Can you guys go down this list posted by the No on 37, and refute this facts they are calling?
https://www.facebook.com/NoProp37/app_116152361871568
I’ve a science degree and can practically see how no on 37 persuaded so many uneducated people. We need to focus on this group the most!
Thanks!
Luigi

Pam, I don’t live in California. But, I’m sharing with interested persons in Louisiana what the CA Right to Know came up against during the Vote Yes 37 campaign.

Please let me know when you are raising funds for your next campaign and I will try to get my limited contributions in in a more timely manner.

There is way too much ignorance and laissez faire to pass anything in Louisiana. Everything has to go through the legislature and we have one of the best that money can buy. So much corruption.

California is our only hope.

All genetically engineered food in the state of California has to be labeled vote yes to label what is in your food.

All genetically engineered food in the state of California has to be labeled vote yes to label what is in your food.

If 2012 was a NON-presidential election year we no-doubt would have passed this. Many wont go out of their way to vote during the general State elections aside from the gubernatorial race (next in 2014). We need to give this another shot in 2013 or 2015. Other States pushing for a similar measure should also consider this strategy. With all the increased awareness and experience we all gained it could be a grand-slam next time around. I’m in there again for the next round of sig gathering! Let’s do it Pamm!

Prop 37, the California Right to Know GMO labeling initiative, was narrowly defeated by a relentless, $46-million advertising blitz by many two-faced companies. I am boycotting, all 10 GMO companies

• PepsiCo (Donated $2.5M): Naked Juice, Tostito’s Organic, Tropicana Organic

• Kraft (Donated $2M): Boca Burgers and Back to Nature

• Safeway (Member of Grocery Manufacturers Association, which donated $2M):“O” Organics

• Coca-Cola (Donated $1.7M): Honest Tea, Odwalla

• General Mills (Donated $1.2M): Muir Glen, Cascadian Farm, Larabar

• Con-Agra (Donated $1.2M): Orville Redenbacher’s Organic, Hunt’s Organic, Lightlife, Alexia

• Kellogg’s (Donated $791k): Kashi, Bear Naked, Morningstar Farms, Gardenburger

• Smucker’s (Donated $555k ): R.W. Knudsen, Santa Cruz Organic

• Unilever (Donated $467k): Ben & Jerry’s

• Dean Foods (Donated $254k): Horizon, Silk, White Wave

http://healthimpactnews.com/2012/largest-health-insurance-company-in-the-us-warns-about-gmo-dangers/

“the U.S. can expect 6-8 percent average annual growth in tourism over the next five years, and this year, 64 million foreign travelers are projected to visit the United States, spending $144 billion during their stays”. If the tourists from the countries where the GMO are labelled learn the food in USA is not labelled, this income from tourism is unlikely to happen and may be actually fall down. So the $8M a company pays against prop 37 is very small and negligible compared to the potential loss of income through tourism especially from families if the food is not labelled. Hopefully you can put this argument forward sometimes.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration Statement of Policy – Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties, in the FDA Federal Register, Volume 57 – 1992, Friday, May 29, 1992:

“Recombinant DNA techniques involve the isolation and subsequent introduction of discrete DNA segments containing the gene(s) of interest into recipient (host) plants. The DNA segments can come from any organism (microbial, animal, or plant)…”

“Food crops have been developed using these techniques to exhibit improved resistance to pests and disease and to
chemical herbicides.” “Scientists have also identified genes in certain fish that encode proteins that conferee increased
resistance to cold…”

" Any genetic modification technique has the potential to alter the composition of food in a manner relevant to food safety.."

“Virtually all breeding techniques have potential to create unexpected (including pleiotropic{5} effects. For example, mutations unrelated to the desired modification may be induced; undesirable traits may be introduced along with the desired traits;
newly introduced DNA may physically insert into a transcriptionally active site on the chromosome, and may thereby inactivate a host gene or alter control of its expression; the introduced gene product or a metabolic product affected by the genetic change may interact with other cellular products to produce a deleterious effect….”

“Plants are known to produce naturally a number of toxicants and antinutritional factors, such as protease inhibitors, hemolytic agents, and neurotoxins, which often serve the plant as natural defense compounds against pests or pathogens….

Except in rare cases, plant breeders using well established practices have successfully identified and eliminated plants that express unacceptably high levels of toxicants prior to commercial use."

“Another unintended consequence of genetic modification of the plant may be a significant alteration in levels of important
nutrients…”

MORE AT:
http://www.fda.govFoodGuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/Biotechnology/ucm096095.htm

In the Danger of Genetically Modified Foods…" a video, aired on the Dr. Oz show, Monsanto wrote as their safety statement:

“There is no need for, or value in testing the safety of GM Foods in humans, so long as the introduced protein is determined safe, food from GM determined to be substantially equivalent is not expected to pose any health risks, further, it is impossible to design a long-term safety test in humans.”

In the 1992, Federal Register: “Virtually all breeding techniques have potential to create unexpected (including pleiotropic{5} effects. For example, mutations unrelated to the desired modification may be induced; undesirable traits may be introduced along with the desired traits; newly introduced DNA may physically insert into a transcriptionally active site on the chromosome, and may thereby inactivate a host gene or alter control of its expression; the introduced gene product or a metabolic product affected by the genetic change may interact with other cellular products to produce a deleterious effect….”

“Plants are known to produce naturally a number of toxicants and anti-nutritional factors, such as protease inhibitors, hemolytic agents, and neurotoxins, which often serve the plant as natural defense compounds against pests or pathogens….

“Except in rare cases, plant breeders using well established practices have successfully identified and eliminated plants that express unacceptably high levels of toxicants prior to commercial use…

“At this time, FDA is unaware of any practical method of predict or assess the potential for new proteins in food to induce allergenicity and requests comments on this issue.”

Source: Statement of Policy – Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties FDA Federal Register, Volume 57 – 1992, Friday, May 29, 1992.

I am hopelessly confused!!!

I contributed to what I thought was the California Right to Know through other organizations, only to find that my contribution to you, went to joining the other organization. I even copied their acknowledgement to me, but it did not dawn on me at the time what I had done. I wonder how often I joined something I did not intend to join, but meant for the money to go to you?

I feel sick!

Correction: The State of Washington’s initiative number is I-522.

total bs +
\Agricultural biotechnology is under attack … again
Colleen Scherer, Managing Editor, Ag Professional | October 15, 2012
ShareThis resize text
Colleen Scherer Attacks against agricultural biotechnology have increased noticeably this fall within the United States and around the world. It appears that activists who oppose genetically modified crops are advancing their causes more aggressively than ever before.

The tactics being used recently are more sophisticated than previously seen, although some of the same tactics are still being used………

I may come up with one you have not seen before A- holes

Transcriptome Diversity Through Post-transcriptional Modification of RNA

Researchers demonstrated that dsRNA can be infectiously transferred through food to gut cells in insects, and subsequently spread within the animals (Gordon, K. H. J. & Waterhouse, P.M., 2007

The developer has just recently made the argument that dsRNA is safe and should also benefit from GRAS status. In a paper released in December 2008, Monsanto surveyed the transcriptomes of soybean seeds, corn kernels, rice grains and plant tissues used in food and feed and found that they have endogenous small RNA molecules with perfect matches to human genes. From this the authors of the study claim that “[t]he abundance of endogenous small RNA molecules in grain from safely consumed food and feed crops…and the homology of a number of these dietary small RNAs to human and animal genomes and transcriptomes establishes a history of safe consumption for dietary small RNAs” (Ivashuta, S.I. et al., 2009). Second, off-target effects sometimes only change protein levels and not transcript levels (Jackson, A.L. & Linsley, P.S., 2004; Scacheri, P.C. et al., 2004), making it even more complicated to track effects.

Finally, countries that might grow dsRNA-insecticide crops in the future, or may wish to export these crops, should be cautious of their obligations under the Cartagena Protocol for Biosafety. According to the definition of modern biotechnology adopted by the Protocol, the insects consuming the dsRNA are arguably GMOs, because the dsRNA is a nucleic acid derived from recombinant techniques and it clearly transfers to the insect and operates as genetic material to achieve the intended insecticidal effect.

. Similarly, it is reasonable to assume that even processed plant-derived products will be contaminated with the bodies of GM insects, so target insects should also be subject to a food safety assessment by precautionary and competent authorities
I t i s e a t i n g w h a t b u g s y o u !

Judy Carman, of Flinders University, who also provided an expert opinion, wrote in “Expert Scientific Opinion on CSIRO GM Wheat Varieties”3: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) Division of Human Nutrition;

Judy Carman states succinctly:

“The wheat genes involved are called SEI. They have extensive similarities with the human GBE gene, which controls glycogen storage. If the GBE gene is defective, it leads to certain death from liver cirrhosis at a very young age. Another defect in the gene results in adult polyglucosan body disease (APBD) in adults over age 40, causing cognitive impairment, pyramidal quadriplegia, peripheral neuropathy, and neurogenic bladder.” way to go with GMO

“What’s Monsanto’s defense of all this? On its website, the company claims:

“There is no need to test the safety of DNA introduced into GM crops. DNA (and resulting RNA) is present in almost all foods … DNA is non-toxic and the presence of DNA, in and of itself, presents no hazard … So long as the introduced protein is determined to be safe, food from GM crops determined to be substantially equivalent is not expected to pose any health risks”

It would be hard for me to add much more double speak to the “determined to be safe” and “is not expected to pose any health risks”.

“In fact, employees from the world’s largest GM company, Monsanto, have written at least one paper about how to commercially exploit the fact that dsRNA survives digestion in insects, in their attempts to try to control insect pests of plants. That is, the plant is genetically engineered to produce a dsRNA, which insects ingest when they eat the plant; the dsRNA survives digestion in the insect and then silences genes in the insect to stunt its growth and kill it.”

“ ‘Dr. Michael Hansen, Senior Scientist at Consumers Union wrote to me after this post was published with an important point about the significance of the Chinese study. While he agreed that the main implications relate to the possible risk from microRNA-based GM foods, he also felt that this study did make a new and somewhat startling finding regarding how plant genetic material affects humans. As he put it, the study “showed that the miRNA not only survived digestion [in humans] but also was taken up and moved to other parts of the body where a specific impact was noted. The studies you cited — from Seralini’s lab and Malatesta’s lab — only show that GE crops can have an adverse effect on animals.” ’

“When those with a vested interest attempt to sow unreasonable doubt around inconvenient results, or when governments exploit political opportunities by picking and choosing from scientific evidence, they jeopardize public confidence in scientific methods and institutions, and also put their own citizenry at risk.”

Unlike safety evaluations for drugs, there are no human clinical trials of GM foods. The only published human feeding experiment revealed that the genetic material inserted into GM soy transfers into bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function.³⁹ This means that long after we stop eating GM foods, we may still have their GM proteins produced continuously inside us”

Professor Jack Heinemann at the University of Canterbury’s Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety

“Heinemann points out that a silencing effect on a gene, once initiated, can be inherited. Though it’s known to happen, little is yet known about the process.

An expert opinion of Professor Jack A. Heinemann, PhD 28 August 2012

Heinemann makes these three points:

1. Plant-derived microRNA [a type of dsRNA] precursors have been detected in human blood, thus demonstrating that they can survive the human digestive tract and be passed into the body through it. He emphasizes: “There is strong evidence that siRNAs [a type of dsRNA and the one of particular concern here] produced in the wheat will transfer to humans through food.”

2. dsRNA that have been shown to transmit to humans through food have also been shown to survive cooking! He points out: “There is strong evidence that siRNAs produced in the wheat will remain in a form that can transmit to humans even when the wheat has been cooked or processed for use in food.”

3. Plant-derived dsRNA was able to silence a human gene in cultured cells. He wrote: “There is strong evidence that once transmitted, siRNA produced in wheat would have the biological capacity to cause an effect.”

…If some crazy person wanted to kill a bunch of people you could invent a mRNA microRNA use a piece of dsRNA) that interrupts RNAi and make it stop the ATP enzymes, the same way cyanide does when it stops your breathing, then GMO ’s would mean something completely different.
eat this and it will take your breath away
it may have been tested on cows

Cyanide-Producing GM Grass Linked To Texas Cattle Deaths …