Pages tagged "Prop 37"
Proposition 37 is not a referendum on whether or not genetically engineered foods are safe. It's about our right to know what it’s in our food.
“The question of whether to label genetically engineered (GE) foods, as Proposition 37 would require, is not about science. Prop 37 is about people having the right to know what's in their food and how it was produced. It's about making competition in a free market - the hallmark of capitalism - more transparent," wrote Dr. Belinda Martineau, a molecular geneticist who was principal scientist at Calgene, Inc. when they introduced the first genetically engineered food, the “Flavr Savr” tomato, in 1994. The tomato was labeled and was initially so popular that one store had to limit customers to two tomatoes per day -- proving that transparency can be a good thing all around.
Yet no genetically engineered product has been labeled in the United States since then. And today, Monsanto and the other major pesticide and junk food companies are spending $45 million to defeat a citizen's initiative for our right to labels. Why? It’s pretty simple: They believe their optimal business model depends upon secrecy and a lack of transparency. They don’t want to provide consumers a choice.
FOOD RENEGADE, by Kristen M., October 23, 2012
As the election day draws nearer in California, giant agribusiness companies like Monsanto and Dow and Con Agra are spending $1 MILLION per day in advertising to campaign against Prop 37. I don’t live in Cali, but I’ve got friends who do. According to them, all the airwaves are flooded with ads casting doubt on Prop 37. You can’t turn on the television or radio without hearing something objecting to Prop 37.
As with all such campaigns for public opinion, marketing and advertising matter much more than you might think. Despite the fact that poll after poll shows that 91% of the public would want to know if they were eating GMOs, a guaranteed majority may not be voting in favor of requiring GMO ingredients to be labeled on food!
Why is that? How can an expensive ad campaign sway people against voting for something they obviouslywant? Spin, deceptive arguments, and lies. That’s how. So, let’s take a look at some of the objections to Prop 37 and see what we find.
Alice Waters, chef, author, and proprietor of Chez Panisse, has called on her fellow chefs nationwide to join her in supporting California’s Proposition 37, The California Right to Know initiative, which would require clear labels letting consumers know if foods are genetically engineered. Over 50 countries worldwide already require labeling of genetically engineered food.
More than 400 chefs have signed on to the effort including Dan Barber, Mario Batali, Cat Cora, Joyce Goldstein, Deborah Madison, Jacques Pépin, Charles Phan, Nora Pouillon, Andrea Reusing, Barton Seaver, Bill Telepan and more.
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, email@example.com
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.”
It'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...
The world’s largest pesticide companies are spending One Million Dollars a Day to confuse California voters about Proposition 37 -- a simple label that will give us the right to know what's in our food.
A Million Dollars a Day in TV ads can buy lots of confusion, but it can't buy facts. Here are the facts about Prop 37:
No cost to consumers: Adding a few words to labels costs nothing. Labeling didn’t raise costs in 50 other countries and won’t raise costs here. It won’t add red tape or bureaucracy either, and the only independent study on Prop 37 confirms these facts. Read the Truth about Cost.
No incentives for lawsuits: With no incentives for lawyers to sue, the opposition's stories about "shakedown lawsuits" make no sense whatsoever. Prop 37 is straightforward and easy for businesses to follow; there will be no need for lawsuits. Companies will label for genetic engineering just like they label calories and fat. Retailers have special protections under the law. Read the Truth about Lawsuits.
Exemptions are common sense: Prop 37 exempts products that have no ingredient labels, such as restaurant food and alcohol. But it will cover meat from genetically engineered animals. The opposition is trying to confuse voters about exemptions -- and to do it, they are running ads featuring a fringe radical scientist who think nuclear radiation is good for our health -- all because they don’t want to label genetically engineered foods. Read the Truth about Exemptions.
California farmers are FOR Prop 37: Thousands of California farmers, all the leading businesses in the natural and sustainable food sector, and all the leading labor groups -- United Farm Workers, United Food and Commercial Workers, and California Labor Federation -- are saying YES ON 37.
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)
BY JOE SANDLER - SANDLER, REIFF, YOUNG AND LAMB
Californians have the right to know what’s in their food. That’s the simple premise of Proposition 37, which would require labeling of food that is made with genetic engineering. But instead of taking issue with that fundamental right, opponents of the measure—mostly big chemical and processed food companies-- have claimed that the new law would lead to a new wave of costly litigation, exposing food retailers, particularly small mom and pop grocery stores, to abusive lawsuits by rapacious trial lawyers.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
According to the only independent economic analysis of Proposition 37, “Consumers will likely see no increases in prices as a result of the relabeling required” by the Right to Know Act. So why does the opposition claim grocery costs will increase by $400 a year? Those figures are based on a discredited report by Northbridge Consulting, a firm with no economic expertise that is best known for opposing recyling laws for the soda pop industry.
Here are the facts about Proposition 37 as it relates to cost:
For Immediate Release: October 12, 2012
Contact: Tom Fendley, 415-622-7843, firstname.lastname@example.org
Oakland, Oct. 12, 2012 -- California Democratic Reps. Brad Sherman and Howard Berman, embroiled in a bitter election battle for the 30th District Congressional seat in Los Angeles, nearly devolved into a physical altercation last night during a debate. They are in strong agreement, however, on at least one high-profile issue: Californians have a right to know what they are eating and feeding their families.