Genetically Modified Food Debate At Chapman University Today!

Categories: News
little blue hen/Flickr Creative Commons
Whether to pass or strike down Proposition 37, an initiative requiring labels on some genetically modified foods, is the subject of a debate that will take place at Chapman University this afternoon.

If the proposition passed, it would make California the first state that mandates GMOs (genetically modified organisms) to be labeled as such. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration currently doesn't require labeling on any genetically modified foods, if there is no evidence of harm; the decision to present that evidence, however, is left up to the food developer, and we all know how that goes.

Advocates cite health concerns as their main reason for voting yes on the proposition; they've pointed to a new French study as proof that GMOs pose health risks. Opponents, however, have their own science for reference, including geneticists and biologists who contend that GMOs have been around for decades and they are completely safe. Polls show statewide support for Prop 37, but that may or may not change as opponents currently levy an intense $35-million television advertising blitz to change voters' minds.

So what are the pros and cons of Proposition 37?

Come to the debate, which goes from 3 to 5 p.m. today at Beckman Hall Room 404, to find out. Panelists include John Diaz of California Right to Know, Brendan Huffman of the No on Prop 37 campaign, and genetics expert Alan McHughen. For more details, visit the event page.

Follow Stick a Fork In It on Twitter @ocweeklyfood or on Facebook! And don't forget to download our free Best Of App here!

Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help

Still waiting for a link or two to  peer reviewed scientific studies demonstrating the safety of GMOs. That's the way it's done in the scientific community. A researcher publishes their experiment details, lab notes, math, conclusions and then their peers in the scientific world vet it for accuracy.Out of all these "thousands of studies" you claim have been done, why can't you come up with even one reference????????

Quotations from industry trade groups that make money off a technology are not an impartial endorsement of it.

My sick daughter who had asthma, allergies and skin disorders is now symptom free after going  on a GMO free diet. It took a lot of research to figure out that diet. It's not fair to working parents for them to have to do scientific research in the cereal aisle.


There's a couple problems here. One is that Prop 37 passing won't get labels on all the food that it should be on. But worse is that the No on 37 people do not want you to know what's in your food. They will not tell you this but will deflect by pointing out alleged flaws in Prop 37. But if GMO's were good for you then the companies using them wouldn't mind telling you that they are using them. So somebody needs to hold their feet to the fire over what problem they have with telling people what is in their food. That should be the prime discussion point.


I don't see how safety issues can be discussed without a panel of medical doctors. The only people qualified to make medical judgments on safety are : neonatologists, epidemiologists, endocrinologists, hepatologists, immune-allergy specialists. Listening to a molecular biologists ( trained and skilled in plants) or a geneticists who lacks a medical degree is like getting stock advice from a waitress at KFC.

Now Trending

From the Vault