Pepsico's 'Naked Juice' to feel the pain after boycotting Prop 37

Naked Juice is the next company to feel the hurt, after their parent company, Pepsico, contributed $2.5 million against Proposition 37, the ballot initiative for mandatory GMO labeling in the recent elections.

Digital Journal reported recently on the attack on Cheerios' Facebook page, in retaliation for General Mills' support of the "No on Proposition 37" campaign. Now there is yet another company feeling the strain. 

 

Did you know that Pepsico owns some of your favorite "organic" and "natural" brands, including Naked Juice, Tostitos, Tropicana, Tazo, Loóza, Izze, Sabra, Smartfood, Stacy's, Mother's and Near East? And that Pepsico contributed $2.5 million against GMO labeling in the recent elections in California? 

 

Well now, Organic Consumers Association has started a campaign against Naked Juice and is calling on consumers to boycott the product. Concerned citizens can send an email to Mike Torres, senior director of communications for PepsiCo, telling him they're all done buying Naked Juice - or any other Pepsi brand - until PepsiCo and Naked Juice support GMO labeling and product transparency. 

 

Anti-GMO protesters and activists are also invited to share their thoughts and speak their minds on the Facebook page for Naked Juice, and will find plenty of company amongst all the comments already pouring in. 

 

 On top of this, it is interesting to note that Naked Juice is the subject of a class-action lawsuit for fraudulently promising that its beverage products are "100% juice," "all natural," and "non-GMO." 

 

According to the lawsuit, Naked Juice uses soy ingredients that are genetically engineered "by design or by contamination." (Naked Juice doesn't use certified organic or verified non-GMO soy.) 

 

The lawsuit also accuses Naked Juice of intentionally using misleading language to give consumers "the false impression that the beverage's vitamin content is due to the nutritious fruits and juices, rather than the added synthetic compounds such as calcium pantothenate (synthetically produced from formaldehyde)" and "Fibersol-2 (a proprietary synthetic digestion-resistant fiber produced by Archer Daniels Midland and developed by a Japanese chemical company), fructooligosaccharides (a synthetic fiber and sweetener) and inulin (an artificial and invisible fiber added to foods to ... increase fiber content without the typical fiber mouth-feel)." 

 

The plaintiffs in this class-action suit are requesting compensatory and punitive damages, as well as an injunction against Naked Juice stating that its products are 100 percent juice, are all natural and that they contain no genetically modified organisms, when this is clearly not the case.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/339270

African Civil Society petitions the African Union to ban GMOs

In the wake of the recent ban by Kenya on the importation of GMO products until proper health evaluation has been completed, the African Civil Society is now requesting the African Union (AU) to ban GMOs.

Digital Journal reported recently on the ban by Kenya on the importation of genetically modified products. 

Following this ban, the African Civil Society has called on the AU to discuss banning all genetically modified organisms throughout the African Union at the next AU summit, set to be held in January 2013.  

 

The African Civil Society is represented by 400 African Organizations consisting of small-scale farmers, social movements, non-governmental organizations, faith-based groups, organic producers and consumers, business people and ordinary citizens. As a group, they signed a statement, which has been sent to the Permanent Representative Council (PRC) of the AU. In the statement, they point out the lack of safety data on GM foods, as well as condemning the patenting of life and privatization of agriculture, which will threaten to displace the control of African food producers over their production systems. 

 

An extract from the statement reads:

"We also call upon the governments of Africa to take note of our additional strong objections to GMOs. These concern the patenting of life forms and privatization of agriculture, which has led to the dependence by farmers, rural communities and indigenous people on external private and monopolistic seeds suppliers. We are also extremely concerned about the adverse impact of industrial and GM based agriculture on biodiversity and climate change. We cannot ignore the suicide epidemic of farmers in India - a direct result of farmers' dependence on GM cotton - and the resultant increased costs and unmanageable debt"

The full statement can be read here. 

 

The group requests that African leaders address this issue at next year's Summit, which is themed “Pan Africanism and the African Renaissance”. 

Elizabeth Mpofo is Chairperson of the East and Southern African Farmers Forum (ESAFF) and member of La Via Campesina, an international peasant movement. Mpofu says that, “corporate-owned, genetically modified seed won’t solve any of our problems. We have our own varieties, we have our own knowledge. We need to be supported so that we can flourish in the agricultural systems that are our heritage”.

 

The group's call for a ban is consistent with the Precautionary Principle, which states that "where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent that damage."

 

A prevalent issue of concern is the long term safety of genetically modified products and their consumption, and this concern has escalated after the results of an independent study were published in the Journal of Chemical and Food Toxicology in September 2012.

 

The peer-reviewed study, run over the lifespan of the test rats by Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini, and his research team at the University of Caen in France, found that GM maize and its related chemical, glyphosate, had a significant impact on the kidneys and livers of rats, as well as their hormonal balance, mortality rates and life spans. 

 

The rats developed cancerous tumors within the fourth month of the study.

Director of the African Centre for Biosafety (ACB), Ms Mariam Mayet, explained that, “the results of this study have been discredited by scientific bodies with industry ties, but even they acknowledge that long-term safety studies do not exist and are necessary. Maize is a staple food for millions of Africans, making it imperative to ensure that it is safe in the long term”. 

 

The statement by the African Civil Society reminds the PRC that “the African Union has played an important historical role in shaping global biosafety policy and shown admirable political will to protect African citizens. They must now show the rest of the world that GE crops can only be accepted when society is satisfied that their benefits outweigh the risks. Currently, that is not the case”.

 

Faustin Vuningoma, Secretary General of the PELUM Association, an African regional network representing over 200 organizations, said that its members “stand to fight for food sovereignty through securing indigenous seed rights and practising ecological systems of agriculture that are affordable to the small-scale farmers and sustainable to feeding the masses”. 

 

 In October 2012, in the wake of the peer-reviewed study, ACB, a consumer watchdog organization, also called on South African Authorities to enact a ban on Monsanto’s tumor linked maize crop known as NK603, saying, “We urge the South African government to take the necessary steps to protect its citizens.”

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/338726

Kenya bans importation of all GMO foods (video)

In a groundbreaking act, Public Health Minister Beth Mugo of the Kenyan government has advised that Kenya has completely banned the importation of all genetically modified (GMO) food into the country, until exhaustive tests on health effects are complete.

Stressing that the decision was taken from genuine concern for Kenyans' health, the move by the Public Health Minister follows a directive by the ministry for GMOs to be banned, until the necessary information about their impact on health can be verified... read more and listen to Mugo's speech.

Mexico's decision on GM maize postponed until next year

A decision as to a widespread planting of genetically modified (GM) corn or transgenic maize in Mexico will not be made under the outgoing government of President Felipe Calderón. It will now await until sometime next spring.

 

Digital Journal recently reported that Monsanto Co. and DuPont are planning to take over Mexico's corn-growing heartland with GM corn, or maize, with the proposed planting of 2,500,000 hectares (more than 6 million acres), including the controversial strain of corn that has been linked to cancer in rats in a recently published peer-reviewed study.

 

Concern has been voiced that the planting of GMO's would be devastating for the heart of the center of origin and diversity for maize, where scientists have identified thousands of peasant varieties of maize.

 

According to a top Mexican government official speaking on Thursday, the highly controversial approval for planting of GM corn fields on a commercial scale will be delayed until next year.

 

A deputy agriculture secretary, Mariano Ruiz, said that the regulatory approval process will not be finalized under the current government and will, instead, fall to Calderón's successor, President-elect Enrique Peña Nieto of the Institutional Revolutionary Party, who is set to take office on December 1.

 

According to Ruiz, permits are not likely to be approved for four to five months, but he did state that the new government, under Peña Nieto, is like-minded in its support for the introduction of large-scale GMO corn cultivation in Mexico.He told reporters, "I think we are in agreement generally over the importance of having this instrument, and that farmers have the tool of genetically modified organisms."

 

However he did add, "But like they say, the devil is in the details." 

 

While scientists have acknowledged that Mexico is the birthplace of corn, and opponents argue that these genetically modified varieties would contaminate native strains and irrevocably damage the grain's biodiversity, Ruiz said that the government still had to designate so-called "centers of origin" where GM corn cultivation will be banned, as well as set other safety regulations.

 

Mexico currently plants around 7.2 million hectares (17.8 million acres) of corn each year, consisting mainly of white corn for human consumption. According to agriculture ministry data, domestic corn production this year will total almost 22 million tonnes.

 

However, the country relies on imports of yellow corn for animal feed, which includes around 9 million tonnes in 2012. Promoters of GM corn say it would produce yields between 10 and 15% larger than conventional strains. They say this could both boost production, and also curb Mexico's dependence on imports.

 

There are currently five applications for commercial-scale GM corn fields, totally around 2.5 million hectares, including Monsanto, with two applications of 700,000 each in Mexico's western Sinaloa state, the country's largest corn producer.

 

Pioneer Hi-Bred International, which is part of DuPont has three applications outstanding, each of which would cover around 350,000 hectares, in northeastern Tamaulipas state.  One other application is outstanding by Dow Agrosciences de Mexico, part of Dow Chemical, for 40,000 hectares also in Tamaulipas state.

Verónica Villa from ETC’s Mexico office was quoted recently as saying, “If Mexico’s government allows this crime of historic significance to happen, GMOs will soon be in the food of the entire Mexican population, and genetic contamination of Mexican peasant varieties will be inevitable. We are talking about damaging more than 7,000 years of indigenous and peasant work that created maize – one of the world’s three most widely eaten crops.”

 

Silvia Ribeiro, ETC Group’s Latin America Director, was quoted as saying: “It would be a monumental injustice for the creators of maize – who have so benefited humankind – to be obliged to pay royalties to a transnational corporation that exploited their knowledge in the first place.”

 

Another concern is that farmers will no longer be able to save their own seed from each harvest and will always have to buy more seeds for each planting, along with the necessary herbicides, causing more expense. Should harvests not go well, farmers will then struggle to survive.

 

A petition is being run by Avaaz addressed to the President of Mexico, to "Stop GMO Corn from Contaminating Mexico's Heartland."

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/337603#ixzz2DEQMQ7X7

Monsanto Co. seeks to take over Mexico's heartland with GM maize

If their requests are approved by outgoing president Felipe Calderón, Monsanto Co. and DuPont will be planting 2,500,000 hectares (more than 6 million acres) of transgenic or GM maize in the heartland of Mexico.

According to ETC Group, the consequences will be devastating for the heart of the center of origin and diversity for maize, and also globally. 

Mexico is considered to be the global repository of maize genetic diversity, as scientists have identified thousands of peasant varieties of maize.

Should Monsanto's applications be approved, this would mark the world's first commercial-scale planting of GM varieties of a major food group, in it's center of origin.Basically this would wipe out all biodiversity, and all the various local varieties of maize, developed over around 7,000 years... read more and find out how you can help/sign petition.

If their requests are approved by outgoing president Felipe Calderón, Monsanto Co. and DuPont will be planting 2,500,000 hectares (more than 6 million acres) of transgenic or GM maize in the heartland of Mexico.

According to ETC Group, the consequences will be devastating for the heart of the center of origin and diversity for maize, and also globally. Mexico is considered to be the global repository of maize genetic diversity, as scientists have identified thousands of peasant varieties of maize. Should Monsanto's applications be approved, this would mark the world's first commercial-scale planting of GM varieties of a major food group, in it's center of origin.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/337459#ixzz2CxYEVCur

Uncounted votes on California Proposition 37

The Yes on Proposition 37 campaign to label GMOs failed on November 6. But did it? An investigation has uncovered at least 1.6 million uncounted votes in various counties of California. 

Jon Rappoport is the author of an explosive new collection, 'The Matrix Revealed', and a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Rappoport has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic and creative power to audiences around the world.

Rappoport has recently published an article in Natural News, as he has been doing a bit of investigation into why Proposition 37, the ballot initiative to require mandatory labeling of GMO products, failed.

On November 8, two days after the election, he found that many votes in California remain uncounted. He decided to try and find out just how many, and contacted the Secretary of State of CA, responsible for elections in the state, who apparently doesn't know. He was informed that all counties in California have been asked, but not ordered, to report in those figures, but it is apparently voluntary. 

So Rappoport decided to pick the largest counties and called their voter registrar offices and these are the results he obtained:

• Santa Clara County: 180,000 votes remain uncounted

• Orange County: 241,336 votes remain uncounted

• San Diego County: 475,000 votes remain uncounted

• LA County: 782,658 votes remain uncounted

In other words, in just those four counties, 1.6 million votes remain uncounted. It is still unknown how many other votes are uncounted in other Californian counties. 

Yes on 37 failed by just 559,776 votes. With the possibility of many more "yes" votes just sitting out there uncounted, is this a fair election result? What is the point of having an election, and people casting their votes, if they are not counted?

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/336548#ixzz2Boe1mk00

I-522: Next step for GMO labeling in Washington State, USA

As part of an ongoing movement to make labeling of GMO products mandatory, a group in Washington State is now working on Initiative 522, "The People's Right To Know Genetically Engineered Food Act." 

Digital Journal reported recently on the set-back with GMO labeling in California, as Big Pesticide and the No on 37 campaign won by a small margin, after spending $46 million to fight mandatory labeling of genetically engineered food.

Shortly after this, happier news was reported in regard to San Juan County, Washington, a county which is now GMO-free after residents voted yes on Initiative Measure 2012-4, which puts a ban on genetically modified organisms in the county. 

Continuing with Washington State, another initiative, I-522, is in the works, and is looking for at least 320,000 signatures, as recommended by the Secretary of State. Deadline for the signatures is December 31, 2012.

In the video above, Beverly Goldie, the Facilitator of the GMO Awareness Group (GAG) of the North Olympic Peninsula, explains the drive and how people are getting together for the cause.

Basically I-522 is an initiative to the Washington State legislature to establish mandatory labeling of foods produced through genetic engineering. I-522 is filed and individuals and organizations are gathering signatures across the state. Numbers are growing every day and people from all walks of life are working together to advance food labeling. There are many ways others can support I-522. As they say, "Every little tweet and every dollar helps."

Anyone interested in getting involved can visit the Facebook, Google+, Twitter and Pinterest pages and also GAG's YouTube channel. Anyone wishing to volunteer, can do so here and the location map for signing petitions is here.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/336518#ixzz2BlG6cYE0

San Juan County, Washington, USA now GMO-free

Local voters in San Juan county voted yes for Initiative Measure 2012-4 by a wide margin in the November 6 election. This essentially puts a ban on genetically modified organisms in the county.

The declaration made on the Initiative Measure read as follows: 

"The people of San Juan County, desiring to protect our agricultural industry, our natural environment, the private property rights of our citizens, and the health, safety and welfare of our People, deem it advisable and appropriate to restrict the cultivation of genetically modified crops, livestock and other organisms in San Juan County." 

With 8,877 votes counted, "Yes" votes outnumbered "No" votes by 5,183 to 3,329, for Initiative Measure 2012-4.

GMO-ban supporter, Marta Nielsen of Orcas Island is an organic farmer who raises chickens. She announced, "I'm proud to live in a county that could see the immense benefit of passing this forward-thinking initiative."

The GMO ban was proposed by organic farmers and other interested party in the county. The ban makes it unlawful to propagate or grow plants or animals in San Juan County, Washington, that have been genetically modified. It further provides for penalties and the destruction of such organisms. 

A recent opinion piece on GMO's by Ken & Kathryn Akopiantz, primary sponsors of the initiative can be read here.

The video above features Ken Akopiantz, a farmer and owner of Horse Drawn Farm and the Seed Librarian of Lopez Community Land Trust. He speaks on the dangers of genetic engineering (GE) and genetically modified organism (GMO) and explains why it is important to support the Initiative Measure No. 2012-4 to ban raising GMOs in the San Juan county. This speech was delivered during the Food Charrette on Lopez Island, Feb 25, 2012.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/336431#ixzz2Be90I1ED

Four simple questions before you cast your vote for Prop 37

Zack Kaldveer, Assistant Media Director of the Yes on 37 Ca Right to Know campaign, had a 45 minute interview the other day about GMOs and labeling. The director immediately cut a 2 minute segment and put it up on YouTube, as it asks the right questions.

 

On Tuesday, November 6, Californians can make the decision to vote yes or no on Proposition 37 - the initiative to make labeling of GMO products mandatory. Here are four questions that Kaldveer asks you, before you cast your vote: 

1. Since when have the pesticide and junk food corporations ever spent $45 million to save you money, improve your health or protect the environment?
   
2. When it comes to your health and the health of your family, who do you trust? The pesticide and junk food corporations, bank-rolling the No on 37 campaign? Or groups like the California Nurses Association, The Breast Cancer Action Fund and the American Public Health Association?
3. Who do you trust to protect the environment? Companies like Monsanto and Dupont, who brought us DDT and Agent Orange? Or do you trust Prop 37 supporters, like the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the California League of Conservation Voters.
4. Who do you trust when it comes to whether you have the right to know what's in the food that you eat? Companies like Monsanto and Dupont and the pesticide and junk food corporations, bank-rolling the No on 37 campaign? Or Prop 37 supporters, like Consumers Union, the Consumer Federation of America and Public Citizen. 

"What we are being asked is to trust, in all of these areas, corporations that have a long history of deceiving the public, polluting the environment, and endangering public health, and disregarding the support that the Prop 37 has from organizations that have dedicated their lives and decades to improving our health and fighting for peoples' rights over corporate profit."

All Proposition 37 is asking for is a simple label, as is currently required for 3,000 other ingredients. This would come at no cost to the consumer, but would inform the purchaser of the content of the food, so that they can make an informed choice of what to feed their families. 

Prop 37 was put on the ballot by a million Californians, just like you.

No on 37, embodied by Big Pesticide and the junk food companies, has spent a whopping $45 million to try to prevent you knowing what is in your food. 

On the other hand, the California Nurses Association says: "Nurses see people suffering from serious diet-related diseases every day. The potential danger of genetically modified foods is why CNA supports Prop 37." 

The Los Angeles Times says: "Such labeling wouldn’t result in significant increases in food costs, no matter what the industry tries to tell you. After all, food companies regularly change their labels in one way or another." 

Ken Cook, president of Environmental Working Group and a Californian resident said, “Makers of sugar-laden cereal and soda companies once tried to label their products as beneficial to children’s well-being." 

"Federal regulators forced them to drop their bogus health claims. Now these same companies are pouring millions into defeating Prop 37, even though the label would actually be true and useful to consumers who want more information about their food. If their products were made with genetically engineered ingredients, then they’d be labeled as such. No more, no less.” 

For more information visit: www.carighttoknow.org/ and read more by Zack Kaldveer here.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/336206#ixzz2BLJY8yZy

Halloween: GMOs are a Trick and not a Treat

We could all become Genetically Modified Zombies and Halloween would be 365 days a year. Vote Yes on Proposition 37.

For more information visit http://www.carighttoknow.org/

Despite latest poll 'Yes on 37' is in it to win labeling of GMOs

While the latest Pepperdine poll taken between October 21 and 28 shows the opposition at 50.5% and support for Prop 37 at 39.1%, the new round of positive advertising will make the change. 

Stacy Malkan, spokesperson for the Yes on 37 campaign said, “The Pepperdine poll was taken after three weeks of deceptive opposition ads that went unanswered and before the Yes on 37 message got on the air. The world’s largest pesticide and junk food companies have been spending a million dollars a day carpet bombing California with lies to confuse voters about a simple labeling law."

"Now our ads are up and many voters are hearing our message for the first time – that Prop 37 is a simple labeling law that gives us the right to know what’s in our food, at no cost to consumers.” 

“On the Yes side, support is rushing in from all sides. We have a strong ground game with 10,000 volunteers out on the streets, we have a powerful ad, money is coming in the door and we have one of the most successful online organizing campaigns ever seen. We expect these will have a big effect during the last week in the campaign,” she continued. 

“We are in this to win, and the pesticide and junk food companies opposing this measure are worried we will win, as evidenced by their recent infusion of $8 million more into the opposition campaign in the last 10 days," Malkan said.

 

Total contributions to the "No on 37" campaign are now at $44.2 after Dupont contributed another $500,000 on October 29. On the "Yes" side of the scale, the supporting campaign has raised $7.4 million. 

 

 Malkan said, “We have always been the underdog in this story, but we believe that when voters go to the polls next week they will value their right to know what’s in their food and vote Yes on Proposition 37.” For more information visit: www.carighttoknow.org.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/335833#ixzz2Ap02cSHe

Yes on Proposition 37 to Label Genetically Engineered Food. We Have the Right to Know.

Big agrochemical corporations have produced genetically engineered corn that includes insecticides.

Not on the corn. But in the corn.

A new study links genetically engineered corn to tumors and organ damage.

And the big agrochemical corporations also say Bt-toxins are safe for us to eat.

We shouldn't be forced to gamble with the health of our families.

We have the right to know what's in our food. Vote Yes on Proposition 37.

Join us at www.CArighttoknow.org - and please remember to vote on November 6!

Video: 'Trust us' — Vote yes on Proposition 37 to label GMOs

Some of your favorite stars have got together again, impersonating scientists at leading biotech firms and ironically telling you to trust them. But really, they want you to vote "Yes on 37" to label GMO foods.

"Trust Us" is an ironic public service announcement by Consumer Advocates for Safe Food and Water, sponsored by Food and Water Watch, in support of Proposition 37, California's ballot initiative to label genetically engineered foods.

With a very diverse, all-star cast, including Danny DeVito, Emily Deschanel, Glenn Howerton, Kaitlin Olson, KaDee Strickland and Kristin Bauer van Straten, impersonating scientists at leading biotech firms speaking their "subconscious minds" about why the general public should just trust them and not fight for mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods (GMOs).

To learn more about Proposition 37 and Food & Water Watch's campaign to make labeling of GMOs the law, and to help raise money to broadcast this public service announcement and others like it far and wide, visit www.voteyes37.org and www.carighttoknow.org/

Original source: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/335476#ixzz2AIrofZuC

California Farmers Ask: "Why Hide What's In Our Food?"

California farmers John Richardson, Amanda Gray, and Gowan Lester agree that we have a right to know what's in the food we eat. Vote YES on Prop 37!

Click here for more information about Proposition 37 and GMO labeling.

Ca Right to Know calls for criminal investigation of 'No on 37'

In the latest in a line of misrepresentations and possible fraud, California Right to Know is calling for a criminal investigation of "No on 37" for misuse of the FDA Seal and a fabricated FDA quote, all in opposition to the labeling of GMOs.

Proposition 37 would require labeling of genetically engineered food in California. The opposition to Prop 37 is spending a whopping $35 million to discredit it. And they are doing this using misrepresentations and possibly even fraud. 

Letters were sent to the US Department of Justice on Thursday by the California Right to Know "Yes on 37" campaign, requesting a criminal investigation into the "No on 37" campaign. The reason for this? "No on 37" affixed the FDA's seal to one of the campaign's mailers. 

Screen capture

Misrepresentation of FDA on mailer.

 Section 506 of the US Criminal Code states: “Whoever… knowingly uses, affixes, or impresses any such fraudulently made, forged, counterfeited, mutilated, or altered seal or facsimile thereof to or upon any certificate, instrument, commission, document, or paper of any description… shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.”

Gary Ruskin, campaign manager of California Right to Know Yes on 37, said, “The Justice Department should investigate this fraudulent dirty trick perpetrated by the No on 37 campaign.”

“They are running a campaign of lies, deceit and trickery, and some of it may be criminal.”

The letter sent to the US Department of Justice also gives evidence that the "No on 37" campaign falsely attributed a direct quote by the FDA in the campaign mailer. Alongside the FDA seal, text in quotes says "The US Food and Drug Administration says a labeling policy like Prop 37 would be 'inherently misleading.' This quote is completely false and fabricated. The FDA has never made such a statement and does not take a position on Proposition 37 - in fact, it would be unlawful for the agency to do so, in the general election. 

The letter, quoted below, was sent by California Right to Know to the following: - 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; - Vincent Tolino, Director of the Ethics and Integrity staff at the FDA.

Dear Mr. Breuer, Ms. Rimon, and Mr. Tolino:

I am writing on behalf of our client, Yes on 37 for the Right to Know If Your Food Has Been Genetically Engineered (“Yes on 37 Committee”), a California ballot committee advocating for passage of Proposition 37 in the upcoming general election. Proposition 37 would require labeling of certain foods made with genetic engineering.

It has come to the attention of the Yes on 37 Committee, first, that the California political committee formed to oppose Proposition 37, the No On 37 Committee, has paid for and disseminated a direct mail piece stating that the Food and Drug Administration “says a labeling policy like Prop. 37 would be ‘inherently misleading,’” with the name and official seal of FDA appearing under that statement.

A copy of that mailing is attached. Of course, the FDA has never taken a position on Proposition 37; it would be unlawful for the agency to do so, in the general election; and the quoted statement from FDA was made in an unrelated context more than twenty years ago. In these circumstances, it appears that use of the agency’s seal on this mail piece is clearly fraudulent and the misuse of the seal in this way is a violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 506 and 1017 as well as applicable agency regulations.

Second, under California law, the California Secretary of State prepares an official guide for voters, including certain materials on ballot propositions. Those materials include arguments submitted by proponents of each proposition and arguments opposed, and rebuttals to each.

These arguments must be submitted by registered California voters, who submit a form certifying that they are the authors of the argument or rebuttal. The three identified authors of the “Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 37” include a Dr. Henry I. Miller, who is identified solely as “Founding Director, Office of Biotechnology of the Food & Drug Administration.”

The Rebuttal appears on page 56 of the official Voter Information Guide, a copy of which is attached. Dr. Miller in fact, does not currently work for the FDA in any capacity. The use of a false official federal title to make it appear that a high-ranking FDA official opposes the ballot proposition would seem to be a blatant violation of 18 U.S.C. §912, making it a federal offense to “assume or pretend to be an office or employee acting under the authority

We urge you to take steps immediately to put a stop to the misuse of the agency’s seal and official authority for these improper political purposes. If you have any questions or need further information concerning the above, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your time and attention to this important matter.

Sincerely yours, Joseph E. Sandler

--- 

The misrepresentation is just the latest in a stream of deceptions by the "No on 37" campaign, the top six funders of which are the world's six largest pesticide companies.

"No on 37" has repeatedly misrepresented the university affiliation of their lead scientific spokesperson, Dr. Henry I. Miller, in campaign ads, both in mailer form and on TV, totally violating the policy of Stanford University.

 "No on 37" has been accused of making false statements in the official California Voter's Guide, misrepresenting the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the nation's largest professional association for nutritionists and dieticians, on the subject of GMO labeling.

 Academy President Ethan Bergman said in a press release, “We are concerned that California voters are being misled." "Voters need accurate information in order to make an informed choice." 

Ca Right to Know

On top of all this, the "No on 37" campaign ads which are blanketing California have been described as misleading by the San Jose Mercury News, Sacramento Bee, and San Francisco Chronicle. 

For more information about the California Right to Know campaign, visit www.carighttoknow.org.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/335080

Op-Ed: Does 'No on 37' campaign back their spokesman’s extreme views?

On Monday, the Yes on 37 campaign called on opponents to Proposition 37 to clarify whether they share the extreme and dubious scientific views of their spokesman, Dr. Henry I. Miller.

Miller is a researcher at the right-wing Hoover Institute and is featured as the spokesperson in TV ads currently blanketing California, for the "No on 37" campaign. These TV ads have appeared countless times on television, to millions of Californians, with Miller arguing that Proposition 37 is "illogical". 

Miller is a founding member of a now-defunct tobacco front group who attempted to discredit the links between cigarettes and cancer. He has repeatedly called for the reintroduction of the toxic pesticide DDT. He fronted for an oil industry-funded climate change denial group. He even claimed that people exposed to radiation from the Fukushima nuclear power plant “may have benefited from it.” Now he is heading up the "No on 37" advertising campaign with yet more dubious claims. 

On Monday, the "Yes on 37" campaign sent letters to to "No on 37" spokesperson, Kathy Fairbanks and other public spokespeople involved in the anti-labeling campaign, asking them to clarify if they stand behind Miller's very dubious scientific beliefs and claims.

Gary Ruskin, campaign manage of California Right to Know, says, “Time and again, Henry Miller has been the mouthpiece of corporate elites trying to deceive the public about issues of health and science.” “If the No on 37 campaign shares his extreme views, it shows how far outside the mainstream their campaign really is. If they don’t, they should explain why they want Californians to trust someone whom they don’t trust either.” 

Ruskin said in the letter, which can be read here, that Miller has a “highly controversial record on issues of science and public policy.“ 

On top of Miller's rather dubious scientific claims, and as reported in the Los Angeles Times, an ad aired by the "No on 37" campaign featured Miller, misrepresenting both his occupation and Stanford University. Stanford University objected to the ad and it was taken down, but only after millions of Californians had viewed it.

Over the weekend, the San Jose Mercury News analyzed the redone version of the offending ad, and still found it to be partially misleading. The controversy over Miller's dubious claims are not the only problem with the $35 million "No on 37" campaign. Recently the Sacramento Bee fact-checked the campaigns statewide radio ad and concluded it was misleading. 

Recently, as reported on Digital Journal, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics sent out a press release stating that they were misrepresented by the No on 37 campaign in the official California Voter’s Guide that was sent to 11 million voters. “We are concerned that California voters are being misled..." said Academy President Ethan Bergman. "Voters need accurate information in order to make an informed choice." 

Background on "No on 37" Science Spokesperson, Henry I. Miller. 

To give an idea of the history of Miller's various and many dubious scientific claims:  

Big Tobacco: 

- Miller was a founding member of The Advance of Sound Science Coalition, a Phillip Morris backed front group that tried to discredit the links between tobacco products, heart disease and cancer. 

 - Henry I. Miller was referred to as a "key supporter" in a 1994 PR memo, recommending strategy to help Phillip Morris organize a worldwide effort to fight tobacco regulations. 

- Miller wrote in 2012, “nicotine … is not particularly bad for you in the amounts delivered by cigarettes or smokeless products.” 

DDT:
 
- DDT, a toxic pesticide, was banned in the United States in 1972, as it had been linked to pre-term birth and fertility impairment in women.  However, Miller has repeatedly argued for the re-introduction of DDT.  

Fukushima and Radiation: 

After the Japanese tsunami and radiation leaks at the Fukushima nuclear power plant occurred, Miller argued that “those … who were exposed to low levels of radiation could have actually benefited from it.”  

Climate Change Denial and Big Oil and Gas: 

 Miller sits on the “scientific advisory board” of the George C. Marshall Institute, which is famous for its oil and gas industry funded denials of climate change.

FDA: As if the above is not enough, Miller has argued that the FDA should outsource more of its functions to private industries, and has publicly attacked the FDA for its efforts to ensure proper vetting and testing of new drugs. 

October 16, 2012 - Update:
The "No on 37" campaign has, for a third time, been caught misrepresenting Stanford University in their handouts. A large brochure being circulated by the campaign clearly shows Stanford University buildings, as well as the false claim that Miller represents the university:

Ca Right to Know

Henry Miller, spokesperson for No on 37, misrepresenting Stanford University for the third time.

For advertising that tells the truth on Proposition 37, visit: http://www.carighttoknow.org/video

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/334913

Yes on 37: Don't let the pesticide companies buy your vote

Big Pesticide is currently spending $1 million per day on TV and radio advertising to confuse California voters about Proposition 37, which simply requires clear labeling to tell us what is in our food.

Despite it being evident that labeling of GMO products is essential, and the fact that the large majority of Californians are demanding this labeling, the world's largest pesticide companies are currently spending $1 million per day to confuse voters.

The truth is that all that money can buy plenty of confusion among listeners and viewers, but it cannot buy the actual facts about Proposition 37, which are as follows: 

1. "No on 37" is trying to tell you that labeling is going to raise the cost of foods, i.e. the cost of the labeling will be passed on to consumers. They reckon that your grocery costs will increase by $400 a year.

This is untrue. Labeling did not raise costs in 50 other countries worldwide who have implemented GMO labeling. It won't raise costs in the US either. Just adding a few words to the labels actually costs you nothing. Read about the only independent study on Proposition 37 to find out the Truth about Cost. 

2. "No on 37" is saying Proposition 37 is “a measure for trial lawyers written by trial lawyers.” 

Proposition 37 was not written by trial lawyers. It was written by a group of food industry, farm, science and health experts, including representatives from Lundberg Family Farms, the Organic Consumers Association, Food Democracy Now!, Nature’s Path and the Center for Food Safety. 

3. "No on 37" says Proposition 37 will provide “countless new opportunities for shakedown lawsuits.” 

The truth is that there are no incentives for lawsuits. The opposition's stories about "shakedown lawsuits" make absolutely no sense. Proposition 37 is extremely straightforward and is easy for businesses to follow. Companies will label their products for genetically engineered ingredients, just like they label calories and fat. Retailers are protected under the law. Read the Truth about Lawsuits.

4. "No on 37" says that exemptions offered by Proposition 37 make no sense. However, exemptions under Proposition 37 make absolute common sense: Prop 37 exempts products that have no ingredient labels, such as restaurant food and alcohol. You can't exactly expect a restaurant to stick a label on every dish or drink they serve? Proposition 37 will cover meat from genetically engineered animals. 

The opposition is merely trying to confuse voters about exemptions - and to do this they are running TV ads featuring a fringe radical scientist (one who thinks nuclear radiation is good for our health and who suggested that nicotine is not addictive) - because they don’t want to label genetically engineered foods. Read the Truth about Exemptions.

Thousands of farmers in California are for Proposition 37. All the leading businesses in the natural and sustainable food sector are voting Yes on 37. All leading labor groups in the industry, including United Farm Workers, United Food and Commercial Workers, and California Labor Federation are saying Yes on 37. 

Stand with those leading the health, faith, labor and consumer groups and vote Yes on Proposition 37. Don't let the pesticide companies and purveyors of junk food try and buy your vote.

Read more and listen to a broadcast by Dr Robert Gould, MD, San Francisco Bay Chapter President of Physicians for Social Responsibility, who speaks on the health implications of GMOs and explains why labeling of products containing GMOs is essential.  http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/334890

For more information also visit http://www.carighttoknow.org