Unless you’ve been living under rock (and if you’ve been living under a rock, well, you’re probably not reading this brand-new local-news website), you know that Proposition 37 is Big News, both here in the Coachella Valley and around the country.
In summary: Prop 37, on the Nov. 6 ballot, would require that any food using genetically engineered ingredients be labeled as such (save meats, dairy products and booze). Proponents say that consumers have a right to know what they’re putting in their bodies; opponents say that such labels are unnecessary and would cause unneeded concern, since many scientists say genetically engineered foods are perfectly safe.
We at the Independent believe that more information is always better, so we think Prop 37 has more pluses and minuses. But there are minuses.
For your enlightenment and/or entertainment (and/or horrification), are some links to some links to Prop 37 stories, from news sources around the country, that cover those pluses and minuses.
This is a helpful Q&A if you’re just confused as heck, and you want the basics.
- NPR’s “The Salt” blog: As California Vote Looms, Scientists Say No to Labeling Genetically Modified Foods
This piece points out that the American Association for the Advancement of Science—the folks behind Science magazine—thinks that labeling would “mislead and falsely alarm consumers.”
This interesting, but flawed (see the intro editor’s note and the comments) points out how some science is hinting that there could be dangers lurking in genetically engineered eats.
Populist Jim Hightower, who’s a big fan of Prop 37, points out how some organic-food companies—who like Prop 37—have been exposing the fact that they’ve been bought out big food companies—who are decidedly against Prop 37.
This is a nice, recentprimer on how much dough is being spent on the campaign, and by whom.
This article, despite some serious hyperbole, discusses some of the legal issues regarding the proposition.
So, there you go … a little light reading on an important topic.