Farm Press Blog

Prop 37 brings out sane, unhinged, and plain nasty

  • Let me share snippets from several opinions on the most recent Proposition 37 commentary in this space. They ranged, as always, from sane and civil to nasty and unhinged.

Newspapers often run boxes on their editorial pages offering opinions of newsmakers or events with either a thumbs up or thumbs down graphic.

Let me share snippets from several hand digit opinions on the most recent Proposition 37 commentary in this space.

(For more, see: Conceding to Prop 37 anti-science agenda not acceptable)

This is my favorite. It was not spell-checked by me or obviously by the writer after visiting his/her pot pharmacy:

This article is pure crap. How can you compare people wanting to know whats in and going on with their food with making marjuana legal? How dare you say theres no common sense in California. If you dont like it get the hell out. Marajuan crops are taken over by criminals that is ludicrus and if you have done any of your research crime has gone down significantly in areas where there are medicinal marajuana shops. I for one want to know whats up with my food, are there loop holes yes there always is, why they want it for soy milk and not dairy milk i dont understand myself but I think labling these foods is a good start. Are you aware by the way that europe and asia has been labling their GM foods for years already...hmm interesting I gues you think they are all sensless too.”

And this one:

“The even bigger issue is that the human health effects of the pesticides used on the GM crops HAVE been tested, and have been shown to be very dangerous (2,4-D anyone??). Did I miss the news release announcing the availability of a 2,4-D herbicide-resistant crop or that 2,4-D has been taken off the market because it is “very dangerous”?)

Battling studies:

“Study shows GMOs cause hepatorenal toxicity:”

“Wow, we are impressed you can scour the blogosphere for fake studies.

Here are real, independent studies showing GM safety:”

No pixie dust, please:

“What a concept. Follow the science. I mean the real science, not the pixie dust crap Prop 37 seems to follow.”

Pocket lining:

“All these feel good proposals do nothing except line the pockets of lawyers. People have good intentions but the results are usually the opposite of what they set out to do. That is where the comparison to medical marijuana comes in. Good intentions in practice just opened the door for more crime. And the poster who claimed the opposite is a flat out liar. Crime in the MM shops alone is significant.”

Good for laughs:

“I truly love to watch the Luddites come out in full force whenever a farm press has an article about GMOs. It’s really amusing.”

Truthful Tony the Tiger:

“Prop 37 will not force companies to remove GMO from their food lines. It will only force companies to put a little label right next to "Tony the Tiger" saying that this food is made with GMO ingredients.”

Small farmer:

“I am amazed that you call those of us supporting prop 37 self serving socialists! It’s laughable. I am a small farmer with some very conservative views and family values and a few more liberal. I want the choice of knowing what’s in my food. I do that by growing my own. Produce, milk, meat, eggs. Unfortunately, most people don't have that opportunity. I work my tail off to provide for my family and the 18 or so other families who want this healthful food. All should be given the choice. What’s the matter? Are you afraid given the choice, folks will choose something other than your toxic blends?”

Stellar journalism:

“As a Californian my natural state is to be offended; that said, this article doesn't really surprise me. That an aged advocate with vested interests in industrial agricultural would call me a socialist for wanting to know what kind of food I'm actually eating, or try to shore up a completely arbitrary comparison between GMO labeling and The Devil Weed with some yokel sheriff lieutenant's unverified "statistics" (95% of MJ crops are illegal) doesn't surprise me. The fact that Mr. Cline is recipient of the California Association of Pest Control Advisers' (CAPCA) Outstanding Contribution to California Agriculture doesn't surprise me. The fact that he defends the people who put bread on his table by attacking concerned citizens doesn't surprise me. I mean, what do I know, I'm just some pinko hippy. Stellar journalism sir.”

Gargle with Coca Cola

This (hepatorenal toxicity study) reminds me of the studies in high school science where you put dentures in a glass with coca cola and left it for days. Wow how bad is Coca Cola? As one student said "Yes but I do not gargle with Coke"

Opposition to vaccines:

“Much of the argumentation against Proposition 37 reminds me of that used against vaccines. Those objections were fallacious. Opposition to the application of biotechnology is generated from a society that is rich compared to the much of the world. The basic truth is that we cannot feed the world's population in the decades to come without using genetically modified organisms.”

Where’s the grip?

2nd article I've read by Harry Cline, and the words he uses to describe consumers is very descriptive of his writing. "self-serving" "socialist" "out of touch with reality" I won't waste my time reading any more articles written by such a "marauder" of “giant pesticide and food companies." It's a shame that you have been writing for 35 years and are so closed minded, and lacking in being an investigative reporter. People don't want to read your OPINION, they want fair reporting. Get a grip Harry!”

Discuss this Blog Entry 3

Mary Orcutt (not verified)
on Sep 5, 2012

Thanks for that great link to
I can understand why people want to know what's in their food, but in this case they are afraid of the wrong things....

Anonymous (not verified)
on Sep 5, 2012

I agree w/Mary that people do not know what they are afraid of in their food. We have had GMO foods for several years now and no one complained. Corn, Soy, Beans, sugar, Etc.
What people do not understand is that California will be the only state to have no GMO foods. This will increase the cost of food at the market and all of the labeling that we now have will cost more and maybe we will lose some of the foods that you can now get at the supermarket as they cannot be imported from other areas that use GMO in the planting of the foods
that we eat.

Mary Orcutt (not verified)
on Sep 5, 2012

Hmmm...I don't think we'll have NO GMO foods in California. I think they will have to be labeled "contains GMO" or something like that. They are not outlawing the GMOS, they just want to know if they are eating them. The thing of it is, I don't think people pay much attention to labels. There's saturated fat in lots of stuff, preservatives, sugar, artificial sweetener, colors, you name it, and people still buy it, even for their kids. The problem is that this labeling will cost businesses money and cut into their profit, when all the research I have ever read or heard of (beside that 1 renohepatic damage research that is always quoted by contra GMO people) says there is no problem for humans. That is a real shame.

Post new comment
or register to use your Western Farm Press ID
What's Farm Press Blog?

The Farm Press Daily Blog

Connect With Us

Blog Archive
Continuing Education Courses
Sponsored by Monsanto, this accredited Weed Resistance Management CEU gives an overview of...
New Course
The Federal Organic Foods Production Act set standards for both growers and consumers, and the...
New Course
Mites are small arthropods in the class Arachnida and the subclass Acari. Although they are...

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×