Thank you for your article, "The $38 Million Label" (Oct. 11). Why would six chemical companies and their allies be willing to spend that kind of money to prevent one simple line on an ingredient label? Why are they so intent on concealment? What kind of public policy is it that withholds pertinent information from the consumer? On the basis of those questions alone, I'm persuaded to vote for Prop. 37. But there's more.
When I read the opposition's arguments, I'm struck by their purported concern over lawsuits against small mom and pop grocers. My understanding is that the entity guilty of mislabeling would be the responsible party, not the grocer who simply puts the product on the shelf. Further, Prop. 37 provides an out if a product has not been knowingly or intentionally genetically engineered. Ironically Monsanto, itself, seems to love lawsuits -- provided it's the plaintiff. Monsanto has been the biggest bully on the block when it comes to suing and bankrupting small farmers. And get this: If, for example, wind-born pollen from a neighboring GE crop contaminates your field, Monsanto's licensing agreement absolves it and your neighbor from responsibility, while you can be (and most certainly will be) sued for patent infringement! I'm not making this up; it's that crazy. So serious is the situation that a group of 60 family farmers, seed businesses and organic agricultural organizations filed a preemptive lawsuit against Monsanto, (Organic Seed Growers & Trade Association, et al. v. Monsanto) seeking protection from accusations of patent infringement should contamination occur. They lost the first round but the case is under appeal.
It seems to me we have a system that is out of control and we, the people, need to stand up and be heard. We need to know what is in our food. Yes on 37.
Kay Schaser, Eureka