[Spitty]

Listen, let me try and make this succinct.

Your position is sound and agreeable, but mutually exclusive from the idea that Proposition 37 needed to be passed.

Genetically-modified food is, at best, an unknown quantity with vague implications when it comes to human and animal health and wellbeing. Plenty of people are absolutely against eating any product containing manually-modified genetic code. That's fine, and labeling would help that segment of the population achieve that end without an intense amount of time and labor devoted to due consumer research.

Proposition 37 was the malformed result of large companies attempting to fight that labeling. When it became clearer that it would go to popular vote, these large companies lobbied intensely for contingencies that would not only offset their burden, but would allow them gigantic capital gains by swallowing small market retailers that couldn't afford to research and label all items they sold.

You think you put some effort into researching your dog's food? Try multiplying that labor by thousands of products and you'll get the idea of what Proposition 37 would have done to small markets; markets which, especially in California, are already bending over backwards to source local products from genuine farming entities.

The derailment of Proposition 37 may have delayed the GMO labeling debate again, but it's an incredibly smart step in the direction of preventing these GMO companies from increasing in size and clout. It's not hyperbole to say that passing 37 would have resulted in less non-GMO food being available, and Monsanto et. al would have seen massive increases in market shares.

Make sense? You're right, but barking up the wrong tree.