The Election!
 

Noooo, I'm not about to invite an Obama-Romney debate, but I am fascinated with this aspect of voting day: Proposed Law Calls for GMO Labeling | National News | United States | Epoch Times

In California, voters will have the opportunity to vote for whether GMO foods must be labeled as such. It's thought to have huge implications, because often, as California goes, so goes the rest of the nation eventually.

I read about this a couple months ago and I've been on a mission ever since to find as much information as I can so I can make the best decisions for myself and my family. Figuring out how to do this, without breaking the food budget, has been challenging. And as is often the case, the internet provides way too much information for my own good!

Does anyone have some thoughts on this? I think GMOs were discussed a while back in a thread, but thought I'd post since we have so many new folks now.

I'd vote for it!
 

This issue came up several times in my nutrition and sustainability classes in school. I'm sure that there would probably be a higher food cost in the beginning, but it would probably level out in about a year, and the potential reduction in medical bills would greatly outweigh the start up costs.

It's an interesting issue. Will all the hybred grains be considered genetically modified? There are many that have been modified over the past 60 years to resist disease, produce more, mature sooner or be more drought or frost resistant. They were modified by selected plant breeding - not gene munipulation at the cellular level, but modified all the same.

I guess labeling would allow people to make an informed choice. Mary

Against: GMOs
For: labelling

Being in California my opinion is that it's a wonderful idea, but the ballot initiative is really flawed (as is often the case with voter written legislation). The way it is written it will have a ton of unintended consequences in part because of the exemptions and frankly many food processors don't really know whether their supplies are GMO or not. (Perhaps that's part of the purpose).

As far as GMOs goes, I would rather not eat foods that have DNA imported from a completely different organism, but genetic manipulation is what breeding programs are all about, so we have, in essence, been eating GMOs since the first farmers started saving seeds from plants that exhibited some prefered characteristic.

I really hate the Monsanto GMOs that have created herbicide resistant plants so farmers can spray the heck out of fields, but GMOs that have enhances nutrient qualities, like golden rice, seem ultimately beneficial for populations that cannot get enough vitamin A (I think it is A... but don't quote me) through their regular diet.

I think the GMO question is really complicated, and to universally ban them as some countries have done, is probably short sighted. But I do agree that consumers ought to have enough information to make informed choices, just as we do when we are comparing a can of beans that has added sugar or salt vs. one w/o the sugar & salt. I'm just do not think that the proposed ballot measure is the right mechanism.