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
The notion that the pesticide companies opposed to Prop 37 would support the initiative if it were stronger is, of course, ridiculous. Their propaganda centered around Prop 37's exemptions is designed solely to steer voters away from the central issue: We have the right to know what's in our food.
Proposition 37 requires labeling for the genetically engineered foods that are most prevalent in the American diet – food on supermarket shelves. The goal is to maximize the amount of genetically engineered food that is labeled while keeping compliance easy. The exemptions in the law are easy to explain and guided by common sense:
We have the right to know what’s in our 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 – the largest chemical and processed food companies – are claiming the new law would lead to a wave of costly litigation, exposing food retailers to abusive lawsuits by rapacious trial lawyers. Nothing could be further from the truth.
See below for the facts to counter their false claims.
The whole world is watching what's happening in California! JOIN US TODAY.
Prop 37 is a simple label for genetically engineered foods. Also called GMOs, these are plants or animals that have had their DNA artificially altered by genes from other plants, animals, viruses or bacteria, in ways that can’t occur in nature. Here are 3 reasons why we need to label genetically engineered foods.
1. We have a right to know what we're eating and feeding our families. The right to know and the right to choose are fundamental American values; and 90% of Americans want to know if their food is genetically engineered. More than 50 other countries already require labels on genetially engineered food. California consumers have a right to this information too. If you think we have a right to know what's in our food, vote yes on Prop 37.
For Immediate Release: October 12, 2012
Contact: Stacy Malkan, 510-542-9224, firstname.lastname@example.org
Oakland -- As proof positive of the No on 37 campaign's lack of credibility, the anti-consumer campaign was caught for the second time in a week misrepresenting Stanford University. As the Los Angeles Times reported Oct. 5, Stanford forced the anti-consumer campaign to yank its first ad off the air and reshoot it, because it violated university policy by using the university to imply endorsement of a political position.
The ad falsely identified Henry Miller as a doctor at Stanford, when he is actually a researcher at the Hoover Institute. Five days later, an anti-Proposition 37 mailer arrived in the homes of millions of California voters, falsely identifying Henry Miller once again as a doctor at Stanford University.
The people’s movement for our right to know what’s in our food has hit a fork in the road, the moment to ask ourselves and each other: How hard are we willing to fight for our basic right to know what’s in the food we're eating and feeding our families?
Proposition 37 is the litmus test for whether there is actually a food movement in this country, writes Michael Pollan in an article to appear in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine. It may also be the litmus test for whether there is democracy left in this country.
For Immediate Release: October 12, 2012
Contact: Tom Fendley, 415-622-7843, email@example.com
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.
Who are you going to trust about Proposition 37, your family and friends? Or a notorious pesticide-industry front man whose radical ideas defy scientific consensus?
Check out this email sent by the anti-consumer No on 37 campaign:
Please DONATE today to help pass Prop 37!
It's refreshing to take a break from exposing the deception of our opponents' TV and radio ads to read a thoughtful analysis of Prop 37. Best-selling author and journalist Michael Pollan provides this respite in his excellent New York Times Magazine piece.
"The [food] industry is happy to boast about genetically engineered crops in the elite precincts of the op-ed and business pages — as a technology needed to feed the world, combat climate change, solve Africa’s problems, etc. — but still would rather not mention it to the consumers who actually eat the stuff," Pollan writes.
"Presumably that silence owes to the fact that, to date, genetically modified foods don’t offer the eater any benefits whatsoever — only a potential, as yet undetermined risk. So how irrational would it be, really, to avoid them? Surely this explains why Monsanto and its allies have fought the labeling of genetically modified food so vigorously since 1992."
Indeed, the pesticide and junk food companies have already poured $35 million into TV ads opposing Prop 37 that are replete with misinformation and discredited spokespeople.
LOS ANGELES TIMES, by Daniel Imhoff & Michael R. Dimock, October 11, 2012
The initiative is rooted in a simple premise: Consumers have the right to know if their food is produced using genetic engineering.
In America we hold a consumer's power of choice at the checkout line nearly as sacred as that of a voter at the ballot box. In November, California voters will be asked to protect the right of food buyers to make informed purchases.
Passing Proposition 37 could change the future of food in this country. The initiative is rooted in a simple premise: Consumers have the right to know if their food is produced using genetic engineering, which manipulates DNA or transfers it from one organism to another. Any plant or animal food product with genes that have been engineered would be so labeled.
This isn't a radical new idea. It's been standard practice in all member countries of the European Union for years. The latest published research shows that 61 countries have some form of mandatory labeling for foods containing genetically modified crop ingredients.
The companies that sell genetically modified seeds and manufactured foods argue that American consumers don't need such detailed labels. They say, "Just trust us."
Video: Danny DeVito, Bill Maher, Dave Matthews, Kristen Bauer van Straten: The Right to Know About Your Food Would Explode Your Puny Little Head
Our friends at Food and Water Watch have sponsored an entertaining and powerful new Yes on 37 video, featuring Danny DeVito, Bill Maher, Dave Matthews, Jillian Michaels, Kristen Bauer van Straten, Emily Deschanel, Kaitlin Olson, Glenn Howerton, John Cho, and KaDee Strickland poking fun at the ludicrous arguments against our right to know what's in our food.
We're excited to have them join millions of Californians in demanding the right to know what's in our food, even if our "puny little heads would explode."
Please enjoy, share and DONATE to help us get the truth out to California voters!