After Prop. 37: What does its defeat mean for the food movement? »
Apparently I’m on the post-Prop. 37 beat. I don’t even know how I feel about food labeling, you guys! And yet. If it weren’t for food labels, how would we vegans eat? How would anyone with a food allergy get by? It’d be all produce, all the time, and we’d be full of vegetables and miserable (I don’t want to live in a world without Field Roast Italian sausages). Plus, food justice (or whatever) is a vegan issue. Everyone should have access to enough nutritious, delicious food that doesn’t cost an arm and a leg.
The Friedman Sprout, “the student newspaper of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, has a neat article by M.E. Malone on the repercussions of its defeat, and the future of the “food movement” (so uncomfortable with that label).
“I am not sure the strict line between the definitions of GMO technology and non-GMO technology is really the right way to distinguish bad technologies from good technologies,” [Parke Wilde, associate professor at the Friedman School] said. Wilde added that there are legitimate concerns about GMO technologies, including “the control of seed varieties by a single corporation and the flawed [Food and Drug Administration] review of proposed GMO salmon,” that are unrelated to the gene manipulation process.
(Ha ha fuck off, GMO salmon. As if farmed salmon weren’t trouble enough.)
TL;DR: Of course we have a right to know what’s in our food. On the other hand, if we don’t sufficiently understand the technologies used in producing both GMO and non-GMO foods, how can we regulate them? At least we can agree on our hatred of monocultures, right?
[Photo by Nuclear Winter via Flickr]