Thread: Natural Products Association Opposes CA GMO Labelling Proposition

The NPA represents manufacturers of natural foods
and dietary supplements. They've got lots of reasons
to oppose this proposition.

http://www.npainfo.org/NPA/Advocacy/...t_Prop_37.aspx

Mostly, they oppose it because they would be its
main victims, not Monsanto. It's basically a hunting
license for lawyers looking to make a fast buck.

Mark Thorson wrote:
>
> The NPA represents manufacturers of natural foods
> and dietary supplements. They've got lots of reasons
> to oppose this proposition.
>
> http://www.npainfo.org/NPA/Advocacy/...t_Prop_37.aspx
>
> Mostly, they oppose it because they would be its
> main victims, not Monsanto. It's basically a hunting
> license for lawyers looking to extort a fast buck.

Fixed it for you...

"Mark Thorson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> The NPA represents manufacturers of natural foods
> and dietary supplements. They've got lots of reasons
> to oppose this proposition.
>
> http://www.npainfo.org/NPA/Advocacy/...t_Prop_37.aspx
>
> Mostly, they oppose it because they would be its
> main victims, not Monsanto. It's basically a hunting
> license for lawyers looking to make a fast buck.
>

The term "natural" in the quack remedy and food supplement business is the
most misused term out there.
Graham

On Oct 1, 8:52*am, "graham" <g.ste...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> "Mark Thorson" <nos...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]..
>
> > The NPA represents manufacturers of natural foods
> > and dietary supplements. *They've got lots of reasons
> > to oppose this proposition.
>
> >http://www.npainfo.org/NPA/Advocacy/...t_Prop_37.aspx
>
> > Mostly, they oppose it because they would be its
> > main victims, not Monsanto. *It's basically a hunting
> > license for lawyers looking to make a fast buck.
>
> The term "natural" in the quack remedy and food supplement business is the
> most misused term out there.
> Graham

Perhaps, if you were to focus. The topic is GMO food labeling!

On Sep 30, 8:34*pm, Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
> The NPA represents manufacturers of natural foods
> and dietary supplements. *They've got lots of reasons
> to oppose this proposition.
>
> http://www.npainfo.org/NPA/Advocacy/...t_Prop_37.aspx
>
> Mostly, they oppose it because they would be its
> main victims, not Monsanto. *It's basically a hunting
> license for lawyers looking to make a fast buck.


That is what they say. Here is what the TEXT of Prop 37, actually
states in print.

Prop 37, starts on page 31.

http://tinyurl.com/9tx666d

-----
PROPOSED LAW
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
The California Right to Know Genetically
Engineered Food Act
SECTION 1. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS
....
(k) The labeling, advertising and marketing of genetically engineered
foods using terms such as “natural,” “naturally made,” “naturally
grown,” or “all natural” is misleading to California consumers.
-----


What we got here is one more massive governmental regulation. Thus,
to avoid lawsuits all food retailers in California, would have to
start out labeling every item or food bin in their store as follows.
“May be Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering.” Then one by
one, at the retailer level, individual food items would have to be
certified GMO free.

YES, small mom and pop stores would probably be forced to go out of
business.

I will be writing an editorial on this topic.

"John H. Gohde" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Oct 1, 8:52 am, "graham" <g.ste...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> "Mark Thorson" <nos...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]..
>
> > The NPA represents manufacturers of natural foods
> > and dietary supplements. They've got lots of reasons
> > to oppose this proposition.
>
> >http://www.npainfo.org/NPA/Advocacy/...t_Prop_37.aspx
>
> > Mostly, they oppose it because they would be its
> > main victims, not Monsanto. It's basically a hunting
> > license for lawyers looking to make a fast buck.
>
> The term "natural" in the quack remedy and food supplement business is the
> most misused term out there.
> Graham

Perhaps, if you were to focus. The topic is GMO food labeling!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Take your finger out of your arse and read the OP's first sentence!

On Oct 1, 12:31*pm, "graham" <g.ste...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> "John H. Gohde" <john.h.go...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:[email protected]...
> On Oct 1, 8:52 am, "graham" <g.ste...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Mark Thorson" <nos...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]..
>
> > > The NPA represents manufacturers of natural foods
> > > and dietary supplements. They've got lots of reasons
> > > to oppose this proposition.
>
> > >http://www.npainfo.org/NPA/Advocacy/...t_Prop_37.aspx
>
> > > Mostly, they oppose it because they would be its
> > > main victims, not Monsanto. It's basically a hunting
> > > license for lawyers looking to make a fast buck.
>
> > The term "natural" in the quack remedy and food supplement business is the
> > most misused term out there.
> > Graham
>
> Perhaps, if you were to focus. *The topic is GMO food labeling!
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Take your finger out of your arse and read the OP's first sentence!


Take your finger out of your arse and read my second reply.

Then Read what I had posted in my first reply, again.

Perhaps, if you were to focus? The topic is still GMO food labeling!
Whether or NOT the definition of "natural" has anything to do with it,
is highly debatable.

For sure, it is NOT what NPA has suggested.

I have read both analyzes of Prop 37, as well as the entire text of
it. What the NPA is maintaining is pure bunk.

So, Take your finger out of your arse! Arse