Pages tagged "GMOs"
SHOW US YOUR WITS! Round 2 of the Prop 37 Facebook Contest.
Thank you to all who entered last week’s contest! We’re tallying results and will announce the winner soon. This week’s contest has lightly different rules.
Lend us your voice, post something creative (images work best), get your friends to “Like” it, and win a phone call with the director of Food, Inc, plus a social shout out.
NEW RULES: HOW DO I ENTER?
- Post a status update including the words “Yes on 37 Contest Entry” (as shown)
- Optional: add a creative image or video
- Set the post to “Public”
- Get friends to “Like” your post
- Bonus: get more likes with the new “Promoted Posts” option (see below)
Damning New Study: GMOs Cause Massive Overuse of Pesticides; Data Sheds Light on Why Pesticide Companies Lead Opposition to Prop 37
As Californians prepare to vote on a proposition to label genetically engineered foods, a new peer-reviewed study reveals that genetically engineered crops have increased pesticide use by hundreds of millions of pounds. The problem will intensify if the new round of GMO crops is approved, as Reuters reported today.
“This study raises serious questions about whether we want to drown our crops in pesticides and feed them to our children,” said Yes on 37 campaign manager Gary Ruskin. “As we see from the data, GMOs are a fantastic boon for the pesticide industry. That’s why the world’s largest pesticide companies have spent nearly $20 million to defeat Proposition 37 and our right to know what’s in our food.”
Oakland: Genetically engineered corn was linked to mammary tumors, kidney and liver damage and other serious illnesses in the first ever peer-reviewed, long-term animal study of these foods. The findings were published today in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology.
Read the study here: http://research.sustainablefoodtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Final-Paper.pdf
While numerous 90-day studies have already linked GMO foods to allergies and other health problems, today’s publication marks the first-ever long term animal study on the health effects of the most common type of genetically engineered corn, and comes as California voters consider the Proposition 37 Right to Know initiative to label genetically engineered foods
Why do we need to label genetically engineered foods? As Mark Bittman wrote in today's New York Times, because we have a right to know and to decide for ourselves what's in the food we're eating and feeding our families. Who could be against this core American value? That one's easy: the companies that are genetically engineering our food system without our knowledge or consent -- which happen to be the same companies that told us DDT and Agent Orange were safe. With a little help from their tobacco friends.
This is the important story behind Proposition 37's first television ad: The Same Companies that Told Us DDT and Agent Orange were Safe. The 30-second ad presents the history of notoriously inaccurate health claims by the very same corporations that are funding the No on 37 campaign and opposing our right to know what's in our food.
Read on for the facts about who is behind the No on 37 campaign...
SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS, by Tom Fendley, August 29, 2012
The fight for our right to know what's in our food is heating up.
Proposition 37, which will be on the California ballot this November, has blossomed from a grass-roots movement into an epic David vs. Goliath battle -- pitting out-of-state corporations against millions of moms, dads and consumers in California who want to know if their food has been genetically engineered in a lab.
Proposition 37 will provide a simple label that will give consumers this information.
Right now, many items on the supermarket shelves -- from kids' breakfast cereal, to baby formula, to soy milk -- contain genetically engineered ingredients that are hidden from consumers.
SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, by Carolyn Lochhead, August 29, 2012
Washington -- A government advisory panel reached a rough consensus Tuesday that growers of genetically engineered crops should try to contain the spread of their genes to organic crops.
But the panel refused to set a threshold level for contamination as would be required by Proposition 37, a California ballot initiative calling for labeling of genetically engineered food.
The panel also refused to hold biotechnology companies that make genetically engineered seeds, including Monsanto, Dupont and Syngenta, responsible for contamination.
SEE OUR AD HERE AND DONATE to help us keep it on the air!
The No on 37 campaign: brought to you by the same corporations that told us DDT and Agent Orange were safe, orchestrated by the same guys who helped mislead the public about the health risks of tobacco. Now they're telling us we don't have a right to know if our food is genetically engineered.
Monsanto, the largest contributor to No on 37 at $4.2 million, was the primary manufacturer of Agent Orange, the code name for herbicides used by the U.S. Military during the Vietnam War. U.S. soldiers were told that it was “perfectly safe” and often wore little protective clothing when applying it, as shown in our ad. Agent Orange is now linked with various types of cancer and other diseases.
Monsanto also manufactures most of the genetically engineered seeds and also the herbicides that are designed to go with the seeds -- a combination that has created a scourge of superweeds, and has led to a new GMO scheme involving the use of more toxic pesticides like 2,4-D (which happens to be a component of Agent Orange). Here's a brief primer on Monsanto's history of decieving the public with bad science.
DuPont, the first manufacturer of DDT and the second largest funder to No on 37 with just over $4 million in contributions, also has a history of less-than-honest dealings with science, such as the alleged 20-year cover up about the health effects of a chemical used to manufacture Teflon. Now these corporations are saying: Trust us, GMOs are perfectly safe -- even though independent reviews of industry studies point out serious problems.
In an attempt to mislead California voters about Proposition 37, the No on 37 campaign is reaching into the old bag of tricks pioneered by the tobacco industry, and using some of the very same tobacco industry operatives. Here's a look at the truth behind the lies.
For Immediate Release: Monday August 27, 2012
Contact: Stacy Malkan, 510-542-9224; firstname.lastname@example.org;
The Yes on Proposition 37 California Right to Know Campaign launched an early media blitz today directly challenging the record of deceit of the big corporations that are now working to deny Californians the right to know what’s in their food.
Proposition 37, which will be on the California ballot in November, would be the first law in the U.S. requiring labeling of genetically engineered foods.
View the 30-second ad here. The ad presents the history of notoriously inaccurate corporate health claims, including falsehoods from some of the very same corporations now funding the No on 37 campaign.
FORBES, by Amy Westervelt, Aug. 24, 2012
This November California voters will make a decision that could have broad implications for food producers throughout the country: whether or not to require labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food. Other states have tried to pass similar measures and failed, but California is taking the issue directly to voters, who have largely been in favor of labeling.
Currently, the Yes on Proposition 37 folks are polling far ahead of the opposition–65 percent ahead according to a recent poll from Pepperdine University. But that doesn’t mean the vote is all sewn up. A group called No on 37: Coalition Against the Deceptive Food Labeling Scheme is launching a full-court press against the measure beginning this month. The group’s major donors are Monsanto, DuPont, and the Grocery Manufacturers Association (a trade group that represents the interest of PepsiCo, General Mills, Kellogg and several other large food and beverage companies), but most of the large U.S. chemical and food manufacturers have donated, including Dow, BASF, Cargill, ConAgra, PepsiCo, Coca Cola, Hormel, Syngenta, Bayer, and the list goes on (you can view a full list of who’s donating what here), for a grand total of just under $25 million to be spent on ads and other materials aimed at convincing Californians to vote no on Prop 37.
SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS, by Dana Hull, August 24, 2012
California's crowded November ballot includes white-hot measures to raise taxes, amend the state's Three Strikes Law and repeal the death penalty. But a once-obscure measure requiring labels on genetically engineered food is quickly emerging as one of the most expensive, high-stakes showdowns on the 11-measure ballot.
If Proposition 37 passes, California would become the first state in the nation to require new labels on a host of food products commonly found on grocery store shelves, from breakfast cereals to sodas to tofu.