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
A new paper by the French group of Gilles-Eric Seralini describes harmful effects on rats fed diets containing genetically modified maize (variety NK603), with and without the herbicide Roundup, as well as Roundup alone. This peer-reviewed study (Seralini et al., 2012), has been criticized by some scientists whose views have been widely reported in the popular press (Carmen, 2012; Mestel, 2012; Revkin, 2012; Worstall, 2012). Seralini et al. (2012) extends the work of other studies demonstrating toxicity and/or endocrine-based impacts of Roundup (Gaivão et al., 2012; Kelly et al., 2010; Paganelli et al., 2010; Romano et al., 2012), as reviewed by Antoniou et al. (2010).
The Seralini publication, and resultant media attention, raise the profile of fundamental challenges faced by science in a world increasingly dominated by corporate influence. These challenges are important for all of science but are rarely discussed in scientific venues.
MERCURY NEWS, by Dana Hull, October 5, 2012
In the battle over Proposition 37, the statewide ballot initiative that would require California to label genetically engineered foods, GMO typically refers to "genetically modified organisms."
But in some religious circles, GMO stands for "God Moves Over."
Proposition 37 enjoys endorsements from groups such as the Sierra Club, the California Nurses Association, the United Farm Workers and the Organic Consumers Association. But many religious and faith-based organizations are coming out in support of the measure because genetically engineered food clashes with religious beliefs, from keeping kosher to being stewards of God's creation.
The whole world is watching what's happening in California: JOIN US TODAY.
In a blistering admission of their own lack of credibility, the opponents of California’s GMO labeling measure yanked down and re-shot their first television ad after they were caught misrepresenting Stanford University in the ad, according to the Los Angeles Times. The ad identified Henry Miller as a doctor at Stanford University, without disclosing that Miller actually serves as a researcher at the Hoover Institute, a right-wing think tank at Stanford.
The ad violated Stanford's policy that prohibits consultants from using the university's name for political purposes. Stanford officials also insisted that the ad be reshot to remove the vaulted university buildings in the background, according to the LA Times. Millions of California voters had already seen the ad, which has been running hourly in major television markets across the state.
“The scandal over the Henry Miller ad is proof positive of the lack of credibility and lack of integrity of the No on 37 campaign, which is at this very moment unleashing a $35 million ad campaign of lies on the voters of California,” said Stacy Malkan, spokesperson for the Yes on 37 California Right to Know campaign.
Spotted: awesome chalk art project at Frank Ogawa Plaza in Oakland. Who's handiwork is this? Whoever you are, you rock! We don't know quite what's going on with that tomato in the second photo, but then isn't that the whole point about GMOs?
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
NEW YORK TIMES, Sept. 15, By MARK BITTMAN
IT’S not an exaggeration to say that almost everyone wants to see the labeling of genetically engineered materials contained in their food products. And on Nov. 6, in what’s unquestionably among the most important non-national votes this year, Californians will have the opportunity to make that happen — at least in theory — by weighing in on Proposition 37.
Prop 37’s language is clear on two points: it would require “labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways.” And it would prohibit marketing “such food, or other processed food, as ‘natural.’ ” (For now, let’s ignore the vast implications of the phrase “or other processed food,” lest we become overexcited, except to say that the literal interpretation of that sentence has the processed food manufacturers’ collective hair on fire.)
By Susan Lang
I confess I am a bit of a reluctant activist. As a stay-at-home mother of two young boys, I never saw myself planning rallies at the local Walmart. But I also never intended to feed my kids food grown from seeds that were genetically engineered in a lab to either contain insecticide, or to survive and absorb toxic herbicides.
Like all parents, I want the best for my kids. That's why I have educated myself, and learned firsthand the effects of a healthy diet on my family. Through research, I've come to the conclusion that GMOs don't fit into my idea of a healthy diet. The concerns raised by independent animals studies and the lack of long-term testing for these brand-new foods convinced me that GMOs don't have a place on my dinner table.
I've tried to avoid GMOs, but it's not easy! I can't always afford organic, and sometimes you just don't know if a food has genetically engineered ingredients, so you guess or make assumptions that may or may not be correct. And then there are the birthday parties, the school functions, the family dinners, holidays and soccer games -- all the times I am not the one feeding my children.
It became clear to me: it’s not enough for just me to be educated about GMOs -- everyone I know, everyone who has children, everyone who eats has a right to know about genetically engineered food. Everyone should have the right to decide if they want to buy GMOs or say, "No thanks."
But the more people I talk to, the more it becomes clear that many people do not know about genetically engineered food at all, or are operating under misconceptions such as, "They label those, don't they?" Or, "All foods are genetically modified, right?" Each time I hear a comment like this, I am more sure than ever that Californians need to know this truth: Everyday they are feeding their children unlabeled genetically engineered food grown from patented seeds that could only be created in a lab.
What better place to bring this issue to voters and shoppers than Walmart? Walmart has just started selling unlabeled Bt sweet corn created in a lab by Monsanto. That means Walmart's corn on the cob has been engineered so that it has insecticide inside of it – not just on it, in it.
Welcome to the official Proposition 37 store.
The purchase of these products will directly assist California’s movement to label genetically engineered food. California Right To Know is a people's movement, so we’ve made the prices in this store affordable so that you can buy in bulk and share the information with your community. We are extremely happy to have your support for Prop 37 and look forward to covering California with “Yes on 37,” merchandise!
Is there no end to the credibility problems of the No on 37 campaign? Yesterday we reported that Monsanto, the largest backer of efforts to defeat California's GMO labeling measure, ran ads in Europe promoting the benefits of GMO labeling. Now here comes a fresh insult to California from the Swiss-based food conglomerate Nestle.
Nestle has donated $1.16 million to oppose GMO labels in California, yet a top Nestle executive just went on record saying that consumers should be the ones to decide about genetically modified foods. "We have a very simple way of looking at GM: listen to what the consumer wants. If they don't want it in products, you don't put it in them," said Hans Jor, corporate head of sustainable agriculture at Nestle, according to Food Production Daily.
Jor also said that genetically modified food is unnecessary to feed the world and the food industry would reap more benefits from using resources more sustainably and employing other techniques. Nestle should listen to Hans Jor, and to their millions of consumers in California who want to know if their food was genetically engineered in a Monsanto lab.
Vote Yes on 37 for our right to know what's in our food!
Monsanto is spending $4.2 million to fight California’s Proposition 37, which would require labeling of genetically engineered foods. Yet the company gave its “full backing” to the same type of labeling in Europe, according to a series of ads first reported by the San Jose Mercury News.
The ads, which ran in London in the late 1990s, highlight Monsanto's credibility problem and reveal that Monsanto agrees with the key arguments that Yes on 37 supporters are using to advocate for GMO labeling here in California – namely, that consumers have a right to know what we’re buying and eating.
“Food labelling. It has Monsanto’s full backing,” begins Monsanto’s potato ad that ran in The Guardian newspaper in 1998 and 1999. “Before you buy a potato or any other food, you may want to know whether it’s the product of biotechnology.”
We agree! The ad continues, “Recently you may have noticed a label appearing on some of the food in your supermarket. This is to inform you about the use of biotechnology in food. Monsanto fully supports UK food manufacturers and retailers in their introduction of these labels. We believe you should be aware of all the facts before making a purchase.”