Marjorie Roswell

Statement about Bogus Economic Analysis of GMO Labeling Costs - Yes on Prop 37

The same companies that told us DDT and Agent Orange were safe and that have a history of misleading the public with bad science are now making false claims that Proposition 37 will raise the cost of groceries by hundreds of dollars a year.

The No on 37 campaign’s recent economic analysis of Proposition 37, conducted by Northbridge Environmental Management Consultants, is based on so many flawed premises that it is an entirely useless analysis of the California ballot initiative for labeling genetically engineered foods. Northbridge has no economic expertise; they are a consulting firm best known for opposing recycling laws for the soda pop industry.

In contrast, a real economic study on Proposition 37 conducted by Joanna Shepherd Bailey, Ph.D., a tenured professor at Emory University School of Law, found that: “Consumers will likely see no increases in prices as a result of the relabeling required.” Among the report’s findings –- backed by empirical literature and historical precedents – is that companies’ fear of losing customers due to increasing grocery prices is a significant deterrent to passing on the “trivial” labeling costs to consumers.

“California consumers know that putting a little ink on a label is not going to change food prices,” said Stacy Malkan, Media Director of California Right to Know. “No one is going to be fooled by this work of fiction dressed up in a little economic flourish.”


Health Care Providers Support GMO Labeling

 For Immediate Release:  June 20, 2012

Contact:  Stacy Malkan, 510-542-9224, stacy@carighttoknow.org

The American Medical Association passed a resolution yesterday calling for mandatory pre-market safety assessments of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). GMOs are crops that have had their DNA artificially altered by genes from other plants, animals, viruses or bacteria in ways that cannot occur in nature.

Priority should be given to basic research in food allergenicity to identify potential allergens in GMO food, as well as the development of tools to avoid antibiotic resistance, AMA said.

The AMA stopped short of calling for mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods, but 19 physicians at the meeting in Chicago signed a statement supporting labeling.


published Press Releases in Yes On 37 In The News 2012-09-05 09:19:16 -0700

Big Food girds for California GMO fight

REUTERS, by Lisa Baertlein and Carey Gillam, August 17, 2012

After two decades fighting to force U.S. food companies to tell consumers when their products are made with genetically modified organisms, activists in California have mounted what is potentially their most promising offensive to date.

In November, voters in the nation's most populous state will decide whether to require labels on food and drinks containing so-called GMOs, or ingredients that come from plants whose DNA has been manipulated by scientists. 


Big Tobacco Shills trying to stop gmo labeling in California

APPETITE FOR PROFIT, by Michele Simon, August 13, 2012

The food industry really hates it when you compare them to Big Tobacco. They try to deny the negative association by claiming that food is different than tobacco. Of course that’s true, but why are the same consultants that have worked for the tobacco industry now shilling for Big Food, opposing the ballot initiative that would require labeling of all foods containing GMO ingredients?

Hiring Secret Consultants for the Dirty Work

The latest financial filings in California for the “No on 37: Coalition Against the Deceptive Food Labeling Scheme” – reveal a $7,500 payment to the Sacramento-based political consulting firm, MB Public Affairs. Here is how the Los Angeles Times described the firm last year: 

MB Public Affairs is headed by Mark Bogetich, a garrulous operative known to his friends as “Bogey,” who has helped a number of Republican candidates neutralize their opponents. In recent years, MB Public Affairs has worked for Altria, once known as the Phillip Morris Cos. …

 


Survey Says: LA grocery shoppers want GMO labels

LAist, by Gabriela Worrel, August 17, 2012

gmo-carrots-shutterstock.jpgMuch has been written about genetically engineered foods in recent months. While information is abundant, we wondered what on-the-ground shoppers in Los Angeles think about genetically engineered products on their grocery shelves. Here are some snippets from random surveys done at several supermarkets in L.A. While the survey is by no means scientific, it's a small picture of what our fellow Angelenos are thinking.

Seven out of ten randomly surveyed shoppers at four major grocery stores in the L.A. metropolitan area were aware that some items sold in grocery stores have genetically engineered ingredients.


Ag giants spend big to defeat GMO labeling initiative

Join a million more for the right to know what we eat. Sign up to make history today!

ASSOCIATED PRESS, by Garance Burke, August 15, 2012

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- The nation's largest agribusiness and biotech companies are pouring millions of dollars into California to stop the first-ever initiative to require special labels on foods made with genetically modified ingredients, a sign of their determination to keep the measure from sparking a nationwide movement.

So far, farming giants such as Monsanto, Dupont Pioneer and Cargill have contributed nearly $25 million to defeat the proposal, with much of that cash coming in the past few days. It's nearly 10 times the amount raised by backers of the ballot measure who say California's health-conscious shoppers want more information about the food they eat.


published Press Contact in Yes On 37 In The News 2012-09-05 08:59:17 -0700

Press Inquiries for Yes on Prop 37

For press inquiries, contact Stacy Malkan at stacy@carighttoknow.org or 510-848-5701.


Prop 37: Genetically Engineered Food Fight

SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, by Stacy Finz, August 20, 2012

628x471.jpgA lab technician screens peppers for diseases at the Monsanto pathology greenhouse in Woodland (Yolo County). Monsanto opposes a ballot measure to require labels on genetically modified food. Photo: Noah Berger, Bloomberg / SF

With big money pouring in to defeat a state measure requiring food companies to label genetically modified foods, both sides are gearing up for an airwaves war that is expected to pit farmer against farmer to win votes.

Political insiders say the "no" campaign's recent influx of money - it is up to $25 million, compared with the proponents' $2.7 million - shows that it is quickly mobilizing and will probably start buying air time for attack ads as early Labor Day.


published Chinese 2012-09-05 08:45:28 -0700

贊成37提案

贊成37提案—因為你應有權知道你的食物包含什麼材料。

投票贊成37提案意指三事:

不論你吃進肚子的食物是否使用轉基因工程製造,你將有權知道你的食物究竟包含什麼材
料。

所有食品將帶有明確標籤。如果食品是含有任何基因改造材料,食物標籤將予透露。

保護你家人的健康將較容易。你將會得到一些醫生和科學家所表明與過敏症和其他健康風
險有關的食品資料。

我們現在購買的食物標籤上已提供基本的營養資料。通過37提案,我們將有淺白文字說明的資料
說明食品是否含有基因改造材料;轉基因食品意指食物曾經化驗室被工作人員利用來自病毒、細
菌、或其他植物或動物的基因,人工改變了其DNA。

因為轉基因工程製造的食物對人體長期影響甚具爭議性,全球有超過四十個國家規定含基因改造
的食品須貼有標籤,包括歐洲大部份國家、日本、甚至中國與印度。

目前未有長期的健康研究,證明轉基因食品對人是安全的。不論你是否購買轉基因製造的食品,
你亦有權知道你購買的食品含有甚麼材料,而無須用你的家庭健康來冒險。為轉基因食品明確標
籤能讓我們知道我們的食品是否由基因改造,使我們可自己做決定。

37提案是一個既簡單又合情理的提案。在標籤上包括基因改造材料的資料並不會增加成本;同
時,提案是分階段落實的,使製造商有時間印刷新的標籤,通知消費者其食品所含的材料,或如
果製造商不想出售用轉基因工程製造的食品,提案將給予製造商機會對產品進行更改。

37提案同時防止轉基因工程製造的食品使用誤導性的「天然」字眼。

大型食物製造商和農用化學製品公司以及他們的遊說者反對此提案。很多這些公司,都是就殺蟲
劑的負面影響對我們扯謊的公司,或反對在食物標籤保留其他資料(如在他們的產品註明卡路里
量或脂肪或鹽量)的公司。現在,他們想我們對轉基因工程製造的食品,蒙在鼓裡。

無論你是否想吃基因改造的食品,37提案可給你自主權力去選擇你和你家人進食的食品,這是不
應由大型化學品公司來為你做決定的。

消費者、家庭企業的農人、醫生、護士、營養學家和小型商業人士,以及近一百萬名加州居民,
均已簽署要求,給你權利去清楚知道我們食品究竟包括什麼材料。你會加入他們的行列嗎?

查詢詳情或加入,請瀏覽我們的網站www.CARightToKnow.org。

在你投選37提案時,請問自己一個問題:

我是否有權知道我和我給我家人吃的食品究竟含有甚麼材料?答案是贊成37提案。


← Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next →
Food system advocate, Drupal author, musician, and raw food enthusiast