A Guerrilla Campaign To Correctly Label Food Contents

California’s Proposition 37, which would have required GMO foods sold in stores to be labeled as such, fell short two weeks ago following an advertising blitz against the measure from Monsanto and other players in the agribusiness sector. Label It Yourself suggests an alternative:

The Label It Yourself (#LIY) is a decentralized, autonomous grassroots campaign born out of our broken food system. We have been asking corporations and our government to label food products so we can make educated decisions about what we eat. Our requests have been ignored and so we are taking matters into our own hands.

Using LIY’s resources, we encourage people to: autonomously label GMOs and empower others to do so, rescue words like “All Natural” and “Natural Flavors” from being hijacked, expose unfair labor practices. We have a right to know what is in our food and where it is coming from.

, , , , , ,

  • Hunahpu

    It would be a great action if it wasn’t misleading by using a skull. GMO is not confirmed a posion like tobbaco, chlorine or alcohol.

    • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

      depends on the GMO, some literally produce roundup poison within the plant(can’t even wash that stuff off…)

  • Mike C

    Anyone who’s worked in a grocery store will tell you this is a dickhead move… I still remember re-wrapping dozens of meat packages marked “Meat is Murder!” I grinned at the stickers, but surely someone out there would have an aneurism about the plastics wasted in the process.

    How much food will be thrown out as unsaleable because of this…?

    • asshurtmacfags

      Maybe if the corporate grocery stores end up throwing away enough food they’ll lobby for proper labeling. Won’t work that way though as they’ll probably just increase prices, but hey, a guy can dream right?

  • IRR93

    I think this touches on a grey area contained within the subject of Eugenics, which I’m hoping to hear some discussion about. So, obviously most people are strongly opposed to the forced form of eugenics imposed by the Nazi’s, and most (non-religious) people are in favor of 100% voluntary eugenics measures such as vasectomies and contraception. Now, as far as food choices go, how does a secular person determine the amount morality in the following position:

    “Do the people who put these labels on GMO foods think that they are doing the world a favor by increasing the health of people who would otherwise be willfully-ignorant of their food choices? Why do they think a healthier (more longevous) populous means a better world? Maybe there needs to be a kind of diet-driven mitosis where ignorant people eat unhealthy shit, get cancer, die off; and intelligent people who care about their health eat well, and outlive them. In a few generations, we will have no more stupid people, and no more market for these GMO companies to sell their junk to.”

    This is not necessarily my position, but I would like to hear arguments against it. Every argument I’ve heard against this has, so far, consisted of either “god made us in his image/life is sacred” or “eugenics is bad, mmkay.” Any recommended reading on the subject?

    • Rex Vestri

      “In a few generations, we will have no more stupid people, and no more market for these GMO companies to sell their junk to.”

      If the GMO lobby has its way, in a few more generations the intelligent people that care about what they eat may not even be able to find anything to eat that isn’t GMO.

    • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

      I’ve considered arguments like this, but its got a few flaws when considering long periods of time and real populations. The eugenics hypothesis used in this situation assumes a nice, clean stratification of “stupid people who don’t eat well” and “smart people who eat well”. But in this world, when you try to kill the “stupid people” with chronic toxins, they still survive long enough to spread their mnemes and ideas to other people. Now i know the simple answer to this is “well.. but smart people won’t pick up their stupid ideas,” but again this still assumes the clean simplified stratification. People can be really smart about their food choices, but be really stupid drivers, or have poor money skills, etc. Also, these “smart people” can have children who unless they are sheltered with other eugenicists(which i’m sure does happen), can easily learn from these “stupid people”.

      Maybe eugenicists just don’t want to label the GMO’s because its just one more way where you cannot tell the difference between “stupid people” and “smart people”.

  • “Big” Richard Johnson

    Fight that ketchup che Tomate.

  • alizardx

    The QR Code (that square thing) on the label is a nice touch, but it should point at a web page with the content they want people to read. Low-end smartphone cams frequently can’t cope with the high-density barcode required to display lots of fine print.

  • BuzzCoastin

    I always assume that food I buy in a grocery store is poisoned
    until proven otherwise

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=537648678 Josh Weide

    Label it yourself, fine. But covering up the EXISTING nutrition information in no way suggests that this is about promoting informed consumer choice. It suggests its only purpose is to stifle sales. If someone is OK with eating GMOs, they may also like to read how much fat, sodium, or calories are in the food. For you to deny them that information and replace it with your own FAR more limited “information” is contrary to free choice. It undermines the message that clear food labeling is important.

    • Heath

      IF its about stifling sales, wouldn’t other competitors who were not gmo be under fire as well? Doing their “Crazy” sales tactics?