Genetically Controversial

One of the ballot initiatives, here in California, deals with genetically modified food labeling.    At first glance I thought, oh, I wonder what defines genetically modified.  Several strains of various vegetation have been created or modified by grafting, hybridization, and tweaking this and that to aid in the natural selection process.  Does that count?

I also thought it would be interesting to see if most of what I eat falls into the genetically modified food group.  But I had to delve a little into the measure to see what I could see.  What I could see was that some food which matters not to me has to be labelled while other products don't.

Without coming right out and saying it, the measure almost calls out company names and insists they label, while being sure to lay down big speed bumps for mom and pop operations and small farmers.  It is not even across the board.

That is usually the case with regulation that looks dandy on its face, but then turns out to be a case of special interest and/or company A getting something in to screw over company and/or special interest B.  The old government-business partnership which we are told is commerce heaven.

I'd like to know if my chips have been modified with some kind of gene that makes me stupid if I eat it, but this initiative doesn't look like a reliable way to know anything.  Dog food would be required to label but some things that I actually eat wouldn't.  I forgot the specifics.  They lost me when I realized that when they drew the line they gerrymandered to include some but not others.

Today, in a parking lot, a guitar player's wife asked me if I eat genetically modified food.  Probably.  She has a sticker on their car in favor of prop 36 or whichever it is.  I asked if this wouldn't add to food costs and administrative costs.  "Oh no, they just have to add a little to the label, it costs almost nothing. Vote for it, that is all you need to do."   I pretended I would, even though we already know my mail-in ballot has already been sent in, read, and tossed in the trash by my political adversaries.

I'm pretty sure I voted NO because I saw it as an open door to cutthroat corruption, and because implementing it and enforcing it are sure to affect costs, and now we have more food police bureaucracy.  Maybe if it had not been such a pick and choose type of thing.

That was what blew me away back when NAFTA came about.  I skimmed it---a rather hefty tome--and discovered they named specific companies and dictated who could do what where.  That is not free trade, that is the spoils go to political allies and those who own a piece of government.  If it is not a document describing principles and rules, but rather one bestowing certain rights to specific firms, then it is garbage.  That's my view.

Anyway, what if the genetically enhanced food I've been eating has twisted my mind and if it were untwisted I'd not think this way at all?  I'll bet I could sue someone if only I could remember what I thought before their genes made me think like this.

Shock therapy.  Like what put me off of Playboy way back when.   I was in the Air Guard doing about 25 or so make up drills.  Since they had no women's barracks, they put me up at a Holiday Inn.  Had to be equal.  So, I was wild and crazy and ended up with a slightly older woman who had a fairly new set of enhanced hoots.  Ever since, I have preferred real life.   The stuff in the magazines all looked fake after that.

Just my luck, as time went on this sort of installed baggage up top has become way too common and popular.  I say, if you aren't reconstructing, just leave it be.  In any case, my view of such matters changed and stayed that way.

So what would shock me into not thinking how I think?  See what genetically modified food does to one's mind?  Maybe that explains our governor, ex governor, senators and difficulty of legally throwing anything away.


.