Presidential Election 2012 and Proposition 37

by Mark Tassi

With the way people choose to be and the way they choose to think and act, I can almost understand the failure of Proposition 34, the proposition to end the death penalty in California, to not pass as vile as the implications of that are. But that people would vote down a proposition to enforce the labeling of genetically modified foods, namely Proposition 37, is beyond me. Then again, if people are capable of supporting a law that upholds the State’s “right” to murder a murderer, then I suppose that how they regard those things that they put in their bodies is, to them, inconsequential.

The fact of the matter is that a lot was at stake for large food corporations in the Presidential election last week. They stood to potentially lose millions of dollars or at least to wield less of a powerful influence by the shining of a much brighter light on their dark schemes, and the last thing that they wanted was to shine that kind of illumination upon their underhanded and insidious endeavors the motive, let’s face it, behind which is to gain total control.

Large corporations like Monsanto, DuPont, Dow, Bayer, PepsiCo, Coco Cola, Nestle, General Mills, Kraft, Del Monte and other large corporations spewing out large amounts of processed foods, junk foods and pesticides, spent millions, approximately 46 million dollars, to spread propaganda, misinformation and downright lies in order to sway the public to oppose the passing of such a necessary law.

One of the arguments on the opposing side was the adverse effect that the passing of Prop 37 would have on farmers. Even if this were true, farmers would be in such a position because of impositions put upon them by companies like Monsanto. Secondly, are we to compromise the health of millions because of the effect that Monsanto says that labeling may have on farmers? I am one who wholeheartedly supports farmers, especially small farmers, but to defeat what has become nothing more than a tyrant, a controlling power like Monsanto and others, will require some sacrifice. If a cancer exists, it either needs to be removed or conditions rendered so that that cancer can no longer exist.

Other arguments on the opposing side included higher grocery costs, an increase to taxpayers, causing a host of new law suits targeted at family farmers and grocers without proof and, the most damning of the lot, conflicts with science. Conflicts with science because the AMA, NAS, FDA and 400 other “scientific studies” say that GMO’s are safe? What science are we referring to here and who funded such research is what this one would like to know! To accept these studies is to accept the playing of Russian roulette with a gun aimed firmly at our own heads. We don’t really know the affect that these foods, with which we have no biological experience, will have on us and future generations. To propose that these foods are safe is a downright lie! Biologically engineered foods are not “safe” and we have no proof of their total effects.

The bottom line is that the failure to pass Prop 37 has solidified the future of corporations like Monsanto and the fact that grassroots movements cannot outspend big food. The fact that 61 countries do label GMO’s and we do not only affirms our own ignorance and that we have allowed ourselves to be ruled by corporate greed. But the power is still in our hands. Big food cannot wield power if we do not let them. We can refuse their products and this is what we must do. It is obvious that this will not be accomplished through policy but by individual choice and the pooling and organization of the resources of those individuals who make that choice, a choice which each of us has the power to make!