It is currently Sat Oct 21, 2017 8:03 pm



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
 Yes on Prop 37 
Author Message
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 6:55 am
Posts: 3309
Location: 30 clicks N of 3030
Post Yes on Prop 37
It is now getting close to a real fight on Prop 37 with Dr Mercola weighing in with some nasty news of the lobbying campaign efforts against this bill....


Breaking News Alert! Dr. Mercola Attacked by Biotech Bullies

By Dr. Mercola

We all know that labeling genetically engineered foods is a common sense right that is enjoyed by over 50 other countries, including China, India, and Russia.

But for Americans, that right has been taken away from us. The chemical companies and the junk food companies have done everything possible to hide the truth from Americans for the sake of their profits.

I knew going into this battle, that it would be a significant challenge and risk to me personally. You see, when you fight against major chemical companies like Monsanto, you're sure to get a little dirty along the way.

The processed food and chemical companies have paid over $40 million to hide the science experiment that has secretly ended up on the dinner plates of hundreds of millions of unknowing Americans. These multinational corporations are worried, and will do anything to keep you in the dark.

Keep in mind that the top six funders of "No on 37" are also the six largest pesticide companies in the world! That alone should tell you that their stance has nothing to do with your health and well-being.

This was just one of the ads that Monsanto & company have been sending voters to discredit me with lies. This is no surprise, considering how many people - inlcuding farmers, Monsanto has attacked in the past.

Image

False Claims and Misrepresentations Used to Mislead Voters

The "No on 37" campaign has been caught misinforming voters again and again over the past several months. For example, on October 18, the "California Right to Know Yes on 37" campaign requested the U.S. Department of Justice conduct a criminal investigation of the "No on 37" campaign "for possible fraudulent misuse of the official seal of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration." According to the press release.

"The Justice Department should investigate this fraudulent dirty trick perpetrated by the 'No on 37' campaign," said Gary Ruskin, campaign manager of 'California Right to Know Yes on 37'. "They are running a campaign of lies, deceit and trickery, and some of it may be criminal."

The 'No on 37' campaign affixed the FDA's seal to one of the campaign's mailers. Section 506 of the U.S. Criminal Code states: "Whoever... knowingly uses, affixes, or impresses any such fraudulently made, forged, counterfeited, mutilated, or altered seal or facsimile thereof to or upon any certificate, instrument, commission, document, or paper of any description... shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."

The letter also provides evidence that the 'No on 37' campaign falsely attributed a direct quote to the FDA in the campaign mailer. The quoted attribution, which appears below, is entirely false and fabricated. The FDA did not make this statement and does not take a position on Prop 37."

Image

Other unethical transgressions employed to confuse voters who are still on the fence include:

The repeated misrepresentation of their lead spokesman, the long-time front man for the tobacco industry, Dr. Miller. In campaign advertisements, Dr. Miller has been presented as being affiliated with Stanford University, when in fact he has NO such affiliation. The misrepresentation is in direct violation of the University's policy, and when Stanford learned about the false use of its name, they demanded that the 'No on 37' campaign change the ad.
According to the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (the world's largest organization for food and nutrition professionals), No on 37 misled the public about the Academy's stance on genetically engineered foods in the Secretary of State's Official California Voter Information Guide. The press release2 issued by the Academy reads in part:

"...the California Official Voter Information Guide regarding Proposition 37... inaccurately states that the Academy 'has concluded that biotech foods are safe.' The statement is false... We are concerned that California voters are being misled... Voters need accurate information in order to make an informed choice."

Fuzzy Logic Used to Confuse You on the Basic Issues

The anti-choice campaign likes to claim that Prop 37 was written by trial lawyers in order to hit small grocers and growers with lawsuits. The truth is that the "Yes on Prop 37" is a grassroots effort, started by a concerned California grandmother who saw that there was no way of avoiding genetically engineered foods even if we wanted to, since they didn't have to be labeled.

The labeling campaign is about having the right to know what's in your food – just like you're informed about the nutritional content, and the presence of peanuts (important for those with allergies) and other food additives. Whether genetically engineered ingredients are good or bad for your health is really beside the point. Aspartame is not good for you, yet it's on the label, and people have the right to consume it as they please. That's all this is about – just state what it is on the label.

The Monsanto campaign claims Prop 37 is "anti-science" and would ban safe foods. This is nonsense, as Prop 37 doesn't ban anything. It simply requires the label to state whether the food contains genetically engineered ingredients or not. You're still free to sell it and buy it.

The only thing it prohibits is the mislabeling of GE foods as "all natural," a term that many tend to associate with more organic standards – which GE crops cannot comply with. You're currently paying a premium for "all-natural" foods that actually use GE ingredients, thinking you're getting something better than conventional! THAT'S hurting your wallet. Accurately labeling these foods will not.

As for their argument that genetically engineered foods have been around for many years without health problems, this is another nonsensical claim, as there's no way of tracing any potential health problems back to the food without labelling! The potential truthfulness of their claim in fact hinges on GE foods remaining unlabeled. Without labeling there's simply no way to know, because there's no way to track or trace side effects like people can now do with aspartame, or any other food allergy.

It's "Do or Die" Time...

While these chemical companies claim their genetically engineered seeds will one day feed the world, they lie to us and create massive amounts of patented genetically engineered sugar beets, soy, and corn for high fructose corn syrup.

These crops are not fit to feed cattle, much less humans. How can anyone ignore the fact these companies are producing products that are devastating human health while monopolizing our entire agriculture and food system?

The junk food grocery association has indicated Prop 37 is their #1 initiative to stop, and they are spending tens of millions to prove it. You'd think if they would be using genetically engineered foods to save the starving people around the world, labeling them should be a great way to advertise. So why do they want to prevent labeling genetically engineered foods so badly?

The LA Times has just reported the "Yes On 37" campaign still narrowly leads in the polls 44 percent to 42 percent.

We are at the crossroads and a win is within reach, but we cannot ignore the fact these chemical companies are buying votes with tens of millions of dollars by spreading lies.

So now is the time for the final push to win the Right To Know Genetically Engineered Foods by simply labeling them like over 50 other countries around the world including Russia and China.

We need to reach many Americans who don't know these genetically engineered foods have been introduced into our food supply.

Our message is simple, just like Prop 37. A few words on a label to inform consumers if products contain genetically engineered ingredients. Let's allow consumers to decide, and not the chemical companies or junk food industry.


Source Story



:sherlock

:popcorn

_________________
We all have the choice to exercise Free Will.

Omnia Vincit Veritas


Tue Oct 30, 2012 11:48 pm
Profile
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 6:55 am
Posts: 3309
Location: 30 clicks N of 3030
Post Re: Yes on Prop 37
Image



Pretty easy to see who's gonna loose the most by checking the balance of the lobby investment... ;)

_________________
We all have the choice to exercise Free Will.

Omnia Vincit Veritas


Tue Oct 30, 2012 11:51 pm
Profile
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 6:55 am
Posts: 3309
Location: 30 clicks N of 3030
Post Re: Yes on Prop 37
"And as the US goes - so the world will go"

_________________
We all have the choice to exercise Free Will.

Omnia Vincit Veritas


Wed Oct 31, 2012 12:21 am
Profile
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 6:55 am
Posts: 3309
Location: 30 clicks N of 3030
Post Re: Yes on Prop 37
“Expert” Detractors on California Prop 37 are Shills for Big Biotech
By Dr. Mercola

All eyes are on California where Proposition 37, which, if passed, would require labeling of foods produced using genetic engineering. It will be put to voters on November 6th. In recent weeks, the battle over GMO labeling has taken an ugly turn. In a true David versus Goliath battle, the opposition will apparently stop at nothing to defeat the measure.

What are they so afraid of?

A common corporate tactic, well-honed by the tobacco industry, is to hire "third-party experts" to bring your message to the public, especially through the media. The idea is that academic types carry much more credibility than the likes of Monsanto when it comes to defending genetically engineered food.

University of California at Monsanto?

It's no accident that the "No on Prop 37" campaign has many academics on its side at the University of California at Davis. The school enjoys millions of dollars in research grants and other largesse from the biotech industry.

A 2004 story in the Sacramento Bee1 describes UC Davis as a research incubator for Big Biotech:

"You name it, and biotechnology companies help pay for it at UC Davis: laboratory studies, scholarships, post-doctoral students' salaries, professors' travel expenses, even the campus utility bill."

According to Bill Liebhardt, former director of the UC system's sustainable farming program:

"'The public is having a hard time figuring out where the corporate door ends and where the university door begins.' And UC Davis cell biologist Eduardo Blumwald says that biotech companies 'are influencing the way we do research.'"

That would certainly explain why so many UC Davis professors profess support for the "No on 37" campaign.

One article, co-authored by University of California at Davis professor Colin Carter,2 not only defends genetically engineered (GE) foods, but also makes unsubstantiated claims while mischaracterizing the language of Prop 37, as Tufts professor Parke Wilde pointed out in August.3 Another pair of UC Davis professors were paid by the "No on 37" campaign, which released their report4 with this dramatic headline:

"UC Davis Professors of Agricultural Economics Release New Report that Shows Proposition 37 Will Increase Costs for California Farmers and Food Processors by $1.2 Billion."

The Los Angeles Times5 reported that the No campaign paid UC Davis professors Julian Alston and Daniel Sumner at least $30,000.

"This article would never stand to peer-review scrutiny, which explains why the report isn't published anywhere but on the 'No on 37' website,"6 he says.

Professor Alston is no stranger to Monsanto largesse. According to the Sacramento Bee:7

"In July 2002, UC Davis farm economics professor Julian Alston found a patron in the private sector: Monsanto, one of the world's five largest crop biotechnology firms. The official announcement came in the form of a letter. 'Dear Dr. Alston,' it read. 'Please find enclosed a check for $40,000 that represents an unrestricted gift in support of your research program.'"

Next, UC Davis Professor Kent Bradford penned a curious op-ed in the Woodland Daily Democrat8 opposing Prop 37 that listed talking points bearing striking resemblance to the "No on 37" campaign's arguments.9 That similarity just might be explained by Bradford's deep ties to Monsanto. According to the Sacramento Bee,10 Branford is "director of the Seed Biotechnology Center at UC Davis, and a leader of Seed Central, a university-led initiative to attract seed industry to the Davis area." He recently trumpeted Monsanto's $31 million expansion at the Woodland, California campus, saying the investment, "capitalizes on UC Davis and the research capacity of the companies."

Most recently, two UC Davis professors appeared on an episode of the Dr. Oz show defending genetically engineered foods.11 One of them, Martina Newell-McGloughlin is director of the University of California Biotechnology Research and Education Program,12 while the other, Alison L. Van Eenennaam, has worked for Monsanto.13

It's no wonder the funders of "No on Prop 37" would keep dipping into the UC Davis deep well of alleged academic experts. They obviously made an excellent investment, and it's payback time.

Monsanto Expert, Henry Miller: "I am Not a Stanford Professor, But I Play One on TV"

"No on Prop 37" has been putting Henry Miller front and center of its campaign. Miller has a long and sordid history14 of defending toxic chemicals such as DDT, in addition to working for Big Tobacco. He also tends to misrepresent himself quite a bit. As the Los Angeles Times15 reported, a "No on 37" ad had to be pulled off the air because Miller was identified as, "Dr. Henry I. Miller M.D., Stanford University, founding dir. FDA Office of Technology." Behind him in the shot was Stanford's recognizable vaulted campus walkway.

Just one problem: Miller is not a Stanford professor but a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank that happens to be housed on the Stanford campus. Adding insult to injury, Stanford has a policy to not take positions on candidates or ballot measures, and does not allow political filming on campus.

Oops. The campaign admitted its error and edited the ad.

But the Stanford deception did not end there. Recently, the "Yes on 37" campaign complained16 that Stanford's policy was being violated once again, this time in at least two different "No on 37" flyers sent to California voters that identify Miller as, "Henry Miller, MD, Stanford University." The campaign claimed it wouldn't happen again... Right.

False Claims and Misrepresentations Used to Mislead Voters

The "No on 37" campaign has been caught using fraudulent misinformation to confuse voters again and again over the past several months. For example, on October 18, the "California Right to Know Yes on 37" campaign requested the U.S. Department of Justice conduct a criminal investigation of the "No on 37" campaign "for possible fraudulent misuse of the official seal of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration." According to the press release:

"'The Justice Department should investigate this fraudulent dirty trick perpetrated by the 'No on 37' campaign,' said Gary Ruskin, campaign manager of 'California Right to Know Yes on 37.' 'They are running a campaign of lies, deceit and trickery, and some of it may be criminal.'

The 'No on 37' campaign affixed the FDA's seal to one of the campaign's mailers. Section 506 of the U.S. Criminal Code states: 'Whoever... knowingly uses, affixes, or impresses any such fraudulently made, forged, counterfeited, mutilated, or altered seal or facsimile thereof to or upon any certificate, instrument, commission, document, or paper of any description... shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.'

The letter also provides evidence that the 'No on 37' campaign falsely attributed a direct quote to the FDA in the campaign mailer. The quoted attribution, which appears below, is entirely false and fabricated. The FDA did not make this statement and does not take a position on Prop 37."



According to the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (the world's largest organization for food and nutrition professionals), "No on 37" also misled the public about the Academy's stance on genetically engineered foods in the Secretary of State's Official California Voter Information Guide.

The press release18 issued by the Academy reads in part:

"...the California Official Voter Information Guide regarding Proposition 37... inaccurately states that the Academy 'has concluded that biotech foods are safe.' The statement is false... We are concerned that California voters are being misled... Voters need accurate information in order to make an informed choice."

Fuzzy Logic Used to Confuse You on the Basic Issues

The anti-choice campaign likes to claim that Prop 37 was written by trial lawyers in order to hit small grocers and growers with lawsuits. The truth is that "Yes on Prop 37" is a grassroots effort, started by a concerned California grandmother who saw that there was no way of avoiding genetically engineered foods even if we wanted to, since they didn't have to be labeled.

The labeling campaign is about having the right to know what's in your food – just like you're informed about the nutritional content, and the presence of peanuts (important for those with allergies) and other food additives. Whether genetically engineered ingredients are good or bad for your health is really beside the point. Aspartame is not good for you, yet it's on the label, and people have the right to consume it as they please. That's all this is about – just state what it is on the label.

The Monsanto campaign claims Prop 37 is "anti-science" and would ban safe foods. This is nonsense, as Prop 37 doesn't ban anything. It simply requires the label to state whether the food contains genetically engineered ingredients or not. You're still free to sell it and buy it.

The only thing it prohibits is the mislabelling of GE foods as "all-natural," a term that many tend to associate with more organic standards – which GE crops cannot comply with. You're currently paying a premium for "all-natural" foods that actually use GE ingredients, thinking you're getting something better than conventional! THAT'S hurting your wallet. Accurately labeling these foods will not.

As for their argument that genetically engineered foods have been around for many years without health problems, this is another nonsensical claim, as there's no way of tracing any potential health problems back to the food without labelling! The potential truthfulness of their claim in fact hinges on GE foods remaining unlabeled. Without labelling there's simply no way to know, because there's no way to track or trace side effects like people can now do with aspartame, or any other food allergy.

Science Media Centre aka Big Biotech Spin Control

A related tactic to hiring academic experts one at a time to do your bidding is to corral them all into one really important sounding organization; often, an "institute." The Tobacco Institute was an arm of Big Tobacco that according to its own description,19 acted "as official spokesman for the industry, always reflecting official [strategy] position agreed upon by all members."

Moreover, spinning science through a sophisticated public relations campaign was paramount. The institute's main mission was:

"[P]ublicizing scientific research funded by the industry which produces counter evidence to unfavorable findings or, at least, helps to keep the question open."

Sounds unbelievable now, but for decades this strategy was so effective that it delayed policy action while millions died. Enter the Science Media Centre. Headquartered in the UK, there is also a US-based outlet. Their mission (like their name), sounds innocuous enough:

"Our aim is to ensure that when a major science story breaks, we can quickly offer news desks a list of scientists available to comment, a summary of the main scientific points involved and details of which press officers or web sites to go to for further information."

They also provide handy tips in this document called, "Communicating risks in a soundbite: A guide for scientists," on how to respond to media questions by downplaying problems. For example, if a reporter asks, "Is it risky?" the scientist should get the journalist to instead ask about the benefits by replying, "the benefits outweigh the risks." Another suggested answer: "It is a very small risk. So small that I believe it is safe."

Why would a "science media center" put words into scientists' mouths?

Just take a look at the sources of funding, which include:

BASF
Bayer
Biotechnology & Biological Sciences and Research Council
CropLife (pesticide and biotech trade group)
Monsanto
Novartis
Syngenta

Not exactly players with an objective view of science. This might explain why the center pounced on the recent French study showing organ damage and massive cancer tumors in rats fed GE corn. This was the first lifetime feeding study that has ever been conducted with GE food, so it was sure to be a major embarrassment to Big Biotech.

The very same day the French report was published came a press release from the Science Media Centre claiming "anomalies throughout the paper" despite the authors having been through the usual peer review process.

The main statement from the center was authored by Professor Maurice Moloney, head of Rothamsted Research, which was the target of a protest earlier this year. (A counter group formed at the time, calling itself "Sense about Science." This is a common tactic, to portray those who object to tinkering with nature as anti-science luddites.) Moloney is certainly not an objective scientist when it comes to genetically engineered foods, as his Porsche license plate with the letters GMO indicates.

Image
Image Courtesy of SpinWatch.org

His bio includes working at biotech incubator Calgene (which was later bought by Monsanto), "where he developed the first transgenic oilseed plants using canola as the model crop," which became the basis of Monsanto's Roundup Ready and Liberty Link canola products."

How nice. So the man who gave us Monsanto's premiere product – Roundup Ready – doesn't think an independent study demonstrating harm from eating genetically engineered food is valid? Why am I not shocked?

Have You Fallen for Falsehoods?

Here is what should be shocking: that it's so easy for opponents of GMO labeling to insert such obviously biased scientific spin into the public discourse. According to GM Watch, Moloney's critique was picked up in numerous media outlets, at times, just attributed to unnamed "independent scientists." Mission accomplished.

In addition to using experts for hire as spokespeople, the "No on 37" campaign has engaged in numerous other underhanded tactics, getting caught each time.

For example, the "Yes on 37" campaign recently sent letters to the U.S. Department of Justice requesting a criminal investigation for possible fraudulent misuse of the official seal of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. "No on 37" included the FDA logo on a mailer sent to California voters, along with a quote falsely attributed to FDA saying the agency was opposed to Prop 37.

"No on 37" has also misrepresented the positions of several health and nutrition organizations, even going so far as to deceive Californians in the official voter guide.

How sad that Monsanto and friends must stoop so low to keep consumers in the dark about what they are eating. What are they trying to hide?

Passing Prop 37 is Key to Expanding Sustainable Agriculture in North America

It's quite evident that we have no real champions for food safety and labeling of genetically engineered foods within the federal government. As I recently reported, the last three U.S. Presidents and Presidential-hopeful Mitt Romney all have something health related in common – they all insist on 100% organic diets for their own families while promoting unlabeled GE foods on the rest of us.

But right now we do have a great opportunity to change this situation by circumventing Monsanto's posse entirely. Americans are becoming very aware of a significant problem with our food, and that starts with transparency.

Although many organic consumers and natural health activists already understand the importance of Proposition 37, it cannot be overemphasized that winning the battle over Prop 37 is perhaps the most important food fight Americans – not just Californians – have faced so far.

But in order to win this fight for the right to know what's in our food, we need your help. Please remember, the failure or success of this ballot initiative is wholly dependent on your support and funding! There are no major industry pockets funding this endeavor. In order to have a chance against the deep pockets of Big Biotech and transnational food corporations, it needs donations from average citizens.


Source Story




:sherlock

_________________
We all have the choice to exercise Free Will.

Omnia Vincit Veritas


Wed Oct 31, 2012 12:32 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 8:59 am
Posts: 6532
Location: Friendswood, TX
Post Re: Yes on Prop 37
Why I'm Voting Yes on Prop 37: Label Genetically Modified Foods

Darya Pino, Ph.D.

Ph.D-trained scientist; Foodie; Advocate of Local, Seasonal Foods

To be honest, I'm a little surprised I even need to write this. In a national survey, over 90 percent of American voters favored labeling genetically modified (GMO) foods. Labels for GMOs are already required in the European Union, Japan, Australia and dozens of other nations. In direct expenses, adding a label costs next to nothing for both companies and consumers.

I was a bit annoyed when I started seeing ads calling Prop 37 unnecessarily complicated and poorly written, but I didn't think TV ads could close such a huge gap. Before the television blitzkrieg by the anti-Prop 37 contingent, it looked poised to win in California by a landslide, and I figured the lead was large enough to hold.

However, anti-Prop 37 contributions have totaled over $41 million, with the biggest donors being Monsanto, Dupont, Pepsico and other giant food producers. (In comparison, the pro-Prop 37 contributions total just over $6 million -- a little less than Monsanto contributed alone). As a result the most recent polls show Prop 37 is in a dead heat, and we are in danger of losing this opportunity to add transparency to our food system.

snip

What's at Stake

Big Food has always fought tooth and nail against any kind of labeling regulations, but are quick to seek approval of health claims to put on the front of food packaging whenever possible. It's obvious why. For food manufacturers labels are about marketing, not about health. Positive labels sell more food, while negative labels discourage sales.

Our current food system is shrouded heavily in secrecy, and this is intentional. Food companies rightfully fear that if we know more about what is in our food and how it was produced, we might start asking more questions and demanding better. Currently corn, soy beans, cotton, sugar beets, canola, alfalfa, Hawaiian papaya, zucchini and yellow crookedneck squash are genetically modified. Billions of dollars have been invested in this technology and the big food companies would not be happy if some of us decided to stop eating these foods.

What this really comes down to is transparency. Honest businesses with nothing to hide only win when more transparency is available. This is largely why organic food is such a big supporter of Prop 37 -- the organic certification system is incredibly rigorous and these companies have already invested in the transparency of their businesses.

Consumers also win with more transparency because it enables them to make better informed decisions. If we believe certain GMOs are safe to eat, we can eat them. If some of us are more skeptical of one kind or another, we can skip them. Even Big Food benefits in the long run with more transparency, because it creates more confidence in their products as they are proven safe.

Prop 37 does not make any judgement on GMO foods. It does not ban them and it does not regulate their use. It simply requires food companies to indicate on their label if GMOs are present, so consumers can know with confidence what they are buying and eating. If you think this small act of tranparency is reasonable, you should support Prop 37 and vote yes if you live in California. :clap

Read more here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/darya-pino/prop-37-genetically-modified-food_b_2040371.html?utm_hp_ref=food

_________________
The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. - FDR


Wed Oct 31, 2012 6:55 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 8:59 am
Posts: 6532
Location: Friendswood, TX
Post Re: Yes on Prop 37
Prop. 37: Genetic food labels loses
Proposition 37
Stacy Finz
Updated 5:04 a.m., Wednesday, November 7, 2012

A measure that would require most foods made with genetically engineered ingredients to be labeled in California was significantly behind early Wednesday.

Supporters of Proposition 37 said consumers have a right to know whether food has been genetically altered, particularly when the long-term health impacts are unclear. Opponents argued that the labels would stigmatize foods that are scientifically proven to be safe.

With more than 94 percent the precincts reporting, voters rejected the proposed labeling law. California would have been the first state in the nation to pass such an initiative.

"We said from the beginning that the more voters learned about Prop. 37, the less they would like it," said Kathy Fairbanks, a spokeswoman for the opposition. "We didn't think they would like the lawsuits, more bureaucracy, higher costs, loopholes and exemptions. It looks like they don't."

The measure calls for genetically engineered foods to include labels on either the front or back of the product. Whole foods, such as sweet corn and salmon, would have a sign on the shelf. Products such as alcohol, beef, eggs and dairy are exempt.

"Whatever happens tonight, this is a win," said Grant Lundberg, CEO of Lundberg Family Farms, co-chair of Yes on 37. "Never before have millions of Californians come together to support giving consumers a choice about genetically engineered foods."

Opponents argued that the price of new California labels, or the cost manufacturers will incur by changing over to non-GMO ingredient, would be passed on to consumers. The No campaign calculated that households would pay as much as $400 more a year in grocery bills. But there is no independent study to show that.

Opponents, raising more than $45 million, had the backing of large agribusiness and chemical companies such as Monsanto and Dow, and food manufacturer giants, including PepsiCo. The Yes campaign raised about $6.7 million and was supported largely by the organic industry, consumer groups and alternative medicine organizations.

snip

Read more here: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Prop-37-Genetic-food-labels-loses-4014669.php

Sigh! Next time... :mrgreen:

_________________
The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. - FDR


Wed Nov 07, 2012 7:51 am
Profile
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 6:55 am
Posts: 3309
Location: 30 clicks N of 3030
Post Re: Yes on Prop 37
Proposition 37 appears to have failed in California, but GMO labeling awareness achieves victory

Proposition 37 appears to have failed at the ballot box in California, according to the California Secretary of State ballot measures results. The GMO labeling ballot measure, which would have required food companies to label the GM content of foods, was defeated with the use of over $45 million in fraudulent advertising and dirty tricks funded by Monsanto, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Kellogg, General Mills, DuPont, Bayer and other food and pesticide companies.

Over the last month, this cabal of deceptive companies has funneled money into a campaign of criminal fraud which, among other crimes, fabricated a fake FDA quote and sent out mailers that fraudulently used the FDA seal. A criminal complaint has already been filed with the FBI.

The "No on 37" campaign also used fabricated front groups and impersonated a police organization (among others) to send out yet more fake mailers to voters, claiming that the police oppose GMO labeling. That fraudulent claim, of course, is entirely false.

Huge victory in terms of GMO awareness and grassroots support
The grassroots effort to pass Proposition 37 was supported by the efforts of millions of activists, plus financial donations from Mercola, Nature's Path, Amy's, Dr. Bronner and other companies. Natural News donated $10,000 to the effort and provided comprehensive editorial coverage of the grassroots effort. Click here to see a chart of who gave money to the effort.

And click here to see some of the "natural" brands that betrayed consumers with the "No on 37" deception.

Those brands include Kashi, Silk, Cascadian Farm, Larabar and more.

In many ways, the YES on 37 campaign was a huge victory for awareness. The campaign organized over 10,000 volunteers in California alone and succeeded in achieving a massive social media presence.

The YES on 37 campaign also forced Monsanto and the biotech giants to spend $45 million to defeat the measure. That's a record expenditure by the world's largest toxic pesticide companies to try to prevent consumers from knowing what they're buying. Remember: GMOs are the only products that consumers accidentally purchase without knowing what they're buying.

What's clear from all this is that GMO labeling has a foothold in the minds of American consumers, and this effort to label GMOs is going to be repeated state after state, year after year, until victory is achieved.

The biotech industry can no longer keep its dirty little secret: There's poison in your food, folks, and the big food producers absolutely do not want you to know that you're eating it.

The GMO labeling battle has only just begun

Monsanto and other companies appear to have won this showdown in California, but they are going to lose the war of deception against consumers. As awareness of GMOs continues to spread, people will demand honest labeling in increasing numbers.

The huge burst of awareness on Prop 37 has a lot of people asking the questions: Hey, what are GMOs? And why aren't they labeled on foods?

That question will ultimately spell defeat for Monsanto, Kellogg, General Mills, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and all the other evil, deceptive corporations who bankrolled the "No in 37" criminal fraud that deceived a majority of California voters.



http://www.naturalnews.com037873_Propos ... eling.html


:sherlock

_________________
We all have the choice to exercise Free Will.

Omnia Vincit Veritas


Thu Nov 08, 2012 3:52 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 8:59 am
Posts: 6532
Location: Friendswood, TX
Post Re: Yes on Prop 37
:clap Sky!

I absolutely, 100 percent agree with this

Quote:
Monsanto and other companies appear to have won this showdown in California, but they are going to lose the war of deception against consumers. As awareness of GMOs continues to spread, people will demand honest labeling in increasing numbers.

The huge burst of awareness on Prop 37 has a lot of people asking the questions: Hey, what are GMOs? And why aren't they labeled on foods?

That question will ultimately spell defeat for Monsanto, Kellogg, General Mills, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and all the other evil, deceptive corporations who bankrolled the "No in 37" criminal fraud that deceived a majority of California voters.


They have lost the war but they just don't know it yet.

The slow food movement is gaining momentum - not stalling.

Go to any farmer's market on Saturday morning and what do you see? TONS of folks there buying organic food.

Take a look at Whole Foods and other stores like Trader Joe's (which we now have in Houston) and Central Market. Crowded, crowded, crowded.

Take a look at food blogs - there are so many of them now that I can no longer keep up.

Take a look at Pinterest - food, food, food. My niece and her friends have "Pinterest Parties" where they cook recipes they've pinned and make pinned crafts. This is becoming all the rage in my area. :heart These are young women with young children who are avid foodies. :yamon

Just like in the election, big money lost. Monsanto and PepsiCo and all the others will lose this fight because folks are sick and tired of fast food and prepackaged junk.

In my area, we just had a new restaurant open - the Bonefish Grill. The line to get in every night is long, long, long. You have to make a reservation a week in advance (and they are one of the very few restaurants in my area to even take a reservation). And ya know what? They don't serve much fried seafood! :crylaugh

Yep, us Suthraner's love us some fried shrimp, fried oysters and fried fish all served with fried hush puppies and French fries. Not there. :nono

East Texas and I finally got reservations a couple of weeks ago. I had some of the best grilled swordfish served over pumpkin ravioli I have ever eaten in my life. :mrgreen:

_________________
The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. - FDR


Thu Nov 08, 2012 7:30 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.