Press Statement

Documented Deceptions of No on 37 Campaign

For Release: November 2, 2012

Today leading consumer groups revealed a long list of documented deceptions of the No on 37 Campaign, including blatant misrepresentation of the positions of leading science, professional, academic organizations and government agencies as documented below. This pattern of fraud tells the true story about how far the world's largest pesticide and junk food companies are willing to go to keep American consumers from having a choice about genetically engineered foods. Opponents of Prop 37 have been caught red handed:

Making demonstrably false statements in the official California Voter Guide. From page 57: “Respected scientific and medical organizations have concluded that biotech foods are safe, including: National Academy of Sciences, American Council on Science and Health, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, World Health Organization."

False. The only group on that list that has "concluded that biotech foods are safe" is the American Council on Science and Health, which happens to be a notorious front group for the pesticide industry and climate change deniers.

What about the NAS, WHO and Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics?  

  • "A National Academy of Sciences spokeswoman said the group has not evaluated whether it's safe to eat genetically engineered food," according to Sacramento Bee. The story was later corrected per NAS request to say, "The National Academy of Sciences determined in 2004 that 'no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population.'" The same NAS report states that the products of genetic engineering technology “carry the potential for introducing unintended compositional changes that may have adverse effects on human health.” Human studies have not been conducted.
  • World Health Organization says that ongoing risk assessments are needed and that “GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.”
  • Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics issued a press release alerting voters that their group was misrepresented by the No on 37 campaign in the voter guide. "We are concerned that voters are being misled … Voters need accurate information in order to make an informed choice.” While the Academy's official evidence-based position on GM foods won’t be available until 2013, registered dietitian and Academy spokesperson Jeannie Gazzaniga-Moloo, Ph.D, R.D. says, “The Academy supports consumers right to know what ingredients are in the foods they purchase to feed their families.” She adds, “Those who have specific questions about foods or ingredients should contact food manufacturers directly.”

Fabricating quote from US Food and Drug Administration about Prop 37, attaching FDA's logo and mailing it to voters in possible violation of federal law. FDA confirmed to KPBS on Oct. 19 that they "never made such statements with respect to Prop 37." On Nov. 1, the Right to Know campaign received an inquiry from an FBI agent following up on the mailer, and the matter has been referred to FDA for further inquiry.

Misrepresenting Stanford University in first TV ad -- No on 37 was forced to yank their first TV ad because it identified spokesman Henry Miller as "M.D. Stanford" when he is actually a researcher at the Hoover Institute, as Los Angeles Times reported.  

Continuing to misrepresent Stanford in mailers to voters with false title for Henry Miller -- as the Stanford Daily reported.

Fabricating San Francisco Examiner endorsement --  see what the San Francisco Examiner thinks about their logo appearing prominently in a No on 37 campaign ad, since they have actually endorsed Yes on 37. 

Repeatedly misleading voters in ads.

  • SJ Mercury Ad Fact Check: Cost claims “mostly untrue”
  • SacBee Ad Watch: “misleads on labeling costs”
  • SacBee Ad Watch: “no independent studies have confirmed (cost) estimates" ... "There is no evidence the measure was inspired or funded by the trial lawyer lobby." 
  • SJ Mercury Ad Fact Check: Exemptions ad “partially misleading”

Misleading voters with deceptive mailers by obvious front groups:

  • Californians Vote Green opposes Prop 37 and if you want to know why, the only thing you can learn from their website is that you should "please direct inquiries to Paul."

  • "LA County Democratic" sent a last-minute slate mailer urging LA voters to vote against Prop 37. The real LA County Democratic Party, which endorses 37, said there's nothing they can do since the fake front group doesn't use the word "Party" in their name.

Using science organizations and professors to spread their deceptive talking points. 

  • The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) statement opposing GMO labeling repeated the false talking points of the No on 37 campaign and raised the ire of many in the scientific community. See letter by 20 scientists and physicians objecting to AAAS statement. Also see Michele Simon's piece, "Is a Major Science Group Stumping for Monsanto?"
  • Kent Bradford is just one of many UC Davis professors parroting the No on 37 talking points and UC Davis gets major funding from Monsanto. See Michele Simon's, “Did Monsanto Write this Op Ed Signed by a UC Davis Professor?”

Elevating anti-science radical Henry Miller as a “top science” source. Miller has fronted for big tobacco and climate change deniers, campaigned to reintroduce DDT, and famously claimed that nuclear reactor leaks could benefit human health. 

Also see: California Newspaper Editorial Boards Spread False Claims and Faulty Logic on Proposition 37.
Truth about Lawsuits
Truth about Costs
Truth about Exemptions

Help us spread the truth about Proposition 37; donate today.

Do you like this post?

Showing 23 reactions

followed this page 2016-07-28 10:00:26 -0700
followed this page 2015-04-20 17:08:07 -0700
followed this page 2015-03-23 02:19:27 -0700
followed this page 2013-10-14 03:24:53 -0700
commented 2013-09-08 15:26:53 -0700 · Flag
I hope that this information gets out to others in states that are going to bevoting on the same type of measure.
commented 2013-09-08 05:44:08 -0700 · Flag
So where’s this gonna end, I’m looking forward on this issues. Share it with us at Thanks.
commented 2012-12-07 17:01:34 -0800 · Flag
Definitely some very shady dealings.
I worry that the first thing that will happen if this somehow passes is that companies will just fail to label, and pay a “Stiff Financial Penalty” which just translates into the costs of running a profit for profits sake business. And then there’s the testing agencies, how do we verify that a company is in fact not using a GMO? And what about real penalties?
commented 2012-12-07 15:18:37 -0800 · Flag
Can we PLEASE sue Prop 37 and Monsanto out of existence?!?!?!
commented 2012-11-11 22:49:08 -0800 · Flag
commented 2012-11-11 22:23:10 -0800 · Flag
What about the 3 million missing votes and the FBI’s investigation into that?
commented 2012-11-10 11:29:23 -0800 · Flag
I’d also like to add my appreciation of Stacy and Ronnie Cummins. Even if it’s a legitimate loss, we can take heart in knowing that it’s only a matter of time…….
commented 2012-11-10 11:26:25 -0800 · Flag
It’s obvious that we need to ramp up the public information campaign, use future donations for a harder hitting TV ad, exposing IN DETAIL, as much as time/$ allow, the fraudulent methods of Monsanto et al . Personally, I didn’t think “Food is Love” was a very effective counteroffensive for the corporations’ big guns. Maybe time to take off the gloves?
commented 2012-11-09 18:48:43 -0800 · Flag
Even though we didn’t win this one, let’s continue to reveal the deception of the No on 37 campaign and who is behind that. Are there any attorneys following up on it? Also, we should encourage the companies of the foods we eat to label their foods if they are non GMO, and tell them we will continue to buy it if they do so. We can also call and write the companies that are not organic and are using GM ingredients to switch to non GMO ingredients and request them to label it and we will continue to be a customer but if they don’t, we will no longer buy their product. If large amounts of people do this, they will have to rethink their sources for their product because they will lose big money, What do you think?
commented 2012-11-08 09:20:23 -0800 · Flag
So what now?
commented 2012-11-07 17:15:15 -0800 · Flag
Wish this could have come out before the election. People believed the apparently real claim of apparently real authorities that were as phony as a three dollar bill!
commented 2012-11-07 17:11:05 -0800 · Flag
Any chance of suing them?
commented 2012-11-07 15:09:22 -0800 · Flag
Thanks Ron, I appreciate that!
commented 2012-11-07 14:24:52 -0800 · Flag
How can it be that they have gotten away with this without any repercussions? Don’t we have some kind of legal recourse? I can’t believe that we just have to lay down and let them get away with such blatant and rampant deception and corruption; that we can’t do anything about it.
commented 2012-11-07 07:49:06 -0800 · Flag
Like most people I’m a bit suspicious that in an election which had a strong democratic showing the only initiative that failed by this margin is Prop 37. Hopefully someone is checking on if the vote was hacked. I certainly wouldn’t put it past Monsanto knowing their disgustingly scandalous history.

Still, even if it was legitimate I think that the Right to Know, natural and organic food industry can take solace in the fact that now A LOT MORE people are now aware of the GMOs issue. I believe that clean, healthy foods will only grow as a result of the Prop 37 campaign.

One last thing that needs to be said, much thanks and appreciation to Stacy Makan and especially to Ronnie Cummins who has fought so long and hard all these years to inform people what the big agrochemical giants are doing to our food and thus to our health. If there is a heaven I’m sure you’ll be there.

commented 2012-11-04 19:55:06 -0800 · Flag
How about documenting the deceptions made by both sides on the same issue?
commented 2012-11-04 16:03:48 -0800 · Flag
How blatantly corrupt and deceptively evil the intent of the No on 37 campaign is. I just saw an add on Youtube just before a Christian Aguilera music video saying Vote No on prop 37, and it said labeling is deceptive…argh. How can labeling be deceptive, not labeling is deceptive! The big food companies are cringing because they will lose profits as people decide not to buy GMO foods if Prop 37 goes through. It will force them to consider what they putting in their products if they are held accountable, and then require them to use non-gmo food sources if they want to keep business alive. I hope this ideal becomes a reality! Of course, then they could always say that it’s non GMO, even if its not…..I wouldn’t put it passed them. Profit’s before morals typical with Machiavellian agro-chemical capitalism. Who will check to see if they are using non GMO ingredients? I see that there has always been those who were destined to continue to ferret out the lies and corruption in a civilization. There will always be refining to do when it comes to the character of a culture, and we must face that task together to be thorough. With an understanding of the ongoing nature of what it takes to keep the inferior aspects of humanity in check, we can take it on like we do keeping the dishes washed in our sinks or brushing our teeth, because if we don’t the bacteria will eventually take over!
commented 2012-11-03 23:11:43 -0700 · Flag
Well- the good news is there are manufacturers of GMO-free products who have heard the demand and are voluntarily labeling their products as such, independently verifying real world GMO-free validation via their supply chain and purchase requirements. So it will be up to the customer to make the smart choice and abandon poisoned foods – there are plenty of educational lists on the web now of which food products to avoid, and to only buy certified organic. The next big attack will come against the Organic standards for what it takes to list a product as USDA Organic certified – big money will move to kill the true meaning and health aspects and taint it with chemicals and evil indeed.
commented 2012-11-02 10:36:41 -0700 · Flag
This is good to hear of course; I hate to rain on this news but our concern is that there really is no punishment for these people. When they don’t care about anything but money, wouldn’t they have anticipated backlash, fines and lawsuits and budgeted accordingly? By the time the issue is presented the damage has been done.