
Something unusual has gotten into our produce — but California Dems like Senate Majority Leader Darrell Steinberg, Governor Jerry Brown, and Assembly Speaker John Perez can now act to fix the problem the right way!
The ostensible argument against Prop 37, which would have required labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), was that it was not well written. (Funny, that didn’t seem to hurt Prop 35! It’s a wonder what a couple of million dollars of advantage in spending will do.) This led not only to confident although general disparaging statements all over television from people in lab coats, but allegedly to strange and unwanted outcomes such as treating the same food item separately when sold to consumers for home use versus at a restaurant. (Yeah — because we’re currently all in the restaurant kitchen looking at the ingredient labels.)
Prop 37 was a home-cooked initiative — initially the inspiration of a single activist, Chico grandmother Pam Larry — that caught fire, went viral (so to speak — GMO joke there), and required about $50 million from Monsanto and its friends to destroy in a smear campaign. (As noted in this constructive critique of the initiative effort by Jonathan Greenberg, which I suggest that people read despite my still thinking through what parts of it I might want to quibble with, to avoid turning off the voting public they chose to avoid the underlying and more pressing question of whether this stuff was likely to kill you.)
The nice thing about the just-ended campaign, which ended in Prop 37’s narrow defeat, is that it was generally fought on grounds that did not deny the legitimacy of consumers’ desire to know what was going into their food — if it could be done correctly. Beyond the bogus “food will cost everyone $400 per year” claim, for the most part the No on 37 campaign would leave one thinking that the proposition as written was simply a bad means to a reasonable end.
Great! That means that there’s an alternative route to getting it approved: instead of going through the initiative process in 2014, proponents can, in 2013, try to get it passed through the legislature.
Among the things that such a path would do is to get the professionals involved — the legislative analysts and drafters who could come up with something that would be much harder for opponents to attack. It would also mean legislative hearings into GMOs — also probably a winner for Democrats who are proponents of labeling. It would infuriate Monsanto, of course — but that’s the sort of thing that can backfire on them. After all, if the legislature does pass such a bill, their best bet would be to try to undo it — or at least stall it — with a referendum; once the weight of the legislature is behind the bill, they’d need a lot of good will to make that work.
It looks like Democrats will have a healthy majority in the Assembly and Senate next year. Not all of those Democrats are particularly great Democrats — but enough of them may well be. If we have a majority like that, isn’t it time to use it?
Yeah! Who could we get to write/carry such a bill? It doesn’t seem like Correa’s or Daly’s cup of tea … but maybe this could be Sharon QS’s maiden effort!
It would only need a majority vote since it doesn’t require the raising of revenue, right? So our “business-friendly” Dem friends wouldn’t have to incommode themselves and their funders.
*Hey…Chairman Vern – you got us good on SQS. Never did we think it possible for her to defeat Norby. We will assume the Dying Cockroach Position and give our kudos to the winner and of course to your efforts in that behalf.
As far as Prop. 37 is concerned, again we can’t imagine why folks didn’t understand how important it was to pass this Initiative. Maybe…general consciousness will now at least highlight a further interest. Washington and Oregon are doing their versions for the next election cycle. Maybe they can
bring that consciousness forward in at least two states – to begin. Once implemented there…..then we can file again here in California with a much better chance of success.
Hmmm… I didn’t have much to do with the victory of Q. Wish I did. We haven’t hung out in months. Glad and proud for her though, and all her workers. Someone said that a lot of the credit goes to someone named Ed Velasquez.
Start with small victories.
1) Education on the dangers of High Fructose Corn Syrup
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=60+Minutes+Sugar+CNN&view=detail&mid=C5899C3A7A7897C4434BC5899C3A7A7897C4434B&first=0
2) Stop Federal sugar subsidies.
3) (Ask: ‘Why does peanut butter need High Fructose Corn Syrup?’)
First: Individuals must stop poisoning themselves; then toxic sodas can be removed from K-12 cafeterias, then a California labeling law “High Fructose Corn Syrup can be Dangerous to Your Health”.
Then attack the next toxin that might be “Aspartame” in diet sodas.
First form a Healthy Diet Parade then a politician will run to the front of the parade to be the legislative leader.
*Agree….with your premise. Diet Sodas….are also a prime concern.
The biggest issue would be getting it out of committee. (The Senate Ag Committee has had a Republican Chair — weird.) If one presumes that a third of the “no” voters were opposed to it simply due to flaws in drafting, despite being sympathetic to the goal, then I think that the person sponsoring it should be: anyone ambitious!
Sharon’s probably not the person to do it. She’ll have squeaked by in a swing district; I think that she gets a pass on things like this. We have more than enough Dems who should be able to do the heavy lifting.
Stop eating – problem solved.
Aprez-vous.