Pages tagged "Proposition 37"
- Just a simple label—like in 61 other countries, indicating if our food has been genetically engineered
- Put on the ballot by a million Californians just like you
- Enables us to make an informed choice about what foods are right for our families
- Supported by consumers, farmers, nurses, doctors and a broad coalition
Front Groups Against Prop 37: Foes of Honest Labeling Pose as Fake Cops and Phony Democrats to Trick Voters
For Immediate Release: November 5, 2012
Voter guides from obviously fake front groups posing as cops, literacy groups, green groups and Democrats are making a last-ditch attempt to try to sway voters against Proposition 37.
Pamela Prindle from Albany was alarmed when she received a slate mailer over the weekend from a group she thought was the Democratic Party, advising her to vote against the GMO labeling initiative. “I was so upset, I called the Democratic Party and they said their official position is endorsing Proposition 37,” Prindle said.
Then she realized the mailer -- which features photos of Presidents Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy -- was from a group called the Democratic Voter’s Choice which has a notorious reputation for deception. “People are going to get this in the mail three days before the election and they’re not going to take the time to check into it like I did,” Prindle said.
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.
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:
For Immediate Release: October 24, 2012
Los Angeles -- As supporters rallied in front of Los Angeles City Hall today, the Los Angeles City Council unanimously passed a resolution supporting Proposition 37, the Right to Know ballot measure that would label genetically engineered foods in California. California would join 61 other countries that already label genetically engineered foods, and Prop 37 would also prohibit such foods from being marketed as “natural.”
“It's not often that the LA City Council votes unanimously to support a measure, but Prop 37 was a no-brainer. We have the right to know what's in the food we're eating and feeding our families," said Councilmember Paul Koretz, the resolution's author. "I'm proud to be a part of this true grassroots campaign in our struggle against the biggest pesticide and junk food companies in the world."
The Los Angeles City Council joins the California Democratic Party, Senator Barbara Boxer, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, Congressmen Brad Sherman and Howard Berman, and dozens of other California city and town councils, elected officials and candidates in endorsing Prop 37.
Just 13 days left to an unprecedented opportunity to bring fairness to our food system. In two weeks, California voters will decide if we have the right to know if our food is genetically engineered. After two decades of thwarted efforts to bring labeling and transparency to our food system, the voters will finally get our say.
We have come so far. Our huge grassroots movement has worked so hard to get us to this point. We have the support of so many major health, faith, labor, environmental and consumer groups. Now we need YOU to get us over the finish line first.
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.
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.
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.
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.
October 15, 2012
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:
Oakland: Health leaders in California are calling for mandatory health studies for genetically engineered foods and have renewed calls to pass Proposition 37, as controversy continues over the first-ever long-term health study on genetically engineered corn, conducted by French scientist Gilles-Eric Séralini.
The Seralini study, which found serious health effects in rats fed a lifetime diet of genetically engineered corn and the herbicide Roundup, has been widely criticized. Last week, 60 scientists posted a letter pointing out that the study raises serious concerns about the state of the science on genetically engineered foods.