Proposition 105 is not about the right to know, it’s about a long list of wrongs that not only won’t help consumers, it’s poised to do serious harm.
Supporters of this misguided ballot question say Prop 105 would provided needed information to consumers about whether their food contains Genetically Modified Organisms. In reality, this poorly crafted law would not accurately do even that, and it would raise the price of food in Colorado substantially for no good reason.
Farmers, grocers, restaurants, scientists, nutritionists, lawmakers and more are opposed to Prop 105 mainly because it wouldn’t do what it promises: tell consumers whether their food contains GMOs and make food safer or better.
Sadly, fear, ignorance and a lazy media have helped to create a problem that makes measures like Prop 105 attractive to consumers. Because the process of genetically engineered food is so poorly understood, misinformation and ludicrous lies have been able to take hold. Don’t fall for legends such as Europe banning GMOs. As of September 2014, genetically engineered, cotton, corn, sugar beets, canola and more have been approved for production and sale in European Union countries. Some countries, such as Spain, are large producers of genetically engineered foods. Humans have been genetically engineering food and animals for thousands of years. A push to understand DNA and stunning lab techniques have made the engineering process fast and predictable. GMO products have long been closely scrutinized by governments, researchers and scientists all over the world. No reputable study, university, government agency or researcher has ever found the process nor the products to be any more or less safe than any food. Ever.
But even setting irrational fear aside, the most critical problem with Prop 105 is that it will create a huge new state agency, costing Colorado residents possibly hundreds of millions of dollars a year. A failed measure in Washington was estimated to cost that state government $22.5 million a year, just for state employees. The result would be a dramatic increase in the cost of food and eating out in Colorado, not unlike a new tax being levied on everything you eat.
What makes this measure so egregious is that even after hiking the cost of groceries, labeling would still be inaccurate and ineffective because GMO foods have become part of the international food system, just like traditionally hybridized and farm-raised foods. A cookie manufacturer buying flour and unsure whether it may have come from some GMO sources would either sell items erroneously labeled to consumers, or they would provide GMO products to consumers without labeling, all at increased cost.
Rather than feed consumer fear and inflation with measures like this, the public would be better served to consult sources they trust: farmers, even organic Colorado farmers, doctors, the American Medical Association, researchers at Colorado State University, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society and the list goes on and on of respected scientists and organizations that have found GMO processes and products safe.
The truth is, there isn’t one good reason to approve this proposition — not one. Vote “no” on Proposition 105.
who paid for this ‘ article ‘? no new agency. Colorado dept of health will over see just like the rest of food regulations. who’s paranoid?
So not a new agency, but a larger old agency. or more likely a new division in the old agency. Still adds the same costs.
genetic modification is different than hybridization- not thousands of years. only a few decades. do your fact checking people.
The DNA does not know how long it took to be modified.
Hybridization does not take “thousands of years” – more like one growing season.
Colorado Dept of Health oversees this just like they do all the other food regulations, and the provision calls for 2, yes, only 2 people to be added to enforce the regulations. That’s $.02 per Colorado voter. GMO foods are actually not part of the International food system—everyone but the United states labels them or has banned the all together. Next, hybridization, the process of using cross pollination, is entirely different than genetic modification, which can only happen in a lab and uses DNA from entirely different biological organisms. Genetic modification is impossible in nature–cross hybridization is not. Finally, there is a clear controversy over the safety of GMO foods and the resulting increase in toxic pesticides. Even Dr. Oz has called for more research, and lamented the poisonous effects of the increased pesticide use and its effects on growing children.
United states labels them or has banned the all together.
I didnt know that Canada was part of the USA now,,,Hmmm. Gmos are banned in a total of 2 countries, 85 ban homosexuallity.
These anti’s don’t know a lot of things.
I think that quite often they do not want to know, or choose not to know.
64 countries have some sort of GMO restriction, including labeling. 132 countries do not.
This Dr Oz? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Me5Ubn4Q0k
I wonder if Dr. Oz is Food Babe’s mentor?
I seriously doubt that two people will be the end of it. If you count all the various variations of packaged foods, there are hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions. I simply see no possible way for two people to keep up – there are more new products coming on the market each day, and they would probably fall further and further behind. Which would makes this whole thing a sham and an exercise in futility.
There are ways that DNA travels between species naturally. It is called “horizontal gene transfer.” You should look it up. Therefore, genetic modification isn’t unnatural. It just makes what nature does happen faster.
I don’t think there’s even an ounce of truth in this article. The
only thing Proposition 105 provides is the right to know. Proposition 105 will
simply provide labeling that indicates whether a packaged food contains Genetically
Engineered Ingredients. The companies that provide food that stock our shelves
in Colorado already have to provide this same labeling in 64 other countries
that they export their products to, it will not create additional expense. Farmers
already segregate their crops between Genetically Modified and Organic so they
are totally clear about what they are selling to companies with accuracy
already, they will simply be reporting it under Proposition 105. The process of
cross breading plants and animals which goes far back into human history is
much different than what companies are doing to create Genetically Engineers Foods.
In addition, there would not be millions spent on creating a new regulatory
agency in Colorado. The state would hire two people who would help track and
regulate this labeling. Don’t believe these lies, Coloradans should not be kept
in the dark about what we are feeding our families, we have a right to know and
choose what we feed our families! Vote YES on 105!
Sharlotte, the labeling may not tell you if there are genetically engineered ingredients. The sugar from engineered sugar beets is 100% identical to the sugar from non GMO beets. There is no difference. The corn oil from GMO corn is 100% identical to corn oil from non-GMO corn. There is no difference. There are no added proteins, no modified molecules in any manner in those two samples (oil and sugar probably being two of the most likely ingredients prompting a label).
Organic growers do separate their products and they charge a premium both for that process and the lower inherent productivity. GMO commodity growers do not separate their crops from non-GMO; many growers grow both at the same time or in subsequent years dependent their situation. Those crops are comingled; dozens of varieties of corn or soybean are mixed by market class in on-farm silos, in transport trucks, in rail cars, in freighters. So your belief that there are already separate product streams is incorrect.
These products are still produced with genetic engineering for the whole beet and corn which is something that consumers have a right to know. Farmers are totally clear about whether they are planting genetically engineered seeds or not. The lack of separation is a bi-product of how big our food system has become. On even large-scale farm crops are separated and eventually that is lost along the line. Source materials are tracked that enter silos and if all those sources are pooled and contain genetic engineering then it will not be any major work to report this GE compliance when 105 passes. If they choose to comingle those products with products that are not genetically engineered then they will have to report that what they are selling contains genetically engineered products. It’s that simple. Therefore the label will in fact tell
the consumer whether the product contains genetically engineered ingredients. There is nothing tricky, costly or misleading about it…just the right to know and choose.
Sharlotte, I can hear your concern over this issue. The main point of what I wrote is your misuse of the word ingredients. Genetic engineering is not an ingredient. The sugar is sugar, it is no different. It may have been derived from an engineered plant but there is no novel ingredient. So what you want labeled is a breeding method used to produce the plant. I urge you to go on up the road to Fort Collins some day and talk to some of the plant breeders at Colorado State.I am sure they would be happy to speak with you. Ask them about the relative level of unknown genetic change introduced by making wide crosses, or radiation induced mutagenesis or chemical induced mutagenesis. These are common methods of creating or adding novel gene constructs with far more unknowns, no safety testing at all, and yet no labels are required. If you are asking for a “breeding method” label, why not ask for all methods?
Like I said before the “ingredients” come from the genetically engineered whole beet and corn which is something consumers have a right to know.
Back in the good ol’ small farm organic days, are you saying grains, fruits, whatever, were all kept separate until they reached the final consumers?
I never said, “the good ol’ small farm organic days.” The point was that crops are separate initially therefore the farmers can report on what they grow.
There is no such thing as genetically engineered sugar, or canola or corn oil, so how exactly will this label tell the consumer anything useful?
The whole plants that are used to produce these products are genetically engineered, if genetically engineered plants are used to make these products it would state that.
So even though the ingredients between GMO and non-GMO derived sugar are 100% identical, you still think they are different? How are they different – please explain?
According to the World Health Organization, “genetically modified foods are derived from organisms whose genetic material (DNA) has been modified in a way that does no occur naturally”. Genetic engineering uses the process of artificial inserting foreign genes into the cellular structure of a plant, animal or microorganism in a laboratory to gain desired traits, ie. herbicide tolerance, the ability to produce insecticidal toxins or other alleged benefits. Some of these plants are registered as pesticides with the EPA. I want to know if these plants are finding there way into my food supply. I want to know why these companies would rather spend over $8million just in Colorado to stop this from happening? If the ingredients are identical and harmless than there shouldn’t be anything to hide, why wouldn’t they want to own and promote their products proudly?
Nope, they don’t have to provide that labeling to most exports to those 64 out of 196 countries that have labeling. No labeling occurs if the export is used in animal feed,as most of it is.
Proposition 105 applies to packaged foods, not animal feed.
The “right to know” – to know what, exactly? (BTW, please clean up your cut and pastes for line breaks). To know that the sugar in something came from a GMO plant, even though there is no lab test in the world that can tell where the sugar came from, and is chemically identical?
The right to know that genetically engineered plants were used to create the ingredients in a packaged food. It’s a basic human right to have the knowledge and right to make the choice about what we put in our bodies. If these products are of such high quality then the companies who sell them should be more than happy to share this information with us.
It’s a basic human right to have the knowledge and right to make the choice about what we put in our bodies.
Look sugar and oils have no GMOness in them, they are chemically identical to non GMO, sugar and oils.
Just because a breeding process is “new” (in quotes because it’s actually over 20 years old) doesn’t mean it is harmful. The vast majority of research shows no negative health effects of GMOs (even when studies with industry interests are eliminated). If proposition 105 passes, what information is it even giving people who don’t understand how GMOs are produced or what they even are? Most people fall under this category. Labeling will only lead to fear when people see a label with a process that they do not understand.
I’m not creating an argument about whether it’s harmful. We simply have a right to know. This is not a warning label or a ban on Genetically Engineered Foods, just a label that informs Coloradans. Being knowledgeable about what we are putting into our bodies is a basic human right. In fact if these plants are so wonderful why wouldn’t the companies want the let the consumer know so that they can make the choice to purchase them? This labeling is not just for people who might not choose to buy products that contain Genetically Engineered Ingredients, it’s also for the the individuals who would prefer to purchase products that contain these ingredients. The knowledge is a benefit to both sides.
I disagree. I think people only need to know what is in their food if it potentially harmful. Everything else is just personal preference. We already have voluntary labels for companies that want to use information about their products for advertising (ex. gluten free, fat free). Since GMOs are not known to cause harm, this would fall under the idea of labeling for advertisement. We don’t need a law that condones labeling for advertisement purposes.
Consumers also already have choices in the store for GMO free products. Organic and verified GMO free labels on products already exist.
Labeling is a reasonable requirement already being implemented all over the world. Sixty-four other countries, including all of the European Union and Japan, already require labeling of genetically engineered food. Labeling is feasible to implement as evidenced by countries all over the world requiring it today. The same companies that sell products in Colorado already label those products being sold in other countries. More than 100 scientific and public health institutions around the world support GMO labeling to track potential allergic responses due to genetically engineered foods, including the American Public Health Association, American College of Physicians, American Nurses Association, the British Medical Association and the American College for Advancement in Medicine. If you don’t care to have a choice then look the other way. There are plenty of Coloradans who would like to have the choice and we have a basic human right to know what we are feeding our children regardless of what packaged food we choose. We shouldn’t have to pay a higher price and have less options for organic and verified GMO free products to know what our children are eating.
If people want something labeled that shows no evidence of harm and is based on ideology, they should absolutely have to pay more. Like I said before, people already pay more for kosher, gluten free, and certified organic, which have not been shown to give any extra health benefits what so ever. It should stay that way.
There are actually more medical, health, and food institutions that support GMO safety than do not support it. For example, the World Health Organization, National Academies of Science, European Food Safety Authority, International Council for Science, American Medical Association, and British Medical Association to name a few.
GMO labeling is not being implemented all over the world. GMOs are only completely banned in 2 countries, while 64 have restrictions on them. There are far more countries in the world (84) where homosexuality is illegal than where GMOs are restricted. Not to mention all of the countries in the world that have strict laws about the actions of women and treat them as second class citizens. Maybe we shouldn’t do something just because it seems like everyone else is doing it at first glance and look at the reasons for their actions later.
If I didn’t care about this issue as you suggest, I wouldn’t spend time discussing this with people. What I’m certainly not going to do is look away while pointless laws are added to our books. You already know what you are feeding your children. Why are you specifically afraid of feeding children GMOs?
Full transparency on what is contained in packaged foods is not an ideology…it’s a basic human right to be knowledgeable and have choice about what we put in our bodies. Once again I will make clear that this is not a ban or warning label just information so that ALL Coloradans have a choice. I never said I was afraid, I said I have a right to know. The largest contributors to the No On 105 Coalition include major food producers such as Pepsico, Nestle, Coca-Cola, Cargill Incorporated, Kraft Foods and General Mills. There has been over $8million dumped into misleading and dishonest ads in what will be a failed attempt at stopping this from passing, all money from big ag. If everything is on the up and up and there’s no harm created by this, then why try so hard to hide what’s in your products? Put a gold seal on it a wear it proudly! Use that $8million to educate people on how wonderful GMOs are.
That seems like a very first world problem to me. While many in the world are simply looking for enough to eat, you specify which genes your food is allowed to have and test for those (when there is no evidence of harm). This is the very definition of an ideology. It is nothing more than a warning label when people don’t know what genetic modification is. I don’t care what corporations support as long as it is the truth, which in this case it is that GMOs are not harmful, and all evidence agrees with that point. At this point, organic companies are the same size as non-organic companies anyways. If organic is so honest, then why do most people think organic doesn’t use pesticides when it does? How come people don’t know that higher concentrations of organic pesticides are needed to be effective than conventional ones and that they forego the testing that conventional pesticides do? It sounds even more shady to me.
Since Gmo’s are not know to cause harm, should we assume that they don’t. Sounds like the pharmaceutical companies that put new drugs out there and realize the impact was a negative one after a million people get sick!
Genetically engineered ingredients that are referred to in 105 have only been in our food supply since the mid-1990’s – not the same as natural breeding and hybridization.
According to the ballot booklet, it will cost $113,000 in the first year for the state to implement, and about $130,000 thereafter. Labeling requirements in Europe did not raise the price of food; in fact, some items actually cost less there than they do here. Where are they coming up with hundreds of millions of dollars? Sounds like an extreme scare tactic to me.
There are tests that raise doubts about the safety of GMOs and correlations to increases in severe allergies and intestinal issues such as Celiac and Crone’s disease are startling.
I want to go to the produce section and be able to buy sweet corn and know if I’m getting non-GMO. I want to buy a snack and know if the potato, corn, oil or sugar is non-GMO. IF this bill passes the label tell me that – maybe not exactly if it’s the oil or the corn or both, but it makes it easier for me to make an informed choice.
105 is a statute in the food law – not a constitutional amendment, so if there is something terribly written, it’s fixable in the legislature and won’t require a vote for changes.
And don’t forget bio tech and big ag have poured more than $10 million into Colorado to defeat this. The grassroots group working to get 105 passes is truly grassroots. They don’t have $1 million, let alone $10 million for bombarding the airwaves and media with their view. Please research the issue and make an informed decision, not one based on biased editorials and TV ads.
There are tests that raise doubts about the safety of GMOs and correlations to increases in severe allergies and intestinal issues such as Celiac and Crone’s disease are startling.
No there is not.
oil or sugar is non-GMO
Oil and sugar cant be GMO, there is no protein in them , or any DNA. Did you not go to school?
GMOs are created, not bred. DNA does not transfer between unrelated species and this is what is occurring in these “stunning lab techniques.” In some examples, we’re talking about plants that are being created to have the pesticide IN them. I think it’s reasonable to know if the corn I may purchase in the grocery store has been genetically engineered to kill insects. Yes indeed! Studies? No long term studies have been done because GMOs have only been around since 1996. As for the cost of labeling is undetermined but recent estimates by Consumer Union and Cornell University come to less than a couple of dollars per person per year. Finally, if other countries require labels (and many do) than the tracking is already occurring. Why not label for us?
GMOs are created, not bred.
So are Mutagenic crops, and dozens of other lab created crops, but no one wants them labeled. Weird.
In some examples, we’re talking about plants that are being created to have the pesticide IN them.
You do know that most plants have pesticides in them already, Limonene, nicotine sulphate,etc.
All species are related. See theory of evolution.
How much did Monsanto pay you Aurora Sentinel??? I love how the author of this lie filled article didn’t even put their name on it…you people are ridiculous. GMO’s are poison and have been banned in over half the countries in the world! Vote YES on 105 and get these poisons out of our state!!! And eventually out of our country!!