My artichoke plant has exploded and is producing artichokes out the wazooooo.  Delicious and huge artichokes.  I’ve been steaming and delighting in them.  Gotta catch up though – they’re better when not too huge, and some on the plant right now are big enough to use as a mace!

Dear prop 37 authors

Today, after being narrowly defeated, please recognize that this defeat was not a NO to the idea of labeling nor the desire to label GMOs.   The proposition as written had some flaws that gave people pause.  Please, bring it to some policy wonks, or to the legislature, have it go through the process, tighten and strengthen the policy, ensure that it achieves its aim (label GMOs) without unintentional consequences or holes, and pass it as law or re-introduce it in a future election real soon now.

Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt-based rhetoric and these misgivings are what had this round come up short.  Clean up the statute such that it shines and achieves its aim as true to the bullseye as possible and we will get the GMO labeling we want.

Keeping with the food theme

Watching a quick youtube short on freegans I was reminded of just how much food is wasted really wasted on a daily basis, on the pre-vendor, pre-consumer and post-consumer levels.  It’s rather staggering when you think about it.  Which is why he claim “we need GMO’s to be able to feed the world,” seems like a feel-good excuse rather than anything based in fact.  Most of the farming techniques and seed product supported by big petrochem/agrobiz companies actually produce less food per acre and per unit of water use than indigenous techniques (as a even a few TED videos have professed).  Given the silly waste in the system we certainly don’t need GMOs to feed people over here.

And I do think it’s silly.  The amount of food that tossed has economic value, never mind the very basic value of feeding people.  And the value to reduce the amount of land, pesticides, water wastage and more to simply create more food that, itself, will be highly wasted.  And that what food is tossed out because it isn’t edible ends up not returning back to the soil is actually a recent oddity.  Compost, cradle to cradle, waste equals food, natural cycle… I say YES.

Speaking of farming, hands dirty, compost, sun, and delight, I harvested another round of tomatoes from my garden and oh my.  They are this amazing combination of deep red and dark dark green, with an intense and rich taste to match.  I am savouring them sloowwwwwwlllly…


More on Food

To add to my last post, if I were to get to the ballot box on election day and still be undecided about yea or nay, I think I would err on the side of yes and have  labeling rather than none, and trust that any flaws would be remedied.   To have the freedom to choose we need the info.

(Not to mention some of the No ads I’ve managed to see are peddling scare tactics and uncertainty like they’re tic tacs)

In the meantime, here’s another link about food that has me asking the great question, “If design is the signal of human intention, then, given this, what would we say is our/the intention here?  Is that what we would want to intend?”


Well, poo.  On the face of it, the intention behind it, I love Prop 37 and would ask everyone to vote for it.  Mandatory and full disclosure GMO labeling is good sense to me.  However, there’s this thing that this proposition has only ever been a proposition, and like many propositions (and one of the issues I have with the idea of propositions) it is has not had the rigorous go over that much legislation has.  As such, it has issues, loopholes and potentially unintended consequences.  From my own reading of the text in full, and reading various analysis and opinions, is that there’s the thought to say no and have it come back again, more fully formed and a better bill/proposition.  BUT, maybe it would be best to say yea and then come back to amend it with another prop?  Which will work better?  Would No lock it out?  Would a Yes then an attempt to amend be nul as amending would be seen only through the lens of trying to weaken it (no matter what the amendment actually does?)

So here I sit, unsure what would be the more fruitful course… and with only a month to go.   Hrmmmmm… so torn.  Want GMO labelling.  Don’t want poor propositions creating poor hand tying.  On which side to stand?