Polish farmers protest sale of land to foreign multinationals

In four cities in Poland, farmers are demonstrating against Polish farmland being sold to foreign multinationals. Now they need international support for their protests, along with help educating the Polish public about GMOs.

Digital Journal reported on Monday that, despite the fact that Poland had banned GM corn and potatoes, the Seeds Act was not vetoed by government and GM seeds can still be traded in Poland.

However, GMOs are not the only problem in Poland right now. It seems there is a loophole in Polish law, that is being exploited to sell Polish farmland to foreign multinationals. Protests have been ongoing for three weeks in four cities in Poland and the Polish government is trying to manipulate the farmers to make them give up the fight.

Farmers are rightfully angry and have been blocking roads and admin centers associated with the scam. They are also demonstrating for the right to sell their food locally and to block GMO products in Poland.

The International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside (ICPPC) has had several successes between 2004 and 2006 in the fight against GMOs in Poland. All polish provinces declared themselves as GMO-free and the Polish government passed an act which prohibited the use of GMO seeds and plants in agriculture.

But, as is natural these days, the pro-GMO lobby didn't give up in the country. They are now making intensive pro-GMO propaganda on all levels - for academics, farmers, politicians and consumers. They are producing pro-GMO articles, organizing meetings and training sessions, where they provide free materials, all, of course saying how good GMO products are.

The latest is that the Polish government is attempting to pass a correction to the GMO act, whereby the use of GMO seeds would be allowed in so-called 'designated GMO areas'. ICPPC now wishes to counteract these pro-GMO activities, using effective tools to educate Polish society about the threats and dangers of GMOs.



The group has translated the full version of the above video clip, "Life Running Out of Control", to make a Polish version. They now need to make thousands of copies of this film and to distribute them around Poland. 

Anyone wishing to help Poland in their fight for farmers' rights and against GMO products can donate here. To see more about the farmers' protests, Protest Rolników, their Facebook page can be accessed here.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/340787

Poland: Seeds Act not vetoed, GM seeds can still be traded

The good news was that Poland banned the planting of GM seeds. The bad news is that the Seeds Act was not vetoed by the Polish Prime Minister and the 'trading' of GM plants and seeds is allowed to continue.

Digital Journal reported recently on the ban by Poland on GM corn and potatoes from BASF and Monsanto. Greenpeace was apparently thrilled that "the government has kept its promises."

 

However, the latest news in from Poland is that everyone was deceived. Despite a great surge of action and letters calling for the flawed act to be vetoed, the Seeds Act is alive and well. While the New Year dawned with Polish Prime Minister Tusk announcing that Poland is to ban the planting of GM seeds as from January 28, he is, however, NOT banning 'trading' of GM plants and seeds.

 

According to the International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside (ICPPC), if trading is allowed, what sort of control will be in place to stop planting? In a word, none. 

ICPPC says that farmers will soon become aware that they will be responsible for any infringements, should their land become contaminated by GM plantings. Should their crops become cross-contaminated, it will be their responsibility and all costs will be payable to the great Monsanto and Big Pesticide.

 

 

ICPPC says that this is a classic political deception. "As the word spins out across the world that Poland is banning GM maize and potato crops, the corporations are being offered the freedom to ply their GM trade. What sort of 'ban' is that?" say Sir Julian Rose and Jadwiga Lopata of ICPPC.

 

The government says that it has the support of Greenpeace. Greenpeace in return, confirms that it is supporting the government position along with a "clique of Facebook supporters".

 

However, the ICPPC has the support of the great majority of farmers and aware consumers and the backing of the Solidarity trade union, the nurses union, the farmers chamber and the bee keeping association. Its members will be uniting the GM opposition groups to form a united front, able and willing to take on the government and the corporations, to force a total ban on GM trading and planting. 

 

The fight continues in Poland against GMOs.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/340694

New Mexico next in line to try for GMO labeling

While California's Proposition 37 ballot initiative to label GMO products seems to have failed, a State Senator in New Mexico is next to take the baton in the fight for labeling of genetically modified food products.

As was seen with Proposition 37, with Monsanto and Big Pesticide's excessively deep pockets used to fight the ballot initiative, New Mexico might have a fight on their hands too. 

 

However, State Senator Peter Wirth (D-Santa Fe) has proposed an amendment that, while it won’t be brought into debate until next year, he hopes will be approved and will ensure that NM consumers know exactly what is in their food. If Sen. Wirth’s amendment is approved, it will make it mandatory for genetically engineered food and items containing genetically modified, or genetically engineered (GE), products to be adequately and clearly labeled. 

 

 Sen. Wirth said, “The premise of this amendment is simple – New Mexicans deserve the right to know what’s in the food they are eating and feeding to their families.” “Labeling GE foods and feed will empower consumers with basic information to help them decide for themselves the types of food they want to buy.” Sen. Wirth is already making headway in terms of getting people to talk about his plan. 

 

 Food & Water Watch's New Mexico Organizer, Eleanor Bravo says of his amendment, “Giving foods with GE ingredients a label will only improve and expand independent health and scientific knowledge about genetic engineering.” 

 

“We need the research of genetic engineering to be expanded beyond the companies who own the seeds and stand to profit and labeling will allow this to happen,” she added. 

 

Sen. Wirth's proposal would state that companies that do not properly label GMO items will be subject to penalties under current rules pertaining to “mis-branding.”  

 

It will be a hard fight, as just a few weeks ago, Proposition 37 lost by a margin of 53 to 47 in favor of the No on Prop 37 campaign. People involved in the Yes on Prop 37 campaign feel that the last-minute defeat was caused by the multi-million dollar campaign launched by Monsanto, other pesticide companies, and junk food companies against labeling of GMOs. 

 

There is still a certain amount of concern over the results of the election, due to discrepancies in tallies shown on the California Secretary of State's website, but no real outcome has come of this.

 

Mark Kastel of The Cornucopia Institute said in a statement last month that “Genetically engineered foods found on market shelves have most commonly been altered in a lab to either be resistant to being sprayed by large amounts of toxic herbicides, or to produce, internally, their own insecticide.” 

 

“Corporations that produce both the genetically engineered crops and their designer pesticides, in concert with the multi-billion-dollar food manufacturers that use these ingredients, fought this measure tooth and nail, throwing $46 million at the effort that would have required food manufacturers to include informational labeling on GMO content on their packaging.”  

 

Related articles:

Proposition 37 — possible that election fraud made it fail  

Cheerios' Facebook page hijacked by anti-GMO protesters 

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

Vandana Shiva interviewed on HARDtalk by the BBC about GMOs (video)

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/339653

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.

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

Video: California kids say 'Yes on 37' to label GMOs

 

A bunch of youngsters in California are concerned about the food that they are eating. While they can't personally vote on Prop 37, they are urging others to say yes to the ballot initiative to label GMOs.

You have to be 18-years-old to vote, but not to make a video. A group of kids got together and made the above video, which is doing the rounds on YouTube. 

 

The kids urge Californians to vote yes on Proposition 37, the ballot initiative to label genetically modified food products and products that contain genetically engineered ingredients.

 

 

All they, and other proponents of Proposition 37, are asking, is for a simple label, telling them what is in their food. No extra cost to the consumer, just transparency. 

 

As they say in the video, the opposition to Proposition 37 does not consist of one single human being, just a bunch of the biggest pesticide and junk food companies. For more information, visit www.carighttoknow.org/

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/335667#ixzz2AaPjuhTg

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.

Vote Yes on Proposition 37 for labeling of GMOs

Here are two of the latest videos telling you why you must vote YES to Prop 37!

Kids are not Lab Rats: Vote Yes on Prop 37 

 Yes on 37 - California Right To Know 

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

Vote Yes on 37 - We Have The Right To Know

Read more about Proposition 37 and the right to know what you are eating.

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: Take the pledge to support Prop 37 to label GMO foods

Californians go to the ballot box on November 6, 2012, to decide on Proposition 37, the initiative to label foods with genetically modified ingredients. Should the majority vote "Yes", Californians will finally get the right to know what they are eating.

 

This is what Monsanto and its minions in the opposition dread the most. If Proposition 37 passes, you will see labels on processed foods made using Monsanto's soy, canola, sugar (from sugar beets), corn and cotton. Yes, you heard right, Americans eat genetically engineered cotton in the form of cottonseed oil, an artery-clogging trans fat. You will also see labels on genetically engineered sweet corn, squash, zucchini and papaya. 

 

While there are no genetically modified animals as yet, when and if the first is approved, Prop 37 would make sure that they are labeled too. The Obama administration is currently considering genetically engineered salmon so if approved, these would be labeled.

At present, 61 countries worldwide label genetically engineered food ingredients. If Proposition 37 passes, the US will then join the rest of the world in knowing what is in their food. 

 

California makes up 10% of the US grocery market, and is the world's 8th largest economy. Bear in mind that big food companies like Coca-Cola, Nestle and Pepsi are unlikely to label GMOs in just one state and not in the others, so eventually the whole country could have labeling on GMOs. 

 

Ca Right to Know

It should be so easy to pass Proposition 37. In September, polls showed "Yes on 37" leading 66.9% to 22.3%. But since then, "Yes on 37" has been badly outspent by Big Pesticide and friends on the "No on 37" side. 

 

With the opposition laying out $35 million, support has plummeted for the cause, and the lead is narrowing with 48.3% saying "Yes" to 40.2% saying "No." The biggest contributor to "No on 37" is Monsanto, at $7 million. Monsanto has put more money into the opposition of Prop 37 than the entire "Yes" side combined. 

 

See the graphic below for more details on who is on which side in the battle.

Digital Journal has reported on the misleading advertising that $35 million is buying for the "No on 37" campaign. Despite the advertising being misleading, and some being taken down, millions of Californians saw these ads, and it seems that some have been convinced. 

 

Whether you are in California, or elsewhere in the world, please take the pledge to help with Proposition 37. Help to share the truth and tell your friends about Monsanto, GMOs and the California ballot initiative for the right to know what is in our food. 

 

Also, please sign a petition to send to the food companies, tellng them to stop siding with Monsanto and to support GMO labeling. 

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/334938

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