Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (4) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: ttrivenr Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 2406  
Subject: PEPSI against Prop 37. Date: 9/25/2012 6:10 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I was excited to be directed to your portfolio today during the Invest Better Event in Los Angeles. I am looking for resources for SRI and look forward to following along.

It's difficult to find companies I feel good about, particularly in the industrial, food, and energy sectors. For example, I got as far down your list as Pepsi (2nd on the list) before finding a conflict (for me). Just today I noticed that Pepsi donated 1.7 million dollars to fight Prop 37 in California. Prop 37 would mandate labeling of genetically engineered foods. See link for prop 37 donations http://www.kcet.org/news/ballotbrief/elections2012/propositi...

Pepsi contains: carbonated water, high fructose corn syrup, caramel color, sugar, phosphoric acid, caffeine, citric acid, natural flavor. High fructose corn syrup comes from corn. Ninety percent of corn grown in the US is GE corn. Most people don't know what the GE corn modification is. One of the Monsanto GE corn modifications is that it is modified to withstand more Round Up Pesticide, which is made by... Monsanto, and which has been shown to deplete soil quality. Frito-Lay products also contain large amounts of GE corn. Pepsi might argue that it is fighting Prop 37 on the basis of cost of special packaging. But the fact that they use GE product shows that they care more about the bottom line than the environment. If the GE food is safe, why not agree to add the labeling to all packaging, not just in California?

Personally I think all Americans have the right to know that the food they are eating has been dosed with large amounts of pesticides and/or herbicides. There was a study published recently that showed mice fed with GE corn were more likely to develop tumors and die earlier deaths. This study has been criticized by supporters of GE foods. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/20/science/la-sci-gmo-f...

For the actual study:

http://research.sustainablefoodtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/...

Here's a Vanity Fair article that talks about Monsanto, their seeds and how they were developed to resist Monsanto's own herbicides. Monsanto donated 7 million dollars to fight Prop 37.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto...

I'll be voting for Prop 37, and I am more likely to invest in a company that donates in support of the Proposition, and that supports sustainable agriculture in general.

That said, there might be companies in my portfolio that would make some people queasy. Also, Pepsi should be commended for their efforts to diversify their workforce. But I can't invest in a company that sells food with GE High Fructose Corn Syrup.

I keep searching for good companies to invest in, so I look forward to suggestions.

Rebecca
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: penchy1 Big red star, 1000 posts Global Fool Motley Fool One Everlasting Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1075 of 2406
Subject: Re: PEPSI against Prop 37. Date: 9/26/2012 12:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Hi Rebecca

Great information! I don't know how to read the data because I am not a scientist. Can you or anyone help on this part of the chart in the actual study?

Doses by treatment 3 a month
Duration in months 24

So the negative results were attained in only 3 doses a month for 2 years? How large per body weight was the dose?

I don't want this to impact me, so would want to extrapolate the information to myself.

Sounds crazy but it is informative.

Thanks.
Mark

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ttrivenr Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1076 of 2406
Subject: Re: PEPSI against Prop 37. Date: 9/26/2012 11:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
It is very hard to read. I could point you to some videos that would explain the science of GMOs from the anti-gmo side, but I don't think that's what you are looking for, and you can find those by googling (or bing-ing) pretty quickly. I would love to see an explanation of the study from a neutral party.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TMFLomax Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1077 of 2406
Subject: Re: PEPSI against Prop 37. Date: 9/27/2012 11:50 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Hi Rebecca,

I'm so glad that you found your way to this board and this portfolio!

I hear you, big-time, on the GMO issue. For one thing, MON will never find its way into this portfolio due to its many negative attributes, many of which you have mentioned. (I have written in the past about how MON is probably one of my LEAST favorite stock ideas.)

I am also very much in favor of GMO labeling. I am myself distrustful of how much GMO (most importantly, GMO corn) has been included in our food supply without the benefit of simple labeling. I believe consumers have a right to know this and make their own decisions as to whether they want it or not. (I do know some people who are very much opposed to anti-GMO argument, for example, pointing out the recent data that came out lacked information like, corn in general isn't good for rats, but I digress). Regardless of which "side" is correct, I feel strongly about labeling and personally, don't really like the idea of using consumers as guinea pigs, which is how it has felt given the way rulemaking took place (MON's links to the FDA when GMO rules came up).

That does bum me out that PEP made that stance, though sadly, it's probably not surprising. Unfortunately SRI is not a perfect world, and that's why I welcome people here to refute some of my picks and give their reasons why they don't believe certain companies are socially responsible.

I should probably do an update on PEP soon, and this does remind me to do so as soon as possible.

Thanks so much for your thoughts!

Best,

Alyce

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (4) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement