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

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

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

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 37 - We Have The Right To Know

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

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

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