Pages tagged "No on 37"

FBI Contacts Right to Know Campaign -- Details

November 4, 2012, California Right to Know Campaign

On Nov. 2, the California Right to Know campaign held a press conference about the deceptive activities of our opponents, during which we explained that the FBI had been in contact with our team to discuss a formal complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Justice two weeks ago. Here are the facts and the timeline of events:

No on 37 Ad Yanked for Newspaper Endorsement Lie

examiner.pngIt's hard to untangle from the web of lies the No on 37 campaign is spinning. On Friday we got a call from Stephen Buel, editor of the San Francisco Examiner, who was quite surprised to see the Examiner logo featured prominently in a television ad opposing Prop 37 -- since his newspaper has in fact endorsed Prop 37. The TV ad is now disappeared from You Tube, probably sent to the same chop shop where No on 37 sends all their faulty TV ads for re-jiggering after they get caught outright lying to voters. Remember the Henry Miller misrepresenting Stanford fiasco?

Foreign, Out-of-State Companies Bankrolling Campaign Against GMO Labeling

For Immediate Release: October 22, 2012

Oakland -- Foreign and out of state companies are flooding California with money to oppose Proposition 37, which would require labeling of genetically engineered food. See all the corporations that are bankrolling the No on 37 campaign.

Farmers For The Win!

Ted Sheely grows cotton in the San Joaquin Valley on his 8,700-acre farm.  Food companies aren’t required to tell us if the cotton is genetically engineered, even if it winds up in our food as cottonseed oil.1-2.jpeg

Ted appears in one of the many TV ads deliberately lying to California voters about Proposition 37.  This particular ad asserts that Prop 37 will raise food costs by “billions of dollars”.  There is no independent evidence---nor coherent logic---supporting that claim, of course.  Prop 37 simply requires a label on genetically engineered foods, which will cost consumers, well, nothing.  Food companies change their labels every 6-12 months on average; Prop 37 gives them 18 months.

Ted Sheely doesn’t speak for most farmers, more than 2,000 of whom have endorsed Proposition 37.  Why do farmers support Proposition 37?  For the same reasons most of us support it: because they believe we have the right to know what’s in the food they’re growing for us.

“When the CA Right to Know ballot initiative started to develop and the movement progressed, we thought it was a great idea: to label the product, to let the consumer make a choice about what they want to eat,” said Jessica Lundberg of Lundberg Family Farms.

California Right to Know Calls for Criminal Investigation of No on 37 For Possible Fraud for Misuse of FDA Seal and Fabricated FDA Quote

For Immediate Release: Thursday, October 18, 2012
Contact: Gary Ruskin, 425-944-7350,

Washington DC -- Today, the California Right to Know Yes on 37 campaign sent letters to the U.S. Department of Justice requesting 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. 

“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.”

Right to Know Letter to U.S. Department of Justice

This letter from California Right to Know was sent today to Lanny Breuer, Assistant Attorney General of the USDOJ Criminal Division; Laurel Rimon, Chief of the Special Prosecutions Unit of the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California; and Vincent Tolino, Director of the Ethics and Integrity staff at the FDA.

Orange Jumpsuits for the No on 37 Campaign?

jumpsuit.jpgIt's no joke what the opposition is up to. We don't mind a fair fight, or even a Dave vs Goliath fight, but the dark forces against our right to know will do anything to try to stop us from winning a simple label -- even risking crossing the line of the law.

It's just not right. That's why we reported their latest dirty trick to the US Department of Justice. The pesticide-industry campaign has already been caught misrepresenting Stanford University (three times), misleading voters in the state voter guide (says the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics), and bombarding the airwaves with misleading ads (according to newspaper fact checkers).

But their latest trick is more serious than all of that...

'DDT Doctor Caught Misrepresenting Stanford AGAIN

For Immediate Release: October 16, 2012

Palo Alto:  Stanford University is investigating the continued misuse of the university’s name to push a political agenda to oppose Proposition 37. Today, new evidence was presented to Stanford documenting how the No on 37 campaign has repeatedly misrepresented the affiliation of their lead spokesperson, Dr. Henry Miller, in campaign ads, in violation of Stanford University policy.

Does No on 37 Campaign Back Spokesman’s Extreme Views on Tobacco, Climate Change, Radiation, DDT?

For Immediate Release: October 15, 2012
CONTACT:  Stacy Malkan, 510-542-9224;

Oakland:  The Yes on 37 Campaign today called on opponents of the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act to clarify whether they share the extreme and dubious scientific views of Dr. Henry Miller, a researcher at the right-wing Hoover Institution, who is featured as a spokesperson in TV ads blanketing California for the No on 37 campaign.

Letter to Kathy Fairbanks: Does No on 37 Stand Behind Extreme Views of Spokesperson Henry Miller?

October 15, 2012

Kathy Fairbanks
No on Prop 37 Campaign
1121 L Street #803
Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Kathy Fairbanks:

Recently the No on Proposition 37 campaign has elevated Dr. Henry Miller, a researcher at the right-wing Hoover Institution, as a spokesman for your campaign to deny Californians the right to know if our has been genetically engineered in a laboratory.

As you may know, Dr. Miller has a highly controversial record on issues of science and public policy. Among other things, Miller has:

1  2  3  Next →