Cheerios' Facebook page hijacked by anti-GMO protesters

Following the recent demise of Proposition 37, the ballot initiative for GMO labeling, many companies are being boycotted for supporting the wrong side. One of these companies is the owner of Cheerios, who mistakenly tried some social media marketing. 

Unfortunately for them, this month General Mills, the Cheerios guys, decided to try and engage with their customers through Facebook.

Big mistake.

As reported by triplepundit.com, "What was supposed to be a warm-and-fuzzy page dedicated to childhood odes to Cheerios has turned into an anti-GMO (genetically modified organism) rant." The image at the top of their Facebook page reads, "Your moments. Our timeline. The story of Cheerios as told by you." And boy, did people tell their stories! 

One recent comment reads,

"Instead of wasting your money on campaigning against labeling GMOs you should have saved that money and changed your labels. Maybe your values are misplaced. Maybe you have GMOs in your products and you were afraid of losing business? Well, guess what? You are losing customers anyway because you didn't support labeling and joined the opposing team with monetary support. That told customers the answer they were searching for even without the label. Great job! Geez! I used to like Cheerios. Shame on you."

They even went so far as to ask customers questions, like: "What are your favorite memories of childhood?" To which one commenter wrote:

"As a child, my favorite cereal was Cheerios."

However, they immediately added,

"Now that I have my own child, I don't let him eat it. I will not support a company that supports GMO's."

Another question was, "This Thanksgiving, we’re grateful for you, our fans, for showing us that the most simple things can bring great joy. What are you thankful for?" To which some protesters responded:

"I'm thankful I have a choice NOT to buy your GMO product and I CAN buy organic products."

And another:

"I'm thankful for social media making it easier to call out big corporations that only have profits in mind, not the health of families...esp kids."

Along with many, many more - I could keep this up pretty much all day! In fact, perusing the comments on the image, where they asked their question, there don't seem to be any positive comments at all. 

Most of the offending remarks on the timeline itself have since been removed, but new ones are cropping up all the time, like:

"Boycotting until the GMO's are gone! People over profits! You don't exist if we choose not to support you. Plant that in your modified fields :)".

And another reads,

"Genetically modified Mills, I have stopped buying your products."

And yet another:

"TRUSTED........ NO WAY!!! How can we trust a Company..... who contributed over $1.1 million to "NO on 37"??? Why don't you want labeling of GMOs (genetically modified organisms)??? What are you hiding from us???"

One more:

"I will not spend one red cent on ANY product produced by a company who spends their capital $$ lobbying to block the labeling of GMO usage in our food. Get with it, General Mills."

In fact, perusing the Cheerios photo page is a hoot, each photo has more anti-GMO comments. 

The main barrage against General Mills was apparently headed by GMOInside, a coalition that aims for GMO-containing products to be properly labeled. However other anti-GMO activists were not slow in getting into the action.

General Mills, the owners of Cheerios, contributed a whopping $1.1 million to the "No on 37" campaign. Being on the "No on Proposition 37" list, probably means that the company uses genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in their cereal.

Come on guys, all the protesters really want is a little transparency.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/339052

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

'Yes on Proposition 37': Narrow loss, movement victory

Yesterday it was a close call in voting on Proposition 37, the ballot initiative for mandatory labeling of GMO products. While the Ca Right to Know campaign lost the battle for now, it is not conceding the war.

With 4,277,985 people voting "yes" (47.9%) and 4,835,045 people voting "no" (53.1%), it was very close. 

Bearing in mind that the opposition pushed a massive $45 million dollars to quash the bill, Yes on 37 did amazingly well with smaller, but far more honest, donations and endorsements.  

The following is the Right to Know Election Statement:

Yesterday, we showed that there is a food movement in the United States, and it is strong, vibrant and too powerful to stop. We always knew we were the underdogs, and the underdogs nearly took the day. Dirty money and dirty tactics may have won this skirmish, but they will not win the war.

Today, we are more than 4 million votes closer to knowing what’s in our food than when we started. This is a victory and a giant step forward. We are proud of our broad coalition of moms and dads, farmers, nurses, environmentalists, faith and labor leaders who did so much with so few resources to bring us to this point, and we will carry forward.

These results are also a reminder of the corrupting influence of huge multinational corporations on our electoral process. The world’s leading pesticide and junk food companies outspent Yes on 37 by more than 5 to 1, and beginning on October 1, spent about a million dollars a day on a hailstorm of false claims, misrepresentations and fear mongering over five simple words on a label. In the end, they spent enough money to hide the truth from the majority of voters. The food manufacturers are on the wrong side of history; they should not fight their customers, but join them.

Today is not the end of our campaign to secure our fundamental right to know what’s in our food. It is a strong beginning, and we thank the millions of Californians who stood with us. We are proud of our grassroots movement, our 10,000 hardworking volunteers, and the diverse coalition of health, faith, labor and consumer groups that stood with us. We will keep fighting for consumer choice, fairness and transparency in our food system. And we will prevail. 

To Victory! 

The California Right to Know Campaign 

Anyone wishing to learn more and join the fight, visit www.carighttoknow.org.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/336401#ixzz2BZh5671P

LA City Council on Election Day 2012

Third-Party candidates debate Proposition 37

On Monday November 5, the final third-party candidate debate was held. In a final question, Jill Stein of the Green Party and Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party were asked about their stance on Proposition 37 for the labeling of GMOs.

The final, third-party candidate debate of the US presidential elections was hosted by RT America at their Washington studio on November 5.

The final, one-minute response question for the candidates was, "The European Union imposed mandatory food labeling in 1997 for genetically modified foods. Do you support Proposition 37 in California and as president, would you push for federal legislation requiring the labeling of GMO foods?"

Dr Jill Stein of the Green Party said, "It is our right to know what we are eating, especially when that so-called food involves highly experimental and inadequately tested technology."

"So as a very preliminary step, we must have labeling of genetically engineered food products, and I would definitely advance that legislation at the national level, but I would actually go beyond that."

 "As a physician and a public advocate who has spent years studying and advocating for a safe environment that is consistent with human health, I would actually call for a moratorium on genetically engineered food until it has been established as safe, because once this technology is out of the bag, and this is already happening, you can't call it back." 

"There are some real warning signs right now in the scientific literature. We need to put it on hold until we understand what is going on." 

Governor Gary Johnson of the Libertarian party said, "I think that one of government's fundamental responsibilities can be to educate, and by educate, the notion that we should mandate labeling. We should mandate what ingredients there are in food." 

"I have celiac disease, I can't consume gluten. It makes me sick, it's poison. So I would not be able to function if it weren't for food labeling. It is very, very important to me."

"So consumers make their choices, but they make their choices based on having all the information that they want. Genetically modified foods should be labeled as such." 

The full debate and closing statements can be viewed here. More information about Proposition 37 and the Ca Right to Know campaign can be viewed here.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/336281#ixzz2BSJOeZdy

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.

Kids are not Lab Rats: Vote Yes on Prop 37

In a really cute video, kids tell us why it is important to vote Yes on Proposition 37, the initiative requiring genetically modified food to be labeled in California, USA.

Coming up in November this year, Californians will be voting on Proposition 37, which would require that all genetically engineered food be labeled. 

 

The opposition (Big Pesticide and major junk food companies) are pumping millions of dollars into a misleading and often fraudulent advertising campaign to debunk labeling and to confuse voters. 

 

35 million dollars goes a long way to protecting their bottom line. While the Yes on 37 campaign cannot match them in dollars, the grassroots organization can fight back with a big heart and a genuine need to know what we are eating. In case you don't know what genetically engineered or genetically modified (GE or GMO) foods are, the majority of processed foods in the supermarket contain these. The food has been genetically modified with DNA from other plants or animals, and also to produce its own built-in pesticides. 

 

The foods are untested, unlabeled and potentially unsafe for both your health and the environment.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), does no independent safety testing on GMOs and only relies on information supplied by the biotechnology companies, who in turn, are merely thinking of their bottom line. 

 

A recent study in France showed that genetically modified corn caused tumors and organ failure in rats over a lifetime period. And yet, we have no idea of the long-term effects of the same GMOs on humans. 

 

 If you live in California, give yourself the chance to choose what you are eating and feeding to your children by taking the pledge to vote Yes on 37 or, if you live elsewhere, to support the initiative. 

 

 As the kids in the video say, they can't vote, but you are an adult, so please vote "Yes." 

 

 

For more information visit www.carighttoknow.org where they say, "Prop 37 gives us the right to know if our food has been genetically engineered. It helps us make the right food choices for our families by putting a simple label on the groceries we buy and telling us if our food has been genetically engineered. Simple and clear labels. No cost to consumers. No loopholes - that's why a broad and diverse Coalition from the Sierra Club, to farmers, nurses, doctors and the Consumer Federation of America say YES to 37."

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/335221

Everything you need to know about Prop 37 and labeling GMOs

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

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

"Right To Know" - Music Video - Yes on California Prop 37 - No GMO - Everyman & Boyz In The Wood

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