GMO labeling, what would be the underlying reason? (which is just a prediction, not fact) It would be because those in charge of these huge food corporations are so goddamn greedy they have to pass along the cost to their consumers just like the rest of ’em.
We deserve to know what’s in our food, and exactly how it’s “created.”