Along with our allies, we’ve been encouraged to hear this question ring throughout California among those who gave their heart and soul to this fight and within the growing national food movement: “What’s next?”

Food Democracy Now! has been a part of this fight from the beginning and along with our close allies [...]]]> What’s next?

Along with our allies, we’ve been encouraged to hear this question ring throughout California among those who gave their heart and soul to this fight and within the growing national food movement: “What’s next?”

Food Democracy Now! has been a part of this fight from the beginning and along with our close allies who fought with us every step of the way, we can tell you that this fight is not over and we will not stop until we achieve transparency and the basic Right to Know what’s in our food.

Why do 61 other countries enjoy this right while Americans do not?

It’s time that we make sure these questions are heard at the highest levels here in the U.S., from the White House to Congress to state capitals across the country.

Right now efforts are unfolding in Washington state where volunteers are gathering signatures to place an initiative similar to Prop 37 on the ballot in 2013 and there are attempts to get President Obama to enact his 2007 campaign promise to label GMOs in Washington DC. No matter what, GMO labeling in the U.S. is going to become a reality.

Give Thanks and Reward Our Heroes

Today there are there are 2 things that you can do to move this conversation forward and help thank those who stood with us during the historic battle on Prop  37.

1. Please join us in thanking those Organic Heroes who stood with us in the fight on Prop 37, from the moms, grandmothers and grassroots activists to the California farmers and organic and natural companies that helped make the fight possible. Without their help, it wouldn’t have been possible!

2. Please join Food Democracy Now! in committing to doubling down in the marketplace by supporting those companies that supported your Right to Know at the grocery store.

A lot of these companies are small in size, but their leaders gave a generous amount to help us in the fight to Label GMOs in California. Please reward them with your undying brand loyalty at your local coop or grocery store because when the next fight comes, we know they’ll be there for us!

The recent Prop 37 campaign in California has catalyzed millions of Americans to join this fight. In spite of an unprecedented $46 million investment by large chemical and food companies using scare tactics to stop the pro-labeling referendum, nearly 4.3 million Californians still voted in support of this measure, winning nearly half (46.9 [...]]]>

And while the Yes on 37 forces may have lost this battle, they are surely winning the war. The ironic result of the over $1 million daily advertising spend by the opponents is that far more citizens, political leaders and influentials have been alerted to this wholly undemocratic effort to deny Americans the same rights held by citizens in over 60 other countries, including the entire European Union, Japan, China and Russia.

Labeling GE foods is supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans — more than nine out of ten voters (91 percent) across all demographics and political parties.

And with good reason. The U.S. government relies solely on the chemical companies who own the patents for these unique new foods for all safety testing. Yet a peer-reviewed published paper last summer showed that American farmers have used over 527 million more pounds of glyphosate since these chemical companies introduced genetically engineered glyphosate-resistant crops sixteen years ago. And a recent HuffPost report revealed strong concerns in the scientific community regarding the long term impacts of these compounds.

And as Jonathan Greenberg reported in these pages a week ago, the GE patent holders claim that the pesticides engineered into the family of BT GE crops,

… would break down inside our digestive tracts, and therefore do not pose a human health risk. But an important Canadian study published by the Reproductive Toxicology journal, showed that in fact two of the dangerous GMO toxins have been detected in the blood of nearly 90 percent of pregnant women and 100 percent of their fetal cord blood.

And this past summer, The Food and Chemical Toxicology Journal published the first study to be conducted over a two-year period (vs. the two months referenced in Monsanto-funded studies), which showed that rats fed GE corn suffered from severe liver and kidney damage, and large cancerous tumors.

These studies are by no means conclusive and, in fact, Just Label It is advocating for serious independent government-sponsored research to provide more objective analysis. But the chemical giants’ overwhelming investment in denying citizens the simple right to know whether or not we are eating these foods does not engender confidence. And while science researches and debates their findings, who can deny that we citizens deserve to choose whether or not to buy these foods?

To be blunt, the U.S. government has been AWOL in standing up for the interests of the American people with regard to GE crops, including:

• Inadequate environmental reviews of GE crops before approval;
• GE crops have not increased crop yield, but require higher levels of toxic herbicides than tradition crops
• No independent or long-term human health studies on GE foods before they reach the grocery shelves
• GE foods developed with 21st century science are being reviewed using the science and policy developed in 1992, before GE foods were introduced; and
• Even though there are numerous uncertainties about GE foods, they are not labeled so the doctors cannot track any maladies they may be causing and consumers cannot avoid them if they chose.

The decision on Prop 37 was not made through an election, but a giant yard sale in which one side simply bought the results they wanted through an avalanche of purchased media. The chemical companies that own the patents to GE seeds and sell the herbicides used to grow GE crops are using the profits they earn from GE foods to buy influence at the state and federal government level.

How do we overcome the money and influence of the chemical companies controlling our federal government’s approach to GE foods and labeling? The answer is: numbers. We need millions of Americans to tell our federal government officials that this is an important issue, and that we want transparency, honesty and labeling in our food system.

That is where our celebrity friends have come in to help. We hope to use their fame and notoriety to help gain the attention of Americans to demand federal GE food labeling. The stars who appear in the video are young, old, male, female, black, white and Hispanic — in other words, they represent the diversity of mainstream America. I hope you will share it with all your friends, and have them send it to their friends as well.

We need as many people as possible to go the Just Label It’s website and add their name to the FDA petition and to contact Congress indicating their support for GE food labeling.

Read more…

Unfortunately, the amendment to allow states to require labeling of genetically engineered foods did not pass [...]]]> The Senate passed the 2012 Farm Bill, by a vote of 64 to 35. Overall, this version of the Farm Bill amounts to a missed opportunity to tackle the root problem in our food system: consolidation and corporate control.

Unfortunately, the amendment to allow states to require labeling of genetically engineered foods did not pass and had 26 Senators voting in favor and 73 voting against it. Obviously, there’s much more work to be done to ensure our right to know what we’re eating.

Regardless of the Senate’s action, however, states can still pass their own legislation to require labeling for GE foods, and we are working to support multiple such efforts around the country.

Please send a message to your Senators below and, depending on how they voted, either thank them or encourage them to support GMO labeling in the future.

Click here to find out how your Senator voted

The opposition waged a deceptive and ugly campaign, fueled by more than $45 [...]]]> California’s Proposition 37, which would have required labeling of GMO foods, died a painful death Tuesday night. Despite polling in mid-September showing an overwhelming lead, the measure lost by 53 to 47 percent, which is relatively close considering the “No” side’s tactics.

The opposition waged a deceptive and ugly campaign, fueled by more than $45 million, mostly from the leading biotech, pesticide, and junk food companies. Meanwhile, the “Yes” side raised almost $9 million, which is not bad, but being outspent by a factor of five is tough to overcome.

Recapping the most egregious examples of  “No on 37″ campaign lies, propaganda and dirty tricks:

Lying in the California voter guide: The “No” campaign listed four organizations in the official state document mailed to voters as concluding that “biotech foods are safe.” One of them, the American Council on Science and Health, is a notorious industry front group that only sounds legit. Another, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, actually has no position and complained about being listed. The other two organizations, the National Academy of Sciences and the World Health Organization, in fact have more nuanced positions on GMOs than just “safe.”

Misuse of a federal seal and quoting the Food and Drug Administration: This one caused even my jaded draw to drop. In a mailer sent to California voters, the “No” campaign printed the following text along side the FDA logo: “The US Food and Drug Administration says a labeling policy like Prop 37 would be “inherently misleading.” That is exactly how they wrote it, with the incorrectly placed quotation marks. How can a $45 million campaign make a mistake like that? They can’t; it’s deliberately confusing. It also may even be a violation of criminal law to use a federal seal in this manner.

Misrepresenting academic affiliation: More than once, the “No” campaign gave the false impression that its go-to expert Henry Miller was a professor at Stanford University, in violation the school’s own policy. (In fact, he’s with the Hoover Institute, housed on the Stanford campus.) Only when Stanford complained did the “No” campaign edit the TV ad, but many already saw it, and then they repeated the lie in a mailer.

Deploying unfounded scare tactics: I fully expected the “No” side to use distracting arguments to scare voters while ignoring the merits of issue. But it took this common industry strategy to new heights, making wild claims about higher food prices, “shakedown lawsuits,” and “special interest exemptions.” While each of these claims is easily debunked, being outspent on ad dollars makes it hard to compete, especially when all you can really say is, “that’s not true.”

Additional lies and dirty tricks: 1) claiming the San Francisco Examiner recommended a “no” vote when in fact the paper endorsed “yes”; 2) putting up doctors and academic experts on the dole from Big Biotech as spokespeople without disclosing the conflict of interest; 3) securing a major science group’s endorsement just two weeks before Election Day; 4) somehow convincing every major California newspaper to endorse a “no” vote, often with the very same industry talking points; and 5) placing ads in deceptive mailers that looked like they came from the Democratic party, cops, and green groups.

Each of these tactics, combined with a $45 million megaphone to spread the lies and deceit, simply overwhelmed the “yes” side. Some on Twitter criticized Californians for voting no on 37, but do not under-estimate the effectiveness of scare tactics such as claims of higher food prices. Industry uses them because they work. And voters believe the arguments not because they are stupid or don’t care about the food they eat, but because they are pummeled with ads, getting only one side of the story. This is a problem inherent to the proposition process.

Indeed, the California experience may seem like déjà vu all over again to Oregonians who recall the ballot initiative there to label GMO foods in 2002. It lost miserably (70 percent voted no) and guess what the winning argument was then? And that measure also enjoyed an overwhelming lead in early polling, but a multi-million dollar ad blitz in the final weeks claiming higher food costs turned that right around.

While a lot has changed in 10 years for the food movement, the same industry tactics still work. (At least we came a lot closer here in California.) Advocates have also tried in 19 states to go through the legislature and failed there too, thanks to industry lobbying.

The campaign is still an important step forward in the larger political fight against Big Food, one that raised a lot of awareness about GMOs, food production, and corporate tactics, both in California and nationally. As Twilight Greenaway noted at Grist, win or lose, the effort to pass Proposition 37 in California demonstrates a “bona fide movement gathering steam.”

Now we have to keep gathering more and smarter steam. It was never enough to just be right, or even to have the people on our side. Not when the food industry gets to lie, cheat, and steal its way to victory.

Source: Michele Simon

Even though 53 percent of California voters rejected Proposition 37, the measure gave [...]]]> Organic farmers and others who backed Proposition 37 to label genetically engineered food said today that failure of the measure in California won’t stop similar efforts in other states. They’re looking north to Washington and Oregon and east to Connecticut and Vermont.

Even though 53 percent of California voters rejected Proposition 37, the measure gave a huge push to the the national movement to label genetically modified food, said Dave Murphy, a co-chair of the Yes on 37 campaign and executive director of Food Democracy Now.

“We won a moral victory,” Murphy said. “We’ve exposed this issue nationally in a way that’s never been done before.”

Genetic engineering, also called genetic modifying, is a process in which scientists splice the DNA of one plant or animal and combine it with DNA from something else. Most often, the process is used to produce crops that are resistant to pests or can withstand being sprayed by weed killers such as RoundUp. Genetically modified corn, soy beans and canola are in thousands of common grocery products.

Some people oppose the technique, saying it is unnatural and could be harmful to the environment or human health. They want labels so shoppers who care about the issue can avoid GMOs at the store. Others say genetic engineering – also called biotechnology – is a safe way to produce food with desirable characteristics, and that special labels would imply a danger that hasn’t been proven.

Anti-GMO activists are gathering signatures in Washington for a food labeling initiative they hope will make it on the November 2013 ballot, said Ronnie Cummins, director of the Organic Consumers Association, a major contributor to the Proposition 37 campaign.

They’re hoping to run an initiative in Oregon, Cummins said, though signature gathering has not begun there. If it makes the ballot it would be the second time Oregon voters are asked to require labeling of genetically engineered food; they rejected a similar measure 10 years ago.

Advocates are also working on GMO labeling bills they hope the legislatures in Vermont and Connecticut will soon consider, Cummins said. He said he doesn’t expect the federal government to act on the issue.

“Most activists believe our power is in the realm of educating the public, putting pressure in the organic and natural food sector and working at the state level,” Cummins said.

He likened the GMO labeling issue to efforts to legalize marijuana, which voters in Washington and Colorado approved Tuesday.

“Like with marijuana legislation, voters took matters into their own hands,” Cummins said.

“I think we’re going to get some victories in the next 12 months and this will put additional pressure on the federal government.”

Read More…

Yes on 37

As a historic vote with profound implications for the future of our food system nears, the question becomes whether a campaign with limitless resources and a disdain for the truth can defeat an overwhelmingly popular idea supported by a grassroots army, and over 3000 public interest organizations: the right to [...]]]>  

This story originally appeared in The Nation.
Copyright © 2012 The Nation 2013 distributed by Agence Global.

This Tuesday, Californians have a chance to vote for the basic principle that consumers have a right to know what is in the food they eat.

By supporting Proposition 37, we can join with the [...]]]> Senator Barbara Boxer wrote the following encouraging voters to vote ‘Yes’ on Proposition 37, the labeling of GMO Foods

This Tuesday, Californians have a chance to vote for the basic principle that consumers have a right to know what is in the food they eat.

By supporting Proposition 37, we can join with the 61 countries throughout the world — from Great Britain to Japan to Australia — that already ensure that genetically engineered foods are properly labeled.

This is not a controversial notion to most consumers. In fact, polls suggest that roughly 90 percent of Americans say they want to know if the foods they feed their families have been genetically modified.

I have been a longtime supporter of efforts to improve food labels for consumers. Back in 1990, I fought to create the dolphin-safe tuna label so that people would know the fish they buy at the store was caught in a way that doesn’t harm or kill dolphins.

More than a decade ago, I introduced the Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act in the Senate, which was aimed at ensuring that all Americans had more information about the foods they eat. That’s why I am so pleased to join with the broad coalition of consumer groups, health advocates, nurses, doctors, restaurant owners, parents, faith leaders and food safety advocates who have rallied behind Prop. 37.

Opponents of this measure have argued that adding this new information to food labels would only confuse or alarm consumers. This argument is a familiar one — it has been raised by virtually every industry when they want to avoid giving consumers basics facts about the products our families are buying.

I have always believed we should trust consumers with more — not less — information. The old saying “information is power” is true. When we arm consumers with the facts, they can make decisions that are best for their families.

There is a reason we require food labels to provide certain facts to consumers. Diabetics need to know how much sugar a product contains. Hypertension sufferers need to know how to avoid consuming too much sodium. And those with food allergies need to know exactly what’s in their food to avoid a potentially dangerous reaction.

It is no surprise that more than 700 chefs and food professionals have endorsed Proposition 37. As these chefs wrote recently, “We can’t prepare the best food we know how when information about the ingredients we purchase is hidden from us with labels that are missing basic facts.”

Unfortunately, powerful interests in the food and chemical industries are spending tens of millions of dollars to try to defeat this initiative. Instead of opposing this common-sense measure, I would urge these companies to embrace better food labeling and make their case for their products directly to consumers.

California has always led the way for the nation when it comes to protecting consumers, public health and the environment — whether it’s better fuel economy for our cars or better labeling of the toxic chemicals in the products we buy.

With a strong vote for Proposition 37, Californians will once again remind the nation and the world that our democracy and our markets function best when we level with people and give them the basic information they need and deserve.

Source

Alexandra Paul Alicia Silverstone Barbara Streisand Bianca Jagger Bill Maher Blue Sky Drive (Band) Chevy Chase Danny DeVito Darryl Hannah Dave Matthews Elijah Wood Emily Deschanel Exene Cervenka Frank Delgado Glenn Howerton Jack Johnson Jayni Chase Jillian Michaels John Cho KaDee Strickland Kaitlin Olson Kimberly Elise Kristin Bauer van Straten Mariel Hemingway Maroon [...]]]> Celebrities:

Alexandra Paul
Alicia Silverstone
Barbara Streisand
Bianca Jagger
Bill Maher
Blue Sky Drive (Band)
Chevy Chase
Danny DeVito
Darryl Hannah
Dave Matthews
Elijah Wood
Emily Deschanel
Exene Cervenka
Frank Delgado
Glenn Howerton
Jack Johnson
Jayni Chase
Jillian Michaels
John Cho
KaDee Strickland
Kaitlin Olson
Kimberly Elise
Kristin Bauer van Straten
Mariel Hemingway
Maroon 5 (Band)
Nell Newman, founder, Newman’s Own Organics
Rashida Jones
Roseanne Barr
Russell Simmons
Suzanne Somers

For a list of others who endorses prop 37

Political Parties:

California Democratic Party Green Party of Alameda County Green Party of California Green Party of Los Angeles County Green Party of Monterey County Madera County Democratic Party Napa County Green Party Peace and Freedom Party of California Redding’s Bostonian Tea Party San Francisco Green [...]]]> Who endorses Proposition 37, the labeling of GMO Foods:

Political Parties:

California Democratic Party
Green Party of Alameda County
Green Party of California
Green Party of Los Angeles County
Green Party of Monterey County
Madera County Democratic Party
Napa County Green Party
Peace and Freedom Party of California
Redding’s Bostonian Tea Party
San Francisco Green Party
Sonoma County Democratic Party

Local Governments:

Arcata City Council
Berkeley City Council
Carpinteria City Council
City of Long Beach
Eureka City Council
Fairfax Town Council
Humboldt County Board of Supervisors
Los Angeles City Council
Mar Vista Community Council
Marin County Board of Supervisors
Ojai City Council
Oxnard City Council
Pacifica City Council
Palms Neighborhood Council
Pescadero Municipal Advisory Council
Rampart Village Neighbohood Council
Richmond City Council
Santa Cruz City Council
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
Santa Monica City Council
Santa Rosa City Council
Sonoma City Council
Westside Neighborhood Council
Westwood Neighborhood Council

Elected Officials:

Barbara Boxer, US Senator
Maxine Waters, US Congress
Barbara Lee, US Congress
Judy Chu, US Congress
Brad Sherman, US Congress
Howard Berman, US Congress
Dennis Kucinich, US Congress
Jared Huffman, State Assembly, 6th Assembly District
Michael Allen, State Assembly, 7th Assembly District
Mariko Yamada, State Assembly, 8th Assembly District
Alyson Huber, State Assembly, 10th Assembly District
Tom Ammiano, State Assembly, 13th Assembly District
Bill Monning, State Assembly, 27th Assembly District
Mark Leno, State Senator, California’s 3rd Senate District
Tom Bates, Mayor, Berkeley
Joe Krovoza, Mayor, Davis
Don Lane, Mayor, Santa Cruz
Dan Wolk, Mayor Pro Tempore, Davis
Barbara Denny, City Council, Coronado
Carmen Ramirez, City Council, Oxnard
Kevin McKeown, City Council, Santa Monica
Lucas Frerichs, City Council, Davis
Dr. Michael McQuary, City Council, Pacific Beach
Tiffany Renee, City Council, City of Petaluma
Dan Haggerty, Midcoast Community Council
Scott Wiener, San Francisco Board of Supervisors
Eric Mar, San Francisco Board of Supervisor
Brad Wagenknecht, Napa County Supervisor
Paul Koretz LA, City Councilmember
John Avalos, San Francisco Supervisor
Frank Egger, President, Ross Valley Sanitary District Board
Joan A. Bennett, American Canyon City Council Member
Meghan Sahli-Wells, Culver City Council Member

Political Organizations:

10th Assembly Democrats
Alice B Toklas Democratic Club
Americans for Democratic Action, Southern California Chapter
Central CIty Democrats
Chico Conservation Voters
Clovis Democratic Club
Democratic Action Club of Chico
District 3 Democratic Club
Green Party of Santa Clara County
Humboldt County Central Democratic Committee
Lassen Tea Party Patriots
Marin County Democratic Central Committee
Napa County Green Party Coordinating Committee
Ojai Valley Democratic Club
Potrero Hill Democratic Club, San Francisco
Progressive Democrats of Sonoma County
Raoul Wallenberg Jewish Democratic Club
Redding Tea Party Patriots
Republicans For Independence
San Pedro Democratic Club
Santa Cruz for Ron Paul 2012
Shingletown Tea Party Patriots
Susanville Tea Party Patriots
Tehama County Democrats
Tenant Associations Coalition Political Action Committee (TAC PAC)
Ukiah Valley Democratic Club
Ventura Democractic Club
Veterans For Peace Chapter 22


Review a list of other endorsements

Mr. Miller is the primary face and voice of the “No on Prop 37” campaign in California. At this very moment, Monsanto and other pesticide [...]]]> You may have never heard of Henry I. Miller, but right now he is attempting to determine the future of food in this country. And he has enormous financial backing.

Mr. Miller is the primary face and voice of the “No on Prop 37” campaign in California. At this very moment, Monsanto and other pesticide companies are spending more than $1 million a day to convince California voters that it’s not in their best interest to know whether the food they eat is genetically engineered. And Henry I. Miller is their guy.

If you live in California today, he’s hard to miss. You see him in TV ads, hear him in radio spots, and his face is all over the expensive fliers that keep showing up uninvited in your mail box. Initially, the ads presented Miller as a Stanford doctor. But he isn’t. He’s a research fellow at a conservative think tank (the Hoover Institute) that has offices on the Stanford campus. When this deceptive tactic came to light, the ads were pulled and then redone. But they still feature Miller trying to convince the public that Prop 37 “makes no sense,” and that it’s a “food-labeling scheme written by trial lawyers who hope for a windfall if it becomes law.”

Actually, Prop 37 makes all the sense in the world if you want to know what’s in the food you eat. It was written by public health advocates, and provides no economic incentives for filing lawsuits.

Who, then, is Henry I. Miller, and why should we believe him when he tells us that genetically engineered foods are perfectly safe?

Does it matter that this same Henry Miller is an ardent proponent of DDT and other toxic pesticides? Does it matter that the “No on Prop 37” ads are primarily funded by pesticide companies, the very same companies that told us DDT and Agent Orange were safe?

I find it hard to avoid the impression that Henry Miller is a premier corporate flack. He was a founding member of the Philip Morris backed front group that tried to discredit the links between tobacco products and cancer. After the nuclear meltdown in Fukushima, he argued that exposure to radiation from the disaster could actually provide health benefits. He argues that drug companies, not the FDA, should be responsible for testing new drugs. And he is a board member of the George C. Marshall Institute which, funded by oil and gas companies, is notorious for its denial of climate change.

Now he’s telling us that we should vote No on 37 because, he says, the labeling law contains exemptions included “for special interests.” As if the corporations he fronts for weren’t the biggest “special interests” of all. And by the way, the exemptions in Prop 37 conform to those found in GMO labeling laws in the 61 other nations around the world, including the European Union, that already require labeling for foods that are genetically engineered.

Miller and the No on 37 campaign say that labeling would increase family food bills by hundreds of dollars per year. Interestingly, the study they cite to justify this claim was paid for by the No on 37 campaign itself. It was the work of a Maine public relations firm, Northbridge Consulting, that has no economic expertise, but has worked on behalf of Coke and Pepsi against laws that would require the recycling of soda pop bottles.

Would the passing of Prop 37 actually raise the price consumers pay for food? Henry Miller adamantly proclaims that it would. But according to the only fully independent economic analysis of Prop 37, prepared by researchers at Emory University School of Law, “Consumers will likely see no increase in prices as a result of the relabeling” required by the bill.

Somehow I keep getting the feeling that Henry Miller may not be the man you want to listen to when your health is at stake. But Monsanto and its allies are seeing to it that this man’s face and beliefs are everywhere in California today. One television viewer in San Francisco reported seeing ads featuring Miller no less than 12 times in a single day.

Other “No on 37” ads feature a physician, Ronald Kleinman, dressed of course in the obligatory white coat. Though the ads don’t mention it, Dr. Kleinman’s ethical principles don’t seem to hamper him from being a highly paid voice for the interests of the junk food companies. While working for Coca-Cola, he advocated for “the safety…of sugar, artificial colors and nonnutritive sweeteners in children’s diets.”

Not content with misrepresenting Stanford University (three times), the pesticide and junk food companies behind No on 37 have also:

1.Misled voters in the state voter guide by claiming falsely that the world’s largest organization of food and nutrition professionals, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, believes GMO foods are safe.
2.Illegally affixed the official US FDA seal to their campaign propaganda, and attributed a fabricated quote to the FDA, falsely implying that the FDA has taken a position against Prop 37.

Regrettably, this deluge of deception seems to be having an impact. Although polls originally showed that more than 80% of the California public want genetically modified food to be labeled, more recent polls are showing a virtual dead heat on Prop 37, with the advertising deluge only increasing in intensity.

Some daily newspapers in California are contributing to this unhappy trend by coming out against Prop 37, with editorials that use entire paragraphs directly from the “No on 37” press releases. Might this have anything to do with the fact that processed foods companies are the primary source of advertising revenue for newspapers today? And that the lobby for the processed food companies, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, has called the defeat of Prop 37 its single highest priority for the year?

The famed food author Michael Pollan wrote recently that Proposition 37 is the litmus test for whether or not there is actually a food movement in this country. Public health activist Stacy Malkan adds that it also may be the litmus test for whether there is democracy left in this country.

These are good points. There is no food movement if Monsanto has its way with us. And there is no democracy without an informed citizenry.

The question now is whether we are going to allow special interests to dictate what we are allowed to know about the food they sell us.

In this case, ignorance is not bliss. It’s subservience to the agenda of Monsanto and the other pesticide companies. Without labeling, we are eating in the dark, with potentially disastrous consequences.

Get the Fact on Prop 37

Dr. Mehmet Oz, the host of the nationally syndicated TV program, The Dr. Oz Show, today endorsed genetically engineered (GE) food labeling, a fundamental right already in place in 50 countries around the world, including all of Europe, Japan, India and China.

“Right now we have no way of knowing which foods have been [...]]]>

Dr. Mehmet Oz, the host of the nationally syndicated TV program, The Dr. Oz Show, today endorsed genetically engineered (GE) food labeling, a fundamental right already in place in 50 countries around the world, including all of Europe, Japan, India and China.

“Right now we have no way of knowing which foods have been genetically modified. I believe you should have that right,” said Dr. Oz, at the conclusion of the segment, titled GMO Foods: Are They Dangerous to Your Health? “I prefer to be cautious.”

Framed as a debate, the show featured Gary Hirshberg, chair of Just Label It, the national coalition for GE food labeling. Hirshberg noted, “Americans deserve this basic right to know. People should have the information they need to make an informed decision about the food they eat and feed their families. Americans should not be kept in the dark.”

Joining Hirshberg in support of labeling were Dr. Robin Bernhoft, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, and Jeffrey Smith, Institute for Responsible Technology. Representing the opposing view were two scientists from the University of California.

“Dr. Oz’s leadership and courage need to be acknowledged,” Hirshberg added. “In speaking out in support of our right to know, and in recognizing the need for labeling, Dr. Oz has gone far beyond the American Medical Association and other American health care organizations. He has forged the path forward for the entire medical community to support this common-sense measure for American consumers.”

Read more…

California would join 61 other countries that already label genetically engineered foods, and Prop 37 would also prohibit [...]]]>

As supporters rallied in front of Los Angeles City Hall, the Los Angeles City Council unanimously passed a resolution supporting Prop 37, the Right to Know ballot measure that would label genetically engineered foods in California.

California would join 61 other countries that already label genetically engineered foods, and Prop 37 would also prohibit such foods from being marketed as “natural.”

“It’s not often that the LA City Council votes unanimously to support a measure, but Prop 37 was a no-brainer. We have the right to know what’s in the food we’re eating and feeding our families,” said Councilmember Paul Koretz, the resolution’s author. “I’m proud to be a part of this true grassroots campaign in our struggle against the biggest pesticide and junk food companies in the world.”

“We’re thrilled that the Los Angeles City Council voted to join our people’s movement today,” said Tom Fendley, political director of the Yes on 37 California Right to Know campaign. “The Council joins millions of moms, dads, family farmers, doctors, scientists, and grocery store owners in saying, very simply, that we have the right to know what’s in our food.”

The Los Angeles City Council joins the California Democratic Party, Senator Barbara Boxer, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, Congressmen Brad Sherman and Howard Berman, and dozens of other California city and town councils, elected officials and candidates in endorsing Prop 37.

“The Los Angeles City Council clearly did not believe the lies in our opposition’s widely discredited TV ads,” said Dave Murphy, co-chair of the California Right to Know and founder of Food Democracy Now! “They know Prop 37 won’t cost consumers a dime, because Prop 37 only requires a simple label. And they know Prop 37 won’t trigger lawsuits, because food companies will comply with this simple labeling law, just as they already do in 61 other countries.”

The world’s largest pesticide companies, led by Monsanto and DuPont, are the leading funders of the No on 37 campaign, which has raised more than $40 million to oppose Prop 37.

“Prop 37 won’t raise food costs, and most grocery store managers understand that it’s ridiculous to believe we’d be opening ourselves to lawsuits. Food companies will comply with this simple labeling law,” said Bruce Palma, general manager of Co-Opportunity Natural Foods in Santa Monica.

Source

Get the facts on Yes on 37

After months of pressure from the organic community, including thousands of its customers, the leadership of Whole Foods Market on September [...]]]>

Is it possible that Whole Foods wants to ride the GMO labeling popularity wave while it quietly works behind the scenes to prevent Prop 37, or any other GMO labeling law, from passing?

After months of pressure from the organic community, including thousands of its customers, the leadership of Whole Foods Market on September 11 endorsed Proposition 37, the California Ballot Initiative to require mandatory labels on genetically engineered foods. But the endorsement came with “reservations” and inaccuracies. It also included the false claim that company policy precludes Whole Foods and its executives from providing much-needed financial support to Prop 37, a campaign that consumers – the very people who have made WFM and its executives wildly profitable – overwhelmingly support.

Is it possible that Whole Foods wants to ride the GMO labeling popularity wave while it quietly works behind the scenes to prevent Prop 37, or any other GMO labeling law, from passing? Could it be that a GMO labeling law – especially one like Prop 37 that prohibits the use of the word “natural” on any food containing GMOs – would cut too deeply into the company’s $9.8 billion in sales and almost $246 million in profits?

Right up until the company announced its lukewarm endorsement, Vice President of Global Communications and Quality Standards Margaret Wittenberg and other WFM top brass repeatedly stated that they would not endorse Prop 37. CEO John Mackey has reportedly claimed that “the jury is still out” on whether genetically engineered crops and foods are unhealthy for people or the environment. (Mackey also has stated that “no scientific consensus exists” to support global warming or climate change).

And while the company website states that WFM is “committed to foods that are fresh, wholesome and safe to eat”, nowhere on its list of unacceptable ingredients is there any mention of GMOs.

So why come out with a public endorsement of Prop 37? With national polls showing 90% support for GMO labeling, and voter support for Prop 37 running 67% for and 24% against, it was just common-sense marketing strategy to get behind the initiative. But was it really an endorsement?

When it first came out, WFM’s official endorsement contained misleading information that read straight from the opposition’s playbook. It also contained one glaring error. Initially, the company listed among its “reservations” about Prop 37 this incorrect statement: The use of 0.5% of the total weight as the upper limit for processed foods that contain one or more genetically engineered ingredients to be exempted from labeling is inconsistent with the long-established international labeling standard of 0.9%.

Not true. The OCA contacted the authors of the official press release and offered this correction, taken straight from the ballot initiative itself: The 0.5% exemption is for one ingredient and a food can have up to ten such ingredients, meaning a 5.0% exemption (until 2019).

It took them several days, but WFM public relations team did finally issue a correction. But the correction did little to strengthen the company’s endorsement, which continues to perpetuate the exact same myths that the NO on 37 campaign is now airing in its $35-million TV advertising blitz. The endorsement echoes biotech industry claims that Prop 37 is “too complicated.” That GMO food labeling is best left up to the pro-biotech federal government and the FDA (don’t hold your breath for this), rather than the states. That if passed, Prop 37 will result in greedy trial lawyers suing innocent grocery stores, farmers, and food processors for not labeling or mislabeling GMO foods.

None of this is true – as has been repeatedly outlined by the YES on Prop 37 campaign.

Also not true? That WFM can’t financially support the most important battle ever waged in the U.S. for consumers’ right to know about GMOs and truthful labeling on so-called “natural” foods. According to its website, company policy precludes donating to political campaigns or ballot initiatives. And yet, in 2009 WFM spent $180,000 lobbying against the Employee Free Choice Act, which would have granted farm workers (the same farm workers who pick the fruits and vegetables sold in WFM stores) and other food workers the right to form unions and enjoy collective bargaining rights with their employers.

Company policy also apparently doesn’t preclude WFM’s wealthy executives from donating to political campaigns. CEO John Mackey has donated $2500 so far this year to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, and has made many personal donations to past political campaigns – yet not one penny to Prop 37.

Clearly, the executives and big investors who control WFM don’t want to antagonize millions of their customers, so they’ve issued a token endorsement of Prop 37. But here’s the inconvenient truth. WFM sells billions of dollars of non-organic, so-called “natural” products every year that contain genetically engineered ingredients, including thousands of different processed foods, nutritional supplements, meat, and animal products. Once Prop 37 passes on November 6, WFM, just like every other supermarket chain, will face a major dilemma. Are they willing to demand that their suppliers get GMOs out of the 50,000 items sold in their stores, and give WFM legally binding affidavits to prove this? Is WFM willing to stop marketing non-organic GMO-tainted foods as “natural,” when many of them are not?

And the most critical question of all: Is WFM willing to antagonize – and possibly lose – their core customers, consumers who will not want to purchase foods carrying labels that say “produced through genetic engineering”?

Most of the workers, and certainly the overwhelming majority of the customers, at Whole Foods support organic foods and mandatory labeling of GMOs. It’s time for the executives and the top brass to stop the lies and obfuscation, to stop the greenwashing, and to atone for the fact that they’ve made hundreds of millions of dollars in profit over the years by selling non-organic, so-called “natural” foods and supplements that contain GMOs.

It’s also time for WFM to remove misleading information about Prop 37 from the company website. It’s time for this multi-billion corporation and its wealthy executives to put their money where their mouth is, and make a sizeable donation to the California ballot Initiative to label genetically engineered foods. This is the food fight of our lives, and Whole Foods Market is either with us or against us. Please join the 25,000 organic consumers who have already signed this petition asking WFM to throw real support behind Prop 37.

Visit the Source…

Unfortunately, major corporations like Monsanto are pouring millions of dollars into this election in order to confuse voters, [...]]]>

In November, Californians will vote on Prop 37 requiring that GE foods be labeled. Just as labels list fat, sodium and sugar, labels should tell the buyer whether or not the product includes genetically engineered ingredients.

Unfortunately, major corporations like Monsanto are pouring millions of dollars into this election in order to confuse voters, and protect their bottom line.

Sign the pledge if you plan to vote YES on Prop 37 and support the labeling of genetically engineered foods in California!

Support CA Right to Know

Russia’s consumer-protection agency, known as Rospotrebnadzor, announced the [...]]]> Following an explosive French study suggesting a link between Monsanto’s controversial genetically engineered corn and cancer, Russian authorities have temporarily suspended all imports and use of the biotech GMO product until further safety testing can be performed. Officials worldwide are reportedly investigating the matter as well.

Russia’s consumer-protection agency, known as Rospotrebnadzor, announced the decision last week, saying it had ordered the country’s Institute of Nutrition to investigate the recent French university study. The regulatory agency has also reportedly asked the European Union for its views as the European Food Safety Authority vowed to review the research.

“Until we receive the full information in this case, the import and sale of genetically modified NK603 corn is being temporarily suspended,” the Russian agency said in a statement posted on its website. Some analysts called the move largely “symbolic,” but it did make a splash.

The news out of Moscow quickly prompted headlines around the world as consumer fears over genetically engineered crops reached their highest level yet. But even before Russia’s new temporary ban was announced, the embattled American biotech giant was already under attack from California to Europe.

Read more…