I seem to be basically voting the Stranger ticket again this year. Sawant, yay; McGinn, sure; not-Pope; not-Eyman; um… I might abstain on some of the offices I'm utterly ignorant about.
I'm on the fence about 522 and 19 though. What do y'all think?
I-522 as written seems pretty useless. It doesn't really tell you what you need to know; a useful version of that law would tell you what transgenes are in your food. As it is, it seems like at best I-522's labels would be like the universal and universally ignored notices on California buildings telling you that somewhere inside the building is some toxin or carcinogen. Except most GMO foods aren't even bad. I-522 doesn't even require disclosure of which ingredients in a processed food might be GM, which could give you a hint.
The arguments for it, in my mind, are that (a) it might be an intermediate step to getting better labeling, and (b) Monsanto's put a lot of money into the campaign against it, and if Monsanto's ag'in it it can't be all bad.
The other argument against I-522 is that most people avoiding GMO food are not avoiding it for good reasons and that labeling would simply encourage people to continue to make that ill-informed decision. But I think it's better to fight that particular battle with education and information rather than secrecy. (I know, I know, I'm an incorrigible optimist when it comes to things like that. Ask me about nuclear power.)
So as usual with initiatives I'm torn between favoring a halfassed measure that might be heading in a good direction vs. rejecting it in hopes it comes back in better form later.
|comments: Leave a comment|