Recently, Japan canceled its bid to purchase 25,000 metric tonnes of wheat, because they discovered that it was a genetically modified organism — “GMO.” In contrast, California voters defeated Proposition 37, which would have mandated labeling whenever a food contains a GMO.
In summary, Californians expressed that they don’t wish to be notified of a commodity which Japan won’t even allow to cross their borders. Apparently, the Japanese have a better education on this topic than California voters.
Myself, I have to find a way to eat food without ingesting GMOs in a society where notification is not required. The GMOs are in many places, and it is difficult to avoid them. I think that the Japanese made the right decision.
There was a massive campaign to defeat Proposition 37. One of the campaign ads stated that farmers would have suffered if Proposition 37 had passed. In my opinion, I scarcely doubt that anyone here in Lodi would have suffered a single dime. Conversely, the farmers have lost a very important customer.
In the massive ad campaign to defeat Proposition 37, I didn’t see any scientific evidence or theory of the health effects of ingesting GMO foods.
Let me ask the readers a question. If a food were resistant to weed spray, then why would that food not contain weed spray by aerial spraying, rather than spraying on the ground while the plants are in dormancy? If a food were capable of killing insects by genetic activity, then why will that genetic message not operate in the gut? Why would these characteristics not contaminate our livestock? Why would these characteristics not cross-pollinate to the neighbors (if we were saving the seed for next year)? Why would these characteristics not be important to notify on a label?