How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
Letters
- Details
- Written by: Melissa Fulton
The Lake County Chamber of Commerce definitely supports the position of people having the right to know what is in the food they choose to consume.
After investigation, research and much discussion, the Board of Directors for the Lake County Chamber of Commerce voted to oppose Proposition 37, the Food Labeling Initiative.
This initiative is very poorly written and opens up many avenues for lawsuits. The exemptions contained in the language defeat any legitimate “right to know” position.
It exempts two-thirds of the foods Californians consume. Proposition 37 creates a new category of shakedown lawsuits allowing lawyers and private citizens to sue farmers, grocers, and food companies without any proof of violation or damage.
The following paragraph from the language of the initiative points out the conflicting and misleading thought process of this poorly written piece of legislation:
Exempts foods that are: certified organic; unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material; made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves; processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients; administered for treatment of medical conditions; sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant; or alcoholic beverages.
Some exemptions:
- Cow’s milk and dairy products, but requires special labels on soy milk;
- Food imported from China and other foreign countries ;
- Animal products (beef or chicken) that were not directly produced through genetic engineering would also be exempted, regardless of whether the animal had been fed GE crops.
Proposition 37 would ban the sale of tens of thousands of perfectly-safe, common grocery products (only) in California unless they are specially repackaged, relabeled or made with higher cost ingredients.
Proposition 37 is a deceptive, deeply flawed food labeling scheme that would add more government bureaucracy and taxpayer costs, create new frivolous lawsuits, and increase food costs by billions — without providing any health or safety benefits.
That’s why Proposition 37 is opposed by a broad coalition of family farmers, scientists, doctors, business, labor, taxpayers and consumers.
The Lake County Chamber of Commerce shares the same rationale for opposing Proposition 37 as those stated by the San Francisco Chronicle, the Oakland Tribune, the Sacramento Bee, the Contra Costa Times, the Modesto Bee, the Merced-Sun Star, the Redding Record Searchlight and many more newspapers throughout the state – while many people feel strongly about the premise of labeling in foods, labeling and legislation are not synonymous.
This initiative’s random exemptions of products, the lack of specifics about funding and implementation, and the crafting of legal language that allows lawsuits to be filed against a retailer merely on the basis of a “suspicion” does not a good legal mandate make.
The San Francisco Chronicle states: “This measure is an example of why some public policy – no matter how well intentioned and benign sounding – should not be decided at the ballot box. Prop. 37 is fraught with vague and problematic provisions that could make it costly for consumers and a legal nightmare for those who grow process or sell food … An issue of this consequence should be considered in the Legislature, where the language would be subject to hearings and input from myriad stakeholders. But advocates of the labeling law never attempted that step, despite Democratic majorities in both houses.”
The Legislative Analyst’s Office noted that the initiative authorizes “consumers to sue without needing to demonstrate that any specific damage occurred as a result of the alleged violation.”
Opponents of Proposition 37 cite this issue as the main problem with the initiative – their very real concern is that it “invites citizen lawsuits as the primary means of enforcing the labeling law” (Modesto Bee).
California has experienced firsthand the negative consequences of a voter-approved law being used as a potential tool for frivolous lawsuits as seen in the over 16,000 legal actions initiated in the aftermath of Proposition 65 (passed in 1986).
We agree that Prop. 37 is indeed an imperfect piece of proposed legislation. We disagree though with the conclusion that the end justifies the means.
We believe that a voluntary labeling of “no-GMO” by the producers of those products would better suit the end purpose for those who care passionately about whether or not they consume food products containing GMOs.
The Modesto Bee stated, “Even voters who worry about genetically modified food should reject Proposition 37. This flawed measure would set back the cause of labeling.”
The statement by the San Francisco Chronicle sums up our position on this proposition best: “But precision of language matters in law, and opponents claim that this clause was written so loosely that it could include any processed food. The nonpartisan legislative analyst agreed. Californians will be voting on the language of the law, not merely the concept. Vote no on Prop. 37.”
Melissa Fulton is chief executive officer of the Lake County Chamber of Commerce, based in Lakeport, Calif.
- Details
- Written by: Ellen Karnowski
Around the nation, people in the other 49 states are watching and waiting to see if we make an informed decision in November. Only the future of generations to come is at stake.
Jeffery Smith, world expert on GMOs and author of “Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods,” testified at a state committee hearing on GMO labeling in Connecticut in September.
He told legislators that genetic engineering is an “infant science” and is irrevocably polluting the gene pool and threatening human health and nature.
Smith is not anti-science, but would like to see responsible testing done to let the science “grow up.”
Humans should not be guinea pigs, and right now we are.
Women are not going to be warned by any government agency that their reproductive health is at risk, because those agencies have been instructed to fast-track bioengineered products.
Smith explained that for the 16 years GMOs have been in the food system, the federal government, including the FDA, whose GMO policy was written by a former attorney at Monsanto, has been promoting biotechnology.
GMOs have been linked to illnesses from cancer, food allergies and most recently to infertility in animals and humans, due to the manner in which engineered genetic material (called Franken genes) take up residency in those consuming them.
Engineered genes entering the food chain from Roundup Ready plants are designed to break open the stomachs of insects, but also create punctures in human cells.
A filmmaker Zofia Hausman testified to the same committee that she filed in an Iowa town where infertility was high and where there “had not been a live birth in five years.”
In the amniotic fluid of those women whose babies died, genetic material engineered by Monsanto had been found.
We need a choice whether to consume GMOs or not. Corporate ads on television and in the mail are heavily claiming the poorest will suffer if labeling passes.
Actually, we all will suffer, poor or not. European citizens who did pass labeling laws did not see their costs rise.
Wake up and let’s set a good example for the nation. Passing 37 is only a small step in the process.
Ellen Karnowski lives in Kelseyville, Calif.
- Details
- Written by: Nelson Strasser
The Russian intellectual, Vigotsky, made the point that a single word can mean more than a word: it can evoke a sentence, or a paragraph or a constellation of ideas.
He used, as an example, the word “exploitation.” The mere mention of the word in Stalinist Russia invoked images of factory workers toiling long hours for subsistence wages. Exploitation meant capitalist vampires sucking the blood from the working class. The mention of the word was fire starter on flame.
America has a word which serves the same function: socialism. And here I am not talking about the economic system, but rather the set of notions that the word itself arouses: Government should not invade our lives and make our decisions; you should work hard and be prudent and you won’t need the government; people should not think that the government owes them anything, and, there should be an adventurous capitalism with “no ceiling, no net.”
The fact that some folks work hard but can’t afford health coverage, or that people that do have “coverage” far too often end up in bankruptcy, notwithstanding, let’s assume for a moment that this argument has at least some merit. Hold that thought.
Interestingly, the folks most likely to champion such ideas are wealthy conservative capitalists. But, when some of them put leveraging on steroids, and through incompetence, negligence, criminality or a combination thereof, brought the economy to near collapse, the government, was their “daddy.”
They begged for money like men begging for water after days dehydrating in the Sonora Desert. Suddenly, they needed a “net.” “Save the economy! (and us). The system will collapse!
No talk of socialism then, was there? No “stand on your own two feet,” or “you must suffer the consequences of your acts,” or, “you’re poor because you want to be poor.”
Instead of the “every man for himself” mantra, we heard, “we all are in this together.” Even though “we” did not cause the debacle; “they” did.
They received enough help from the government to avert the crisis, at least for the time being. We don’t know how much because the Fed provided some of the aid and their workings are not open to public scrutiny. Without that help, the system “too big to fail,” would have failed.
When push comes to shove, the folks who espouse these ideas about government don’t even believe them. Nevertheless, they are effective in propagandizing the populace.
So, that is why we, unlike every other civilized country in the world, don’t have universal health care: because of the word “socialism.”
That is how ideology functions: We are preconditioned to allow rhetoric to mold our perceptions to make them work against our own best interests, and to see the world through the prism of the wealthy and powerful (which they themselves don’t adhere to when it becomes inconvenient to do so).
We have public water districts, public utilities, public education and public libraries. Why not public health care, privately administered: in other words, Medicare for all?
The system is in place, we just need a bigger umbrella.
Nelson Strasser lives in Lakeport, Calif.
- Details
- Written by: Cody Fincher
Just a FYI to the residents of Lucerne. As one of the customers of the California Water Services Co., we received several “free” toilets the company gave us to replace older toilets.
The toilets are manufactured by Caroma, an Australian company. They were given to us to save water and are dual flush and do save water in that respect.
However, what I have found out the hard way that there is a $5 washer (seal) that allows the units to leak a gradual stream of water. It is such a invisible leak that it may not appear to be a big deal, but it does leak constantly, 24/7 and has been doing so for an undetermined length of time. Both toilets in my home were leaking.
Granted, these commodes are about 3 years old and “possibly” a normal toilet would start to leak as well. But parts are readily available in any hardware store to correct any problems. The seal for this had to be tracked down by calling the company representative in British Columbia. The representative at the company pointed out that the seals routinely fail after about three years. Planned obsolescence at its best.
To all concerned: The seal is for the M5 toilet and has a PN of 750017. I had to contact Cal Water to get the phone number, which is 604-430-2020 or 1-800-605-4218 and push the extension for Debbie Foley. She mailed me three of the replacement seals that fixed the leaks.
Cody Fincher lives in Lucerne, Calif.