Prop 37 GMO Labeling Law Defeated By Corporate Dollars & Deception

Prop 37 GMO Labeling Law Defeated By Corporate Dollars & Deception

Nov 08



• Prop 37 GMO Labeling Law Defeated By Corporate Dollars & Deception
• Monsanto’s Lies and the GMO Labeling Battle
New Anti-GMO Documentary: ‘Genetic Roulette’
• Must Watch Documentary: ‘GMO Ticking Time Bomb’
• GMOS: What You Need To Know To Protect Your Health
• Americans Eat More Than Their Body Weight In GMOs Every Year
• New Study Finds GM Corn & Roundup Causes Cancer In Rats
• 2012 Report: GMO Myths & Truths (pdf)
GM Foods: Harmful or Helpful?
Calif. Prop 37 & The Big Food Behemoths Trying To Defeat It
• How ‘Big Food’ Has Taken Over The ‘Organic’ Market
• Pesticide Use Proliferating With GMO Crops, Study Warns
• 270,000 Organic Farmers Sue Monsanto


By Lynne Peeples
Huffington Post
November 8, 2012

Original Link

Proponents of Proposition 37, the California ballot measure that would have required labeling of genetically engineered foods, are attributing Tuesday’s narrow defeat to corporate dollars and deception, but are also pledging to persist in a battle that they see as key to the health of Americans.

“I think this election was largely a story of money. We didn’t have the funds to compete,” Stacy Malkan, media director of Yes on 37, said on a Wednesday press call. “Ultimately, we were not able to get the truth out to voters.”

The “No on 37” campaign, funded primarily by agro-chemical giants including Monsanto and DuPont, outspent the “Yes on 37” campaign five-to-one. Prior to the opposition’s $46 million push, proponents had held a consistent two-fold lead in the polls. But they lost on Tuesday, with voters rejecting the measure 53.1 to 46.9 percent.

“California voters clearly saw through Prop 37,” Dr. Henry I. Miller of the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank at Stanford University, said in a statement on Wednesday. “Food labeling policy should be based on logic and science, not fear. Leading scientific organizations have all agreed that foods containing genetically engineered ingredients are safe and are not materially different from their traditional counterparts.”

Malkan highlights Miller’s lead role in the opposition’s campaign as part of the “lies, deceit and trickery” that, she said, her campaign was unable to publicly correct. The known supporter of oil and tobacco companies and climate change skeptic was misrepresented as a Stanford doctor in a television campaign ad until the university ordered it re-shot. She also pointed to the opposition’s distribution of deceptive mailers and its misrepresentation of the positions of scientific organizations and government agencies such as the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Directly above the official FDA seal, a campaign mailer read that the agency “says a labeling policy like Prop 37 would be ‘inherently misleading.'” A FDA spokeswoman later denied that the agency had made “such statements with respect to Prop 37.”

As for Miller’s point that genetically engineered ingredients are safe, even some proponents of labeling so-called GMOs generally agree.

“A GMO crop, in theory, is not something to be afraid of,” said Laura Vandenberg, a biologist at Tufts University and co-author of an editorial published last week in favor of labeling efforts. “The problem is how they are actually used in the real world. It’s like talking about guns vs. gun control. Guns don’t hurt people, people hurt people.”

Most GMO crops in use in the U.S. have been engineered to resist herbicides, which allows growers to spray the chemicals without concern about harming their corn, rice or soy harvest. But as The Huffington Post previously reported, growing resistance among weeds is leading farmers to apply larger quantities of chemicals to achieve the same level of control.

In fact, contrary to biotech industry claims of a reduction in the use of pesticides and herbicides, a recent study estimated that GMO crops have resulted in an additional 404 million pounds of toxic pesticides doused on U.S. fields between 1996 — when they were first introduced as farm crops — and 2011. That’s about a 7 percent increase.

“This means we’re being exposed to a lot more of these chemicals,” Vandenberg said. “Some of these chemicals we know very little about in terms of safety. But there are ones we know are endocrine disruptors.”

Monsanto’s Roundup brand herbicide is among the chemical products that some researchers suggest could disrupt human hormones, even in tiny amounts. As a result of the widespread use of the company’s Roundup Ready seeds, it’s also one of the most widely sprayed herbicides. Monsanto has refuted such arguments.

“I don’t think failure of Prop 37 is the end of this discussion, by any means,” Vandenberg said.

Gary Hirshberg, co-founder and chairman of Stonyfield Farm and chairman of Just Label It, agreed.

“Even if Prop 37 had won, sooner or later it would have had to have been resolved at the federal level,” Hirshburg said. “And now the nation is paying a lot more attention.”

While other initiatives are underway around the country to impose labeling at the state level, such as in Washington state, Hirshberg is leading a charge to get the FDA to mandate labeling as a manner of federal policy — already the case in about 50 other countries including Russia, Japan and the European Union.

The agro-chemical industry, meanwhile, maintains that GMO labeling is unnecessary.

“Consumers have many choices and can select the products they prefer. We expect the food industry to continue meeting the needs of their customers through their product offerings and with truthful and non-misleading labeling,” Tom Helscher, director of corporate affairs for Monsanto, told The Huffington Post in an email. “FDA labeling guidance remains in place which requires labeling of material differences in foods, whether it be in composition, nutrition or safety.”

In 1992, the FDA enacted a policy of “substantial equivalence.” In other words, GMO foods would not be considered materially different from traditionally bred crops. Dave Murphy, co-chair of the Yes on 37 campaign, calls this a “politically engineered loophole.”

“We believe there’s enough emerging evidence which states that GMO crops are not substantially equivalent,” Murphy said on Wednesday’s call. “Now is the time for the FDA to reconsider that ill-conceived policy that was written 20 years ago.”

“Ironically, one of the persons that will be reviewing that policy is Michael Taylor, who helped write that standard,” Murphy added, noting that Taylor is also a former Monsanto attorney.

A citizens petition with more than one million signatures is currently pending with the agency.

The labeling of genetically modified food was among the pledges Barack Obama made during his first run for president. “Americans should know what they’re buying,” he said during a campaign speech in 2007.

“I’m encouraged that he was reelected last night, and we plan to use that opportunity to hold him accountable,” Pamm Larry, founder of LabelGMOs and the movement to get Prop 37 on the 2012 ballot, said during the call. “This is just the beginning.”





>> Who paid how much to support and oppose Prop 37 <<


>> Who paid how much to support and oppose Prop 37 <<


‘Genetic Roulette’ – Complete Documentary

For more information, go here:
New Anti-GMO Documentary: ‘Genetic Roulette’


‘GMO Ticking Time Bomb’ – Complete Documentary

For more information, go here:
Must Watch Documentary: ‘GMO Ticking Time Bomb’


‘David vs. Monsanto’ – Complete Documentary

For more information, go here:
Must Watch Documentary: ‘GMO Ticking Time Bomb’


Download a copy of this 2012 report here (pdf)


Dr. Isaac Eliaz
Easy Health Options
October 5, 2012

Original Link

Today, it is estimated that 70 percent of foods found in grocery stores may contain bioengineered GMO (genetically modified organism) ingredients. That means the genetic material of these foods has been altered by inserting foreign DNA from other plants or animals, even chemical pesticides. Dubbed “Frankenfoods” by GMO opponents, this process drastically changes the plant or animal genome from what nature intended into a large-scale biotech experiment. The problem is that we know very little at best about the long-term effects of GMO foods on human and animal health, farming and the environment. But preliminary studies show great cause for concern.

In the U.S., GMOs don’t have to be labeled on packaging. This keeps consumers unaware of their increasing presence in the grocery aisle. But this November, California voters will make history with the first mandatory GMO labeling initiative, Proposition 37. If passed, the law will require the labeling of all GMO foods sold to consumers in California. The European Union, Australia, Japan, Russia, the Czech Republic and South Korea have already adopted such measures. These governments recognize the importance of giving people the choice regarding whether they consume biotech industry experiments or natural whole foods.

The Right To Know

Consumer choice may be the most critical weapon in protecting against the health detriments that are likely caused by GMOs. Reputable human studies proving GMO safety are virtually non-existent. The studies that do suggest GMOs are safe are not adequately designed and do not reflect the long-term consequences of GMOs. This is the warning call sounded by a growing number of scientists, researchers and activists who urgently warn of GMO dangers. Furthermore, the supposed safety studies are funded by GMO industry giants such as Monsanto, demonstrating extreme conflicts of interest. These are the same chemical corporations who “assured” the public that Agent Orange and DDT — two pesticides now banned in the U.S. — were “safe.”

What The Real Studies Show

What’s most concerning amid this controversy is the expanding body of published evidence suggesting that GMOs may be destroying health right before our eyes. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine suggests just that, claiming GMOs to be inherently unsafe. Even Food and Drug Administration scientists warned against the uncertainty of adding GMOs to the food chain and environment.

A growing number of independently published in vivo studies have analyzed the effects of feeding GMO foods to animals — mainly corn and soy — over the course of their lives. Results are extremely concerning and indicate:

• Reduced fertility
• Immune dysfunction
• Organ damage
• Accelerated aging
• Allergies
• Major changes in gastrointestinal system and other organs
• Low birth weight
• Cancer
• Death
• Other severe problems

These health effects merely scratch the surface of exposing possible GMO risks. Other crucial considerations include the potential for stronger antibiotic and drug-resistant bacteria to emerge, the need for heavier pesticides in the future and ongoing biological contamination of the environment with invasive plant species that can’t be controlled. For more information about GMO risks to human, animal and environmental health, visit the Institute for Responsible Technology at

Most Common GMO Foods

Currently, organic labeling laws do not allow for GMOs to be certified organic. However, non-GMO farmers across the world are witnessing the inevitable cross-contamination from neighboring fields of GMO corn, soy and other crops. Therefore, it may be difficult to completely avoid GMOs.

The following list highlights the most common commercialized GMO foods in our food supply.

• 94 percent of commercial soy
• 90 percent of commercial cotton
• 90 percent of commercial canola
• 95 percent of commercial sugar beets
• 88 percent of commercial corn
• Meat and dairy from animals fed GMO feed

GMOs And Recent Health Epidemics

We still don’t know the long-term human health effects of GMOs. But we can draw parallels between their mass introduction to our food supply, starting in the late 1990s. Since then, food allergies have skyrocketed, particularly soy allergies. Gastrointestinal problems and metabolic diseases have also increased. Cancer is on the rise. Are GMOs to blame? Of all possible environmental factors involved in today’s chronic epidemics, diet is a primary influence. So we must consider GMO foods in this epidemiology equation.

Best Strategies For Protection

In the face of the dangers of GMOs, there are ways to help protect yourself. Here are my top recommendations for supporting your health in the face of GMO exposure:

Choose organic: An organic certification isn’t a completely failsafe protection, but choosing organic, non-GMO foods may reduce your exposure dramatically.

Support Digestion: Some in vivo GMO studies show that GMO foods change the gastrointestinal lining, causing increased cell proliferation, which can be a precursor to cancer. Reduced digestive enzymes were also noted, as well as increased allergies to non-GMO foods.

There are some effective ways to protect digestion with probiotic and prebiotic supplements; the minerals zinc and chromium; digestive enzymes such as amylase, protease and lipase; and herbs such as cinnamon, cardamom, pomegranate, ginger, lesser galangal with other digestive herbs. These ingredients improve digestive function, protect against harmful toxins and bacteria, help reduce inflammation and food allergies, and support the lining of the digestive tract. I recommend an integrative digestive formula containing these herbs and other ingredients for digestive health and protection. I also recommend taking a potent probiotic and prebiotic supplement.

Boost immunity: Immune system issues (and allergies) seem to be some of the first noticeable problems caused by GMO foods. There are a variety of ways to train immunity to better respond to allergens, microbes and foreign invaders. Medicinal mushrooms are excellent choices because they help to train immune cells to function better. They also reduce inflammation, help detoxify the body, support digestion and protect against cancer.

• Protect DNA with antioxidants: Antioxidants are critical allies in protecting against DNA damage, repairing cells, reducing inflammation and fighting against abnormal cellular growth. Top antioxidant sources include vitamins A, C, E, Selenium, Glutathione, CoQ10, resveratrol, alpha lipoic acid, honokiol, sea buckthorn and others.

• Protect organs and tissues with Modified Citrus Pectin: Modified Citrus Pectin (MCP) regulates inflammation and fibrosis-related organ damage. It has also been proven in multiple studies to fight cancer growth and metastasis, reduce heavy metals and boost immunity. Because GMO foods are demonstrated to cause mutations related to abnormal cellular growth, organ damage and cancer, MCP is a valuable agent in helping to prevent these changes. And because it is also a powerful immune booster and helps detoxify the body, MCP may prove critical in protecting against GMOs.

Winning The Fight

The fight against GMO deception has been won in other countries. As more and more scientists and activist groups urge against the looming dangers of these biotech experiments, hopefully we can become better educated about the real risks — and take the necessary steps to protect the health of ourselves, our children and the environment. Before it’s too late.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.