Posted by eliza gale on April 18, 2012 - 10:09pm
Pamm Larry is the Initial Instigator and Northern California Director of the California movement to label genetically modified foods. They are the sponsor of a ballot initiative to label GMOs entitled "The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act". Here is a link to her website:
www.LabelGMOs.org
1. Why should we label genetically modified foods?
Because was have a right to know what we are buying. Informed consumer choice should supersede corporate rights to a nontransparent profit. Trangenics/cisgenics have had NO long term human studies. Independent (non-industry funded) animal studies all indicate problems. Some of their toxins/GE pesticides have been found in fetal cord blood. Almost 50 countries label worldwide including the EU and China. We have a right to know what we are eating and feeding our children, too.
2. Why did you decide to petition this issue on to the ballot rather than lobbying Congress or the State Legislature?
Because it's been tried over 40 times over the years on both state and national levels and has gone nowhere.
3. Why are you doing this on a state level instead of a national level?
There is no such thing as a national ballot initiative. The initiative process is for the people to have the option to take a strong stand when their elected officials are not listening to them. It is time.
4. Foods have been genetically modified for years, why do you think documentaries and the public have become so interested in them recently?
Because they are angry that they have been lied to. And my guess is that is going to increase as they become more aware of the collusion of chemical companies, corporate agribusiness and government and what has been done to them without their consent, all for a profit.
5. Truth or rumor; California is more health conscience than the rest of the country?
I don't think that's true. I've traveled around and think Chicago, New York, Washington, Colorado and many more states/cities are very health conscious.
6. What is the anticipated monetary cost of enforcing this measure if it becomes law?
The attorney general has the opinion that it will cost the taxpayers of CA about 17 cents per person and an "undisclosed" amount for court costs. Of course, our analysts have a different opinion that include that CA could actually make money off this from fines for corporations that get caught mislabeling.
7. How long would companies be given to comply with the law?
They have 18 months for the macro-ingredients and 7 years for an exemption that allows for .5% of no more than 10 micro-ingredients each. The reason for that exemption is that many of the micro-ingredients can only be sourced GMO. It would be undue hardship on the industry to make it shorter than that so could impact the ability of this to have the full support it could. Remember Prop 2, The Humane Chicken Act? That one has a phase in period of 20 years. I think ours fair.
8. What is the most common misconception about GMOs?
That we have been doing this form genetic engineering for thousands of years so what's the problem? Trans/cisgenics are NOT the same thing as natural selection or hybridization. A fish and a tomato would never cross in nature. A human gene would never end up in rice. I am so amused at how effective this highly funded PR campaign has twisted the story of what they are doing and what these things are. Amazing, how suggestible we are.
Second to that would be that we cannot label because of feeding the world. What? First off, both the UN and UC Davis have studies and papers on how this simply isn't the way to feed the world. If it was, then why isn't that happening with so many GMOS on the market? Hunger is more, not less of a problem. The only way this planet can continue and feed us is for us to take care of it through agro-ecological practices.
But whether you want to consider the data or not, that isn't even the issue...the truth is that this is a ridiculous attempt at sidetracking labeling genetically engineered ingredients. What does labeling food here have to do with feeding the world? How, exactly, are they connected? Just another attempt at confusing people. Their PR campaigns take issues and turn them upside down or combine disparate issues. Very slick, very smart...but their stories are falling apart in the face of truth.
9. Is there any instance in which genetically modifying food has made that food more nutritious?
There isn't ONE GMO food on the market that can make that claim. There is one rice in development that it touted to increase Vitamin A. But what they forget to mention is that for the Vitamin A to work, the diet has to also have a high amount of protein. And we all know that folks who are starving, don't get lots of protein. The vitamin A could be easily gotten from a plate of veggies instead of rice.
10. What would you say to someone (Mr. Brady) who says, "let the buyer beware"?
Not sure what you mean by that, so feel uncomfortable answering it.
Tune in for the rebuttal on Tuesday!
Please note; Eliza's interviews are done by email. All answers are unedited and come right from the lovely fingertips of her subjects:)
www.LabelGMOs.org
1. Why should we label genetically modified foods?
Because was have a right to know what we are buying. Informed consumer choice should supersede corporate rights to a nontransparent profit. Trangenics/cisgenics have had NO long term human studies. Independent (non-industry funded) animal studies all indicate problems. Some of their toxins/GE pesticides have been found in fetal cord blood. Almost 50 countries label worldwide including the EU and China. We have a right to know what we are eating and feeding our children, too.
2. Why did you decide to petition this issue on to the ballot rather than lobbying Congress or the State Legislature?
Because it's been tried over 40 times over the years on both state and national levels and has gone nowhere.
3. Why are you doing this on a state level instead of a national level?
There is no such thing as a national ballot initiative. The initiative process is for the people to have the option to take a strong stand when their elected officials are not listening to them. It is time.
4. Foods have been genetically modified for years, why do you think documentaries and the public have become so interested in them recently?
Because they are angry that they have been lied to. And my guess is that is going to increase as they become more aware of the collusion of chemical companies, corporate agribusiness and government and what has been done to them without their consent, all for a profit.
5. Truth or rumor; California is more health conscience than the rest of the country?
I don't think that's true. I've traveled around and think Chicago, New York, Washington, Colorado and many more states/cities are very health conscious.
6. What is the anticipated monetary cost of enforcing this measure if it becomes law?
The attorney general has the opinion that it will cost the taxpayers of CA about 17 cents per person and an "undisclosed" amount for court costs. Of course, our analysts have a different opinion that include that CA could actually make money off this from fines for corporations that get caught mislabeling.
7. How long would companies be given to comply with the law?
They have 18 months for the macro-ingredients and 7 years for an exemption that allows for .5% of no more than 10 micro-ingredients each. The reason for that exemption is that many of the micro-ingredients can only be sourced GMO. It would be undue hardship on the industry to make it shorter than that so could impact the ability of this to have the full support it could. Remember Prop 2, The Humane Chicken Act? That one has a phase in period of 20 years. I think ours fair.
8. What is the most common misconception about GMOs?
That we have been doing this form genetic engineering for thousands of years so what's the problem? Trans/cisgenics are NOT the same thing as natural selection or hybridization. A fish and a tomato would never cross in nature. A human gene would never end up in rice. I am so amused at how effective this highly funded PR campaign has twisted the story of what they are doing and what these things are. Amazing, how suggestible we are.
Second to that would be that we cannot label because of feeding the world. What? First off, both the UN and UC Davis have studies and papers on how this simply isn't the way to feed the world. If it was, then why isn't that happening with so many GMOS on the market? Hunger is more, not less of a problem. The only way this planet can continue and feed us is for us to take care of it through agro-ecological practices.
But whether you want to consider the data or not, that isn't even the issue...the truth is that this is a ridiculous attempt at sidetracking labeling genetically engineered ingredients. What does labeling food here have to do with feeding the world? How, exactly, are they connected? Just another attempt at confusing people. Their PR campaigns take issues and turn them upside down or combine disparate issues. Very slick, very smart...but their stories are falling apart in the face of truth.
9. Is there any instance in which genetically modifying food has made that food more nutritious?
There isn't ONE GMO food on the market that can make that claim. There is one rice in development that it touted to increase Vitamin A. But what they forget to mention is that for the Vitamin A to work, the diet has to also have a high amount of protein. And we all know that folks who are starving, don't get lots of protein. The vitamin A could be easily gotten from a plate of veggies instead of rice.
10. What would you say to someone (Mr. Brady) who says, "let the buyer beware"?
Not sure what you mean by that, so feel uncomfortable answering it.
Tune in for the rebuttal on Tuesday!
Please note; Eliza's interviews are done by email. All answers are unedited and come right from the lovely fingertips of her subjects:)
_0.JPG)
Comments (4)