31 votes

Danny Devito: Vote Yes on Prop 37


In November, Californians will vote on Prop 37 requiring that GE foods be labeled. Just as labels list fat, sodium and sugar, labels should tell the buyer whether or not the product includes genetically engineered ingredients (GMOs). Unfortunately, major corporations like Monsanto are pouring billions of dollars into this election in order to confuse voters, and protect their bottom line.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Have you ever tried horchata?

Have you ever tried horchata? It's like liquified sugar. The kids drink this stuff, plus they are more sedentary because fewer of them work in fields.

Shock Findings in New GMO Study

GMO food causes severe liver damage, early death, and more ...
It is definitely not the same as regular food. Many countries have banned GMO food, but Monsanto is so powerful they may yet win and force feed their tainted food to everyone.

Copy address below to locate article. I don't know how to make a link.


This article is just one of many.

Stop grouping all GMO food as

Stop grouping all GMO food as one thing! There are many genes to modify, and I doubt that it is automatically detrimental to human health if any one single gene is modified. This has become a buzz word, like "isolationist." I have some training in cell physiology, and the way you make it sound is simply not true across the board. Monsanto's practices are loathsome, but not all genetic modification of food is bad.

I see where you're coming from now...

Sorry, I'm gonna vote to label.. if it helps the American people protect themselves by being educated.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

It's your vote. Do what you

It's your vote. Do what you think is right.

Republican Party Says to Vote No on 37!

I've been getting lots of flyers in the USPS mail from the Republican Party and I'm republican, but they're telling others how to Vote on Propositions and to Vote NO on 37. And it says - Stop the Trial Lawyers deceptive costly scheme.

I am quite upset, for we all know this isn't true. Passing Labeling on GMOs in California is the first step in stopping these crimes against humanity.

Labeling GMOs is a fight to remain healthy and not forced to eat foods that can make us sick, which is well proven that it does and slowly get diseases.
I can't understand how genetically modified foods were allowed to begin with.

Vote Yes on 37 to Label GMOs

Ya... Actually I'm voting no

Ya... Actually I'm voting no on 37. By adding the label, it adds another 1 million to our debt. People need to be self aware on what food they're buying, if they fail to investigate the food their eating, than that's their fault... We don't need another government intervention process.

Lies from Monsanto

Companies regularly change their labeling every 3-6 months at no cost to the consumers.It's part of the business.

November 6th 2012 I voted for Dr.Ron Paul
"We must remember, elections are short-term efforts. Revolutions are long-term projects." ~ Ron Paul

I agree with bdog and can't

I agree with bdog and can't believe he is getting such negatives on this website of all places. I am not in California but if I was I would definately vote against Prop 37. There are other better free market solutions to solve this issue. And to those who are angry at monsanto don't get me wrong I am right there beside you in realizing some of the bad things they have done. But this law will not hurt them, it will only help them as it crushes small competitors as they have to take more steps to get their product to market, especially the small gmo free companies that I am sure you want to support. Also it costs money in regulators going out and trying to enforce it.

Stop giving your freedom away in the guise of safety, when you will actually be harming your self even more. Buy from local sources you trust and demand they themselves choose to label it, boycot those that don't meet your approval, if there is demand for a better product than the producers will do what they can to provide it.

Free market solutions are better than government force solutions.


are in everything. It is impossible to buy everything locally. Even things like talapia, ketchup, cheese and breads have gmo's in them. You should research this before you decide that we should not have the right to know what's in the food. As for small competitors, even Whole Foods has been found to have gmo's infiltrated into their stores.


And everywhere!

Speaking as a genetically modified organism myself (thanks to millions of years of evolution), I share the skepticism surrounding the "GMO" hysteria. While some of it may well be propelled by fears of fraud and misrepresentation, I get the impression that most of the terror is borne of Luddism or one of its slower cousins.

As for using the state to protect us from state sponsored corporatism -- how is the solution to too much X more X?

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
West of 89
a novel of another america

In other words, you don't have the first

fucking clue as to whether the claims are correct or not but you're still willing to pass judgement like a moron.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

As this is now buried, I agree, and so does Ron Paul:

"The federal government lacks constitutional authority to mandate labeling of products containing genetically-modified food. Furthermore, those who do not wish to consume genetically-modified products should be leery of federally-mandated labeling because history shows that federal regulatory agencies are susceptible to 'capture,' where the regulators end up serving the interest of the business they are supposed to control. In the case of labeling, federal agencies could redefine the meaning of 'modified' to allow genetically-engineered food on the market without fully-informing consumers of the presence of genetically- engineered ingredients. Instead of federal regulation, consumers should demand that manufactures provide full information and refuse to buy those products that are not fully labeled. Once producers see there is a demand for non-genetically-engineered products they will act to fulfill that demand. Of course, makers of genetically-engineered food should be held legally responsible if they fraudulently market their products or harm anyone."

Is This Federal?

I thought it was STATE. California to be exact.


yes, i am just focusing on the overall problem

of regulatory capture. Just thought id copy a quote from RP on the subject. Im not a Californian and not familiar w their constitution, i just wouldnt want my state opening the door to this.

RP on GMO labeling but not talk about Other Half, attacking

Thanks for the RP brief on this topic. Although, I hope Ron begins talking about the flip side of this equation: Anyone who wants to grow food and sell it should be unmolested by government agents and any other third party for that matter.

Delvin, if you want to grow food and sell it and I come along and want to buy it from you, then that prospective transaction is between you and me only. That's it. Where is the invitation to government agents to inspect our would-be transaction, one that doesn't have their approval and because of it could face termination before it happened?

Again, I would like to see RP talk about people growing their own food and doing to it what they want, including selling it.

If RP talks about this side of the topic, or equation, I think he'll spurn the mental wheel in many people. There's no more prominent voice for freedom than Ron's. If he hits this issue repeatedly, Delvin, we could see increases in our ranks.

C'mon, Ron, let's do this. Hammerin' Ron, hammer this point home: No more attacking!

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton Forest Dutton, MD, in his 1916 book whose subject is origin (therefore what all healing methods involve and count on), simple and powerful.

Ron does talk about it, but I know what you mean.

I often think that Ron could be much more straightforward and 'attack' rather than politely standing firm.

Of course we should be able to trade 'regularly' (unimpeded) - or commerce should be regulated in the true sense. This is the idea behind gov't being given the power to "regulate commerce" in the constitution. Unfortunately, tptb like to change the definitions of words. (Another word perverted is 'general' in the general welfare clause - 'general' doesn't mean 'most' - it means 'all'. Therefore, redistribution of wealth in any way is not providing welfare to the 'general' public).
The true meaning of 'regulate' is 'to make regular'. Tptb have drilled it into the peoples' minds that 'regulate' means 'to restrict' - the exact opposite of the truth!
Dr. Paul mentions this here:
I do not think I should have to mention his stance on raw milk restrictions: http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/14/ron-paul-stands-up-for-raw...

However, Its often said around here that Ron would end the FDA. In Ron's economic plan he wanted to eliminate five departments, yet only offered a 40% cut to the FDA's budget. So perhaps this is one area he could have gone further, as you say. I can't find a quote of Ron saying we should eliminate the FDA, even though we all know he would.
Under his Health Freedom Act, he basically states (imo - and I could be wrong) that he wants to take away the FDA's ability to restrict a product's stated claims of beneficial or detrimental health effects, taking away the regulatory (or rather restrictive powers) of the FDA, but allowing them to continue to prosecute fraudulent claims. (again i may be misunderstanding, I am human).

As if this post isn't long enough, I have more to say :)
Rand Paul is saying all of the exact same things about the fda. I feel that Ron's problem was that his ideas couldn't be accepted by 'evangelicals' on the right - not neocons, but those who are manipulated by neocons. By seeming to be disowned by the 'kooky' Ron Paul people, and endorsing romney, Rand will be more likely to be at least given a ear to hear him out on some of the more controversial topics.
ok i'm done for now.

Regulatory capture is a huge

Regulatory capture is a huge problem at least even progressive intellectuals are aware of. I'm a little torn on this one. I think labeling was a weird issue to create a campaign out of. Labels may let us know what we're buying, but they also have potential to create a capture where those companies who can immediately afford to label their products weed out their competition. I thought at first that labels may decrease demand for GE products and make the shareholders of these companies move elsewhere. I think that was a false assumption though, because many genetically engineered products are already labelled(genetically modified corn starch). One time, I was looking at the ingredients of gingerbread cookies my mother had bought, and the entire ingredients were listed with the full name 'genetically engineered'. There are so many toxic ingredients that consumers just look over, carelessly.

I would probably vote for this if I was a voter in California, because California is a slightly different culture than the rest of the U.S. but it's sad people have taken to organizations like the Merck funded Organic Consumers Association to get their information, diverting their attention from the real causes of the problems to something as obscure as labeling. Intellectual property and subsidies created the root of the whole gmo debacle. I wish activists would just commit to more intelligent information to present to their neighbors and legislators, rather than calling them up looking entirely stupid the first time the word "frankenfood" comes out of their mouths.



We are talking GMO's

Many countries have banned the growing GMO’s: in their countries...ask yourself why.

Here is the list of countries.
Japan, New Zealand, Germany(corn only), Ireland, Austria, Hungary, Greece, Bulgaria and Luxembourg, Madeira, Switzerland

Is your argument that it is

Is your argument that it is ok for governments to ban anything that might not be good for people? Like alcohol, tobacco, etc?

That argument has proven quite disastrous, as I'm sure you are aware.

No that is not my argument

Take the bill to audit the Federal Reserve.
If you want to be a purest, why should we intervene with the Fed ???
They are private but prosper with the sanction of our government and
are robbing this country blind and we want to stop it. So we want to audit the fed with the ultimate goal of ending it.

Monsanto has the sanction of our government.
Like the Fed most people don't even realize the dangers of GMO's
and the damage they have done.
And like Ron Paul's run for president the game is rigged.
The media are bought and paid for, many appointees in the government
when it comes to the FDA have ties to Monsanto. Obama just appointed
the head of the FDA and he was a lobbyist for Monsanto.

As for the people thinking GMO's are simply hybrids..WRONG
GMO's splice genes from NON-PLANT species into the plant seeds
and create Frankenstein foods. Studies in OTHER countries
have shown GMO's create cancers and other health problems.
Hence the reason they are banned in countries that are not bought
and paid for via Monsanto.

I'm in Nebraska and over 80% of our crops grown in Nebraska are GMO's. It has not been by choice....all it took was to get enough farmers on board with the promises of less work and more yields.
The GMO crops then cross bred with regular crops and contaminated the

Here is where it gets evil...Monsanto actually flew over fields and sprayed Round Up and if the area they sprayed did not die they knew it was their round up ready technology in use, they then proceeded to sue the farmer and in all the cases I know about the farmer ended up losing their farm for growing Monsanto patented plants. All the while the farmer was growing what they thought was their own hybrid but because a neighboring farmer was growing round up ready and it cross bred with theirs they unknowingly where growing round up ready. Crazy as it seems you would think the farmer or Monsanto that contaminated his crops would have been at fault but that is not what happened.
So there you are, Joe Blow farmer..you have a choice
you can grow round up ready or you can lose your farm that has
been in the family for 100 plus years.

Now all the corn, soybean seed companies in this country unless they are organic are paying royalties to Monsanto for this technology. They have no choice, no farmers could safely grow their seed if not.
There are organic crops grown but I can tell you there is no way they
are not being contaminated by GMO's.
I live out in the country here in Nebraska(I do not farm). But I can't even grow corn because I know it will end up being GMO corn.
Monsanto is truly evil !!

As powerful as Monsanto is I would not be surprised if some here
posting are proponents for Monsanto and then some simply just don't understand the dangers and are just fueling the fire.

Impressive argument,

Impressive argument, Candance!

I have two major problems

I have two major problems with your argument.
1) Your Fed analogy is weak. The federal reserve has a monopoly on US currency and interest rates. Our constitution still says the Congress should have the power to coin money. Ending the fed is reclaiming that abdication. Also, if you choose not to use the dollar, you are breaking the law. Choosing not to buy Monsanto or other foods that do not meet your standards is still legal. Obviously, I agree that the USG should not be subsidizing anyone, let alone Monsanto.

2) Not all GMO foods are toxic, and probably not most are engineered with non-plant genes (not that it should matter a whole lot... you share some genes with plants). Testing should reveal what is toxic or not, and you don't need the gov to do that for you. Would you approve of the use of the C4 photosynthetic gene being used in place of the C3? They are both naturally evolved process from plants not that distantly related. It would dramatically increase yields. There is no evidence to suggest it would then become unhealthy to eat. Feed more people for cheaper. Yet, that is GMO, so it must be bad, right?

Monsanto has a monopoly on food

Almost all food you buy at your local grocery store has GMO's in it.
Anything that contains soy and corn. Read the labels.

You are obviously a proponent for GMO's so it is not going to do me any good to try and convince you.

But for anyone else reading this and on the fence..do your OWN research. But beware Monsanto has spent billions to protect their monopoly. So make sure the information you read is from a source
that is totally independent from influence from the long arms of Monsanto and their affiliates.

They do not have a complete

They do not have a complete monopoly on food. You don't go to jail if you buy non-Monsanto products. I am no fan of Monsanto, but you are arguing for government intervention, and this is the greatest danger.

It is not correct to say I am a proponent of GMOs. That is to say all genetic modification is the same. It is NOT, and I have some experience in laboratory alteration of genetic material.

It is good that you are cautious. Just don't assume all GMO is the same and that all of it is bad. That is flat out WRONG! And don't beg for government intervention unless you want to usurp liberty, stifle innovation, lower the standard of living for the poor, and grow the size of government.

Jail, seriously....

You OBVIOUSLY will not go to jail but you will not go to the grocery store without bringing home GMO's to feed your family.

You obviously do not care if you live a shorter life, but hey that is your choice. Problem is many are not even aware that the food they are buying comes with risks. Given a choice they may decide they would prefer to live longer with less pain and suffering.

Lower the standard of living for the poor..how about not throw the poor under the bus simply because they can not afford to avoid GMO's that are in all food products !!

1). Jail is referring to

1). Jail is referring to earlier analogy about the Fed having monopoly on currency and consequences if you try to use gold or silver as currency. Ron Paul, himself says this. Also note another comment down the thread about jail regarding food.

2) your conclusion about my argument about not using force of government to achieve an end being somehow related to the valuation of my own life is idiotic. Where do you derive the assumption that I am happy to eat any kind of GMO food? We're you a former neocon? I have noticed they have zero debate skills yet have red herring sensationalism skills in spades!

I agree that many are not aware of the risks. I agree that labeling may be helpful. I disagree that the best way to do this is through corrupt government.

Still you assume all GMO is bad. Not true. Make an intelligent distinction.

Farmers are being jailed by Monsanto bud.

I don't think you know what you're talking about.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

I just bought a weeks worth

I just bought a weeks worth of food with not one iota of Monsanto connection. I do not defend Monsanto. In fact, they would be easier to take down without the gov involved. This is not even about Monsanto other than on the surface. This has much bigger implications. GMO food labeling through govt force will end up benefiting Monsanto.