Presented: Oct. 16, 2012 in Hiroshima, Japan
Title: Assessment and characterization of radionuclide concentrations from the Fukushima Reactor release in the plankton and nekton communities of the Northern California Current
Delvan Neville (Oregon St. Univ.), Richard D. Brodeur (NOAA), A. Jason Phillips (OSU) and Kathryn Higley (OSU)
The incident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant released a substantial radioactive contamination into the environment. With the predominant wind and current flow in this part of the North Pacific, these radionuclides will gradually spread to the US West Coast waters after a suitable period of time, with the possibility of affecting food quality throughout the food web (including humans). In addition to the passive transport by currents and winds, the migratory pathways of large pelagic fish extend from Japan to the Northern California Current. These organisms can serve as transport vectors for these nuclides, especially given their capacity to concentrate radionuclides from surrounding waters and prey. [...] By predicting the radio-biologic stress (if any) for a managed species as more Fukushima-related radionuclides are uptaken, appropriate action may be taken before significant population effects have occurred. Determination of natural background concentrations and high quality transport models produced from these data also aid in management in the event of a future accidental release, and in regulating safe activity releases.
Oregon State University Press Release, Oct. 24, 2012:
[...] Phillips spent this summer collecting more fish at sea, off Oregon and Washington, as well as from scientists, fishermen and other sources along the West Coast. [...] As more fish were tested, the results were consistent with the initial findings: No Cs-134 in fish caught before the disaster, but traces of the isotope in a significant number of fish caught since. “This is what we’ve seen after testing about 70 pounds of tuna,” Neville said. [...]
No mention of the actual cesium levels detected in the tuna, only that it’s safe to eat.
http://enenews.com/tuna-contaminated-study-entire-food-web-including-humans-be-affected-fukushima-radionuclides-spread-west-coast
Thursday, October 25, 2012
More US tuna contaminated — Study: Entire food web “including humans” may be affected as Fukushima radionuclides spread to West Coast
Presented: Oct. 16, 2012 in Hiroshima, Japan
Title: Assessment and characterization of radionuclide concentrations from the Fukushima Reactor release in the plankton and nekton communities of the Northern California Current
Delvan Neville (Oregon St. Univ.), Richard D. Brodeur (NOAA), A. Jason Phillips (OSU) and Kathryn Higley (OSU)
The incident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant released a substantial radioactive contamination into the environment. With the predominant wind and current flow in this part of the North Pacific, these radionuclides will gradually spread to the US West Coast waters after a suitable period of time, with the possibility of affecting food quality throughout the food web (including humans). In addition to the passive transport by currents and winds, the migratory pathways of large pelagic fish extend from Japan to the Northern California Current. These organisms can serve as transport vectors for these nuclides, especially given their capacity to concentrate radionuclides from surrounding waters and prey. [...] By predicting the radio-biologic stress (if any) for a managed species as more Fukushima-related radionuclides are uptaken, appropriate action may be taken before significant population effects have occurred. Determination of natural background concentrations and high quality transport models produced from these data also aid in management in the event of a future accidental release, and in regulating safe activity releases.
Oregon State University Press Release, Oct. 24, 2012:
[...] Phillips spent this summer collecting more fish at sea, off Oregon and Washington, as well as from scientists, fishermen and other sources along the West Coast. [...] As more fish were tested, the results were consistent with the initial findings: No Cs-134 in fish caught before the disaster, but traces of the isotope in a significant number of fish caught since. “This is what we’ve seen after testing about 70 pounds of tuna,” Neville said. [...]
No mention of the actual cesium levels detected in the tuna, only that it’s safe to eat.
http://enenews.com/tuna-contaminated-study-entire-food-web-including-humans-be-affected-fukushima-radionuclides-spread-west-coast
Title: Assessment and characterization of radionuclide concentrations from the Fukushima Reactor release in the plankton and nekton communities of the Northern California Current
Delvan Neville (Oregon St. Univ.), Richard D. Brodeur (NOAA), A. Jason Phillips (OSU) and Kathryn Higley (OSU)
The incident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant released a substantial radioactive contamination into the environment. With the predominant wind and current flow in this part of the North Pacific, these radionuclides will gradually spread to the US West Coast waters after a suitable period of time, with the possibility of affecting food quality throughout the food web (including humans). In addition to the passive transport by currents and winds, the migratory pathways of large pelagic fish extend from Japan to the Northern California Current. These organisms can serve as transport vectors for these nuclides, especially given their capacity to concentrate radionuclides from surrounding waters and prey. [...] By predicting the radio-biologic stress (if any) for a managed species as more Fukushima-related radionuclides are uptaken, appropriate action may be taken before significant population effects have occurred. Determination of natural background concentrations and high quality transport models produced from these data also aid in management in the event of a future accidental release, and in regulating safe activity releases.
Oregon State University Press Release, Oct. 24, 2012:
[...] Phillips spent this summer collecting more fish at sea, off Oregon and Washington, as well as from scientists, fishermen and other sources along the West Coast. [...] As more fish were tested, the results were consistent with the initial findings: No Cs-134 in fish caught before the disaster, but traces of the isotope in a significant number of fish caught since. “This is what we’ve seen after testing about 70 pounds of tuna,” Neville said. [...]
No mention of the actual cesium levels detected in the tuna, only that it’s safe to eat.
http://enenews.com/tuna-contaminated-study-entire-food-web-including-humans-be-affected-fukushima-radionuclides-spread-west-coast
More US tuna contaminated — Study: Entire food web “including humans” may be affected as Fukushima radionuclides spread to West Coast
Presented: Oct. 16, 2012 in Hiroshima, Japan
Title: Assessment and characterization of radionuclide concentrations from the Fukushima Reactor release in the plankton and nekton communities of the Northern California Current
Delvan Neville (Oregon St. Univ.), Richard D. Brodeur (NOAA), A. Jason Phillips (OSU) and Kathryn Higley (OSU)
The incident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant released a substantial radioactive contamination into the environment. With the predominant wind and current flow in this part of the North Pacific, these radionuclides will gradually spread to the US West Coast waters after a suitable period of time, with the possibility of affecting food quality throughout the food web (including humans). In addition to the passive transport by currents and winds, the migratory pathways of large pelagic fish extend from Japan to the Northern California Current. These organisms can serve as transport vectors for these nuclides, especially given their capacity to concentrate radionuclides from surrounding waters and prey. [...] By predicting the radio-biologic stress (if any) for a managed species as more Fukushima-related radionuclides are uptaken, appropriate action may be taken before significant population effects have occurred. Determination of natural background concentrations and high quality transport models produced from these data also aid in management in the event of a future accidental release, and in regulating safe activity releases.
Oregon State University Press Release, Oct. 24, 2012:
[...] Phillips spent this summer collecting more fish at sea, off Oregon and Washington, as well as from scientists, fishermen and other sources along the West Coast. [...] As more fish were tested, the results were consistent with the initial findings: No Cs-134 in fish caught before the disaster, but traces of the isotope in a significant number of fish caught since. “This is what we’ve seen after testing about 70 pounds of tuna,” Neville said. [...]
No mention of the actual cesium levels detected in the tuna, only that it’s safe to eat.
http://enenews.com/tuna-contaminated-study-entire-food-web-including-humans-be-affected-fukushima-radionuclides-spread-west-coast
Title: Assessment and characterization of radionuclide concentrations from the Fukushima Reactor release in the plankton and nekton communities of the Northern California Current
Delvan Neville (Oregon St. Univ.), Richard D. Brodeur (NOAA), A. Jason Phillips (OSU) and Kathryn Higley (OSU)
The incident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant released a substantial radioactive contamination into the environment. With the predominant wind and current flow in this part of the North Pacific, these radionuclides will gradually spread to the US West Coast waters after a suitable period of time, with the possibility of affecting food quality throughout the food web (including humans). In addition to the passive transport by currents and winds, the migratory pathways of large pelagic fish extend from Japan to the Northern California Current. These organisms can serve as transport vectors for these nuclides, especially given their capacity to concentrate radionuclides from surrounding waters and prey. [...] By predicting the radio-biologic stress (if any) for a managed species as more Fukushima-related radionuclides are uptaken, appropriate action may be taken before significant population effects have occurred. Determination of natural background concentrations and high quality transport models produced from these data also aid in management in the event of a future accidental release, and in regulating safe activity releases.
Oregon State University Press Release, Oct. 24, 2012:
[...] Phillips spent this summer collecting more fish at sea, off Oregon and Washington, as well as from scientists, fishermen and other sources along the West Coast. [...] As more fish were tested, the results were consistent with the initial findings: No Cs-134 in fish caught before the disaster, but traces of the isotope in a significant number of fish caught since. “This is what we’ve seen after testing about 70 pounds of tuna,” Neville said. [...]
No mention of the actual cesium levels detected in the tuna, only that it’s safe to eat.
http://enenews.com/tuna-contaminated-study-entire-food-web-including-humans-be-affected-fukushima-radionuclides-spread-west-coast
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Whose Side Are You On?
Juicing and Raw Foods: Whose Side Are You On?: Whose Side Are You On? YES IN FAVOR OF PROP 37 Consumers Union The Center For Food Safety California Council of Churches Ameri...
Whose Side Are You On?
Juicing and Raw Foods: Whose Side Are You On?: Whose Side Are You On? YES IN FAVOR OF PROP 37 Consumers Union The Center For Food Safety California Council of Churches Ameri...
Whose Side Are You On?
Juicing and Raw Foods: Whose Side Are You On?: Whose Side Are You On? YES IN FAVOR OF PROP 37 Consumers Union The Center For Food Safety California Council of Churches Ameri...
Whose Side Are You On?
Juicing and Raw Foods: Whose Side Are You On?: Whose Side Are You On? YES IN FAVOR OF PROP 37 Consumers Union The Center For Food Safety California Council of Churches Ameri...
3 Reasons to Label Genetically Engineered Foods
Prop 37 is a simple label for genetically engineered foods. Also called GMOs, these are plants or animals that have had their DNA artificially altered by genes from other plants, animals, viruses or bacteria, in ways that can’t occur in nature. Here are 3 reasons why we need to label genetically engineered foods.
1. We have a right to know what we're eating and feeding our families. The right to know and the right to choose are fundamental American values; and 90% of Americans want to know if their food is genetically engineered. More than 50 other countries already require labels on genetially engineered food. California consumers have a right to this information too. If you think we have a right to know what's in our food, vote yes on Prop 37.
2. Gambling with our health and our children’s health. A growing body of peer-reviewed studies link genetically engineered foods to allergies and other health problems. Despite these warnings, long-term health studies have not been conducted, and the US FDA requires no health or safety testing -- even though the World Health Organization and the American Medical Association say testing should be mandatory. The companies claim their genetically engineered foods are safe, but many people are skeptical of these studies because the companies are allowed to control the science and suppress research. While we wait for independent studies, let's label genetically engineered foods so we have the right to choose for ourselves whether to take these risks.
3. Genetic engineering causes serious environmental problems. Environmental problems are well documented, including biodiversity loss, a massive increase in pesticide use, the emergence of super weeds and super bugs that are threatening millions of acres of farmland, and the unintentional contamination of organic and non-GMO crops.
The bottom line: There are many reasons why people might want to avoid genetically engineered foods, including religious reasons. One thing we all agree on is that we have a right to know what's in the food we're eating and feeding our families. Prop 37 is a chance to bring fairness to our food system and restore our basic democratic rights.
Did you know? The pesticide companies are spending A Million Dollars a Day to confuse voters about Prop 37! Please share this link: Don't Let Monsanto Buy Your Vote!
3 things you can do today to help pass Prop 37: JOIN our team, DONATE to the campaign (every dollar counts!), and TELL YOUR FRIENDS to Vote Yes on 37!
1. We have a right to know what we're eating and feeding our families. The right to know and the right to choose are fundamental American values; and 90% of Americans want to know if their food is genetically engineered. More than 50 other countries already require labels on genetially engineered food. California consumers have a right to this information too. If you think we have a right to know what's in our food, vote yes on Prop 37.
2. Gambling with our health and our children’s health. A growing body of peer-reviewed studies link genetically engineered foods to allergies and other health problems. Despite these warnings, long-term health studies have not been conducted, and the US FDA requires no health or safety testing -- even though the World Health Organization and the American Medical Association say testing should be mandatory. The companies claim their genetically engineered foods are safe, but many people are skeptical of these studies because the companies are allowed to control the science and suppress research. While we wait for independent studies, let's label genetically engineered foods so we have the right to choose for ourselves whether to take these risks.
3. Genetic engineering causes serious environmental problems. Environmental problems are well documented, including biodiversity loss, a massive increase in pesticide use, the emergence of super weeds and super bugs that are threatening millions of acres of farmland, and the unintentional contamination of organic and non-GMO crops.
The bottom line: There are many reasons why people might want to avoid genetically engineered foods, including religious reasons. One thing we all agree on is that we have a right to know what's in the food we're eating and feeding our families. Prop 37 is a chance to bring fairness to our food system and restore our basic democratic rights.
Did you know? The pesticide companies are spending A Million Dollars a Day to confuse voters about Prop 37! Please share this link: Don't Let Monsanto Buy Your Vote!
3 things you can do today to help pass Prop 37: JOIN our team, DONATE to the campaign (every dollar counts!), and TELL YOUR FRIENDS to Vote Yes on 37!
3 Reasons to Label Genetically Engineered Foods
Prop 37 is a simple label for genetically engineered foods. Also called GMOs, these are plants or animals that have had their DNA artificially altered by genes from other plants, animals, viruses or bacteria, in ways that can’t occur in nature. Here are 3 reasons why we need to label genetically engineered foods.
1. We have a right to know what we're eating and feeding our families. The right to know and the right to choose are fundamental American values; and 90% of Americans want to know if their food is genetically engineered. More than 50 other countries already require labels on genetially engineered food. California consumers have a right to this information too. If you think we have a right to know what's in our food, vote yes on Prop 37.
2. Gambling with our health and our children’s health. A growing body of peer-reviewed studies link genetically engineered foods to allergies and other health problems. Despite these warnings, long-term health studies have not been conducted, and the US FDA requires no health or safety testing -- even though the World Health Organization and the American Medical Association say testing should be mandatory. The companies claim their genetically engineered foods are safe, but many people are skeptical of these studies because the companies are allowed to control the science and suppress research. While we wait for independent studies, let's label genetically engineered foods so we have the right to choose for ourselves whether to take these risks.
3. Genetic engineering causes serious environmental problems. Environmental problems are well documented, including biodiversity loss, a massive increase in pesticide use, the emergence of super weeds and super bugs that are threatening millions of acres of farmland, and the unintentional contamination of organic and non-GMO crops.
The bottom line: There are many reasons why people might want to avoid genetically engineered foods, including religious reasons. One thing we all agree on is that we have a right to know what's in the food we're eating and feeding our families. Prop 37 is a chance to bring fairness to our food system and restore our basic democratic rights.
Did you know? The pesticide companies are spending A Million Dollars a Day to confuse voters about Prop 37! Please share this link: Don't Let Monsanto Buy Your Vote!
3 things you can do today to help pass Prop 37: JOIN our team, DONATE to the campaign (every dollar counts!), and TELL YOUR FRIENDS to Vote Yes on 37!
1. We have a right to know what we're eating and feeding our families. The right to know and the right to choose are fundamental American values; and 90% of Americans want to know if their food is genetically engineered. More than 50 other countries already require labels on genetially engineered food. California consumers have a right to this information too. If you think we have a right to know what's in our food, vote yes on Prop 37.
2. Gambling with our health and our children’s health. A growing body of peer-reviewed studies link genetically engineered foods to allergies and other health problems. Despite these warnings, long-term health studies have not been conducted, and the US FDA requires no health or safety testing -- even though the World Health Organization and the American Medical Association say testing should be mandatory. The companies claim their genetically engineered foods are safe, but many people are skeptical of these studies because the companies are allowed to control the science and suppress research. While we wait for independent studies, let's label genetically engineered foods so we have the right to choose for ourselves whether to take these risks.
3. Genetic engineering causes serious environmental problems. Environmental problems are well documented, including biodiversity loss, a massive increase in pesticide use, the emergence of super weeds and super bugs that are threatening millions of acres of farmland, and the unintentional contamination of organic and non-GMO crops.
The bottom line: There are many reasons why people might want to avoid genetically engineered foods, including religious reasons. One thing we all agree on is that we have a right to know what's in the food we're eating and feeding our families. Prop 37 is a chance to bring fairness to our food system and restore our basic democratic rights.
Did you know? The pesticide companies are spending A Million Dollars a Day to confuse voters about Prop 37! Please share this link: Don't Let Monsanto Buy Your Vote!
3 things you can do today to help pass Prop 37: JOIN our team, DONATE to the campaign (every dollar counts!), and TELL YOUR FRIENDS to Vote Yes on 37!
3 Reasons to Label Genetically Engineered Foods
Prop 37 is a simple label for genetically engineered foods. Also called GMOs, these are plants or animals that have had their DNA artificially altered by genes from other plants, animals, viruses or bacteria, in ways that can’t occur in nature. Here are 3 reasons why we need to label genetically engineered foods.
1. We have a right to know what we're eating and feeding our families. The right to know and the right to choose are fundamental American values; and 90% of Americans want to know if their food is genetically engineered. More than 50 other countries already require labels on genetially engineered food. California consumers have a right to this information too. If you think we have a right to know what's in our food, vote yes on Prop 37.
2. Gambling with our health and our children’s health. A growing body of peer-reviewed studies link genetically engineered foods to allergies and other health problems. Despite these warnings, long-term health studies have not been conducted, and the US FDA requires no health or safety testing -- even though the World Health Organization and the American Medical Association say testing should be mandatory. The companies claim their genetically engineered foods are safe, but many people are skeptical of these studies because the companies are allowed to control the science and suppress research. While we wait for independent studies, let's label genetically engineered foods so we have the right to choose for ourselves whether to take these risks.
3. Genetic engineering causes serious environmental problems. Environmental problems are well documented, including biodiversity loss, a massive increase in pesticide use, the emergence of super weeds and super bugs that are threatening millions of acres of farmland, and the unintentional contamination of organic and non-GMO crops.
The bottom line: There are many reasons why people might want to avoid genetically engineered foods, including religious reasons. One thing we all agree on is that we have a right to know what's in the food we're eating and feeding our families. Prop 37 is a chance to bring fairness to our food system and restore our basic democratic rights.
Did you know? The pesticide companies are spending A Million Dollars a Day to confuse voters about Prop 37! Please share this link: Don't Let Monsanto Buy Your Vote!
3 things you can do today to help pass Prop 37: JOIN our team, DONATE to the campaign (every dollar counts!), and TELL YOUR FRIENDS to Vote Yes on 37!
1. We have a right to know what we're eating and feeding our families. The right to know and the right to choose are fundamental American values; and 90% of Americans want to know if their food is genetically engineered. More than 50 other countries already require labels on genetially engineered food. California consumers have a right to this information too. If you think we have a right to know what's in our food, vote yes on Prop 37.
2. Gambling with our health and our children’s health. A growing body of peer-reviewed studies link genetically engineered foods to allergies and other health problems. Despite these warnings, long-term health studies have not been conducted, and the US FDA requires no health or safety testing -- even though the World Health Organization and the American Medical Association say testing should be mandatory. The companies claim their genetically engineered foods are safe, but many people are skeptical of these studies because the companies are allowed to control the science and suppress research. While we wait for independent studies, let's label genetically engineered foods so we have the right to choose for ourselves whether to take these risks.
3. Genetic engineering causes serious environmental problems. Environmental problems are well documented, including biodiversity loss, a massive increase in pesticide use, the emergence of super weeds and super bugs that are threatening millions of acres of farmland, and the unintentional contamination of organic and non-GMO crops.
The bottom line: There are many reasons why people might want to avoid genetically engineered foods, including religious reasons. One thing we all agree on is that we have a right to know what's in the food we're eating and feeding our families. Prop 37 is a chance to bring fairness to our food system and restore our basic democratic rights.
Did you know? The pesticide companies are spending A Million Dollars a Day to confuse voters about Prop 37! Please share this link: Don't Let Monsanto Buy Your Vote!
3 things you can do today to help pass Prop 37: JOIN our team, DONATE to the campaign (every dollar counts!), and TELL YOUR FRIENDS to Vote Yes on 37!
3 Reasons to Label Genetically Engineered Foods
Prop 37 is a simple label for genetically engineered foods. Also called GMOs, these are plants or animals that have had their DNA artificially altered by genes from other plants, animals, viruses or bacteria, in ways that can’t occur in nature. Here are 3 reasons why we need to label genetically engineered foods.
1. We have a right to know what we're eating and feeding our families. The right to know and the right to choose are fundamental American values; and 90% of Americans want to know if their food is genetically engineered. More than 50 other countries already require labels on genetially engineered food. California consumers have a right to this information too. If you think we have a right to know what's in our food, vote yes on Prop 37.
2. Gambling with our health and our children’s health. A growing body of peer-reviewed studies link genetically engineered foods to allergies and other health problems. Despite these warnings, long-term health studies have not been conducted, and the US FDA requires no health or safety testing -- even though the World Health Organization and the American Medical Association say testing should be mandatory. The companies claim their genetically engineered foods are safe, but many people are skeptical of these studies because the companies are allowed to control the science and suppress research. While we wait for independent studies, let's label genetically engineered foods so we have the right to choose for ourselves whether to take these risks.
3. Genetic engineering causes serious environmental problems. Environmental problems are well documented, including biodiversity loss, a massive increase in pesticide use, the emergence of super weeds and super bugs that are threatening millions of acres of farmland, and the unintentional contamination of organic and non-GMO crops.
The bottom line: There are many reasons why people might want to avoid genetically engineered foods, including religious reasons. One thing we all agree on is that we have a right to know what's in the food we're eating and feeding our families. Prop 37 is a chance to bring fairness to our food system and restore our basic democratic rights.
Did you know? The pesticide companies are spending A Million Dollars a Day to confuse voters about Prop 37! Please share this link: Don't Let Monsanto Buy Your Vote!
3 things you can do today to help pass Prop 37: JOIN our team, DONATE to the campaign (every dollar counts!), and TELL YOUR FRIENDS to Vote Yes on 37!
1. We have a right to know what we're eating and feeding our families. The right to know and the right to choose are fundamental American values; and 90% of Americans want to know if their food is genetically engineered. More than 50 other countries already require labels on genetially engineered food. California consumers have a right to this information too. If you think we have a right to know what's in our food, vote yes on Prop 37.
2. Gambling with our health and our children’s health. A growing body of peer-reviewed studies link genetically engineered foods to allergies and other health problems. Despite these warnings, long-term health studies have not been conducted, and the US FDA requires no health or safety testing -- even though the World Health Organization and the American Medical Association say testing should be mandatory. The companies claim their genetically engineered foods are safe, but many people are skeptical of these studies because the companies are allowed to control the science and suppress research. While we wait for independent studies, let's label genetically engineered foods so we have the right to choose for ourselves whether to take these risks.
3. Genetic engineering causes serious environmental problems. Environmental problems are well documented, including biodiversity loss, a massive increase in pesticide use, the emergence of super weeds and super bugs that are threatening millions of acres of farmland, and the unintentional contamination of organic and non-GMO crops.
The bottom line: There are many reasons why people might want to avoid genetically engineered foods, including religious reasons. One thing we all agree on is that we have a right to know what's in the food we're eating and feeding our families. Prop 37 is a chance to bring fairness to our food system and restore our basic democratic rights.
Did you know? The pesticide companies are spending A Million Dollars a Day to confuse voters about Prop 37! Please share this link: Don't Let Monsanto Buy Your Vote!
3 things you can do today to help pass Prop 37: JOIN our team, DONATE to the campaign (every dollar counts!), and TELL YOUR FRIENDS to Vote Yes on 37!
Why do they want to kill us en masse?
Poisoning our food, water, and air...
It's what they do. It's all they do. And for decades.
And the cancer rates keep climbing and climbing and climbing...
Why aren't these talking points with the candidates for ANY office in the land? Because they are ALL bought and paid for window dressing for the Beast System. A system of death, slavery, and darkness.
That's why.
Prop 37 in California is a step toward freedom from slavery. But who is there to help?
The media? Not a chance. They are owned by the same devils who own big agra.
The politicians? Yeah, right.
The courts? They are the worst of the bunch; soulless lawyers seeking only to gain power and money.
That leaves us. We have to find our freedom, become self-aware of the truths of this time, and do what we can to free our family, friends, and anyone who has the sense to listen.
All else is just submission to slavery. Enjoy your frankenfood, cancer, and diabetes. It's all you have to look forward to, otherwise.
It's what they do. It's all they do. And for decades.
And the cancer rates keep climbing and climbing and climbing...
Why aren't these talking points with the candidates for ANY office in the land? Because they are ALL bought and paid for window dressing for the Beast System. A system of death, slavery, and darkness.
That's why.
Prop 37 in California is a step toward freedom from slavery. But who is there to help?
The media? Not a chance. They are owned by the same devils who own big agra.
The politicians? Yeah, right.
The courts? They are the worst of the bunch; soulless lawyers seeking only to gain power and money.
That leaves us. We have to find our freedom, become self-aware of the truths of this time, and do what we can to free our family, friends, and anyone who has the sense to listen.
All else is just submission to slavery. Enjoy your frankenfood, cancer, and diabetes. It's all you have to look forward to, otherwise.
Why do they want to kill us en masse?
Poisoning our food, water, and air...
It's what they do. It's all they do. And for decades.
And the cancer rates keep climbing and climbing and climbing...
Why aren't these talking points with the candidates for ANY office in the land? Because they are ALL bought and paid for window dressing for the Beast System. A system of death, slavery, and darkness.
That's why.
Prop 37 in California is a step toward freedom from slavery. But who is there to help?
The media? Not a chance. They are owned by the same devils who own big agra.
The politicians? Yeah, right.
The courts? They are the worst of the bunch; soulless lawyers seeking only to gain power and money.
That leaves us. We have to find our freedom, become self-aware of the truths of this time, and do what we can to free our family, friends, and anyone who has the sense to listen.
All else is just submission to slavery. Enjoy your frankenfood, cancer, and diabetes. It's all you have to look forward to, otherwise.
It's what they do. It's all they do. And for decades.
And the cancer rates keep climbing and climbing and climbing...
Why aren't these talking points with the candidates for ANY office in the land? Because they are ALL bought and paid for window dressing for the Beast System. A system of death, slavery, and darkness.
That's why.
Prop 37 in California is a step toward freedom from slavery. But who is there to help?
The media? Not a chance. They are owned by the same devils who own big agra.
The politicians? Yeah, right.
The courts? They are the worst of the bunch; soulless lawyers seeking only to gain power and money.
That leaves us. We have to find our freedom, become self-aware of the truths of this time, and do what we can to free our family, friends, and anyone who has the sense to listen.
All else is just submission to slavery. Enjoy your frankenfood, cancer, and diabetes. It's all you have to look forward to, otherwise.
Why do they want to kill us en masse?
Poisoning our food, water, and air...
It's what they do. It's all they do. And for decades.
And the cancer rates keep climbing and climbing and climbing...
Why aren't these talking points with the candidates for ANY office in the land? Because they are ALL bought and paid for window dressing for the Beast System. A system of death, slavery, and darkness.
That's why.
Prop 37 in California is a step toward freedom from slavery. But who is there to help?
The media? Not a chance. They are owned by the same devils who own big agra.
The politicians? Yeah, right.
The courts? They are the worst of the bunch; soulless lawyers seeking only to gain power and money.
That leaves us. We have to find our freedom, become self-aware of the truths of this time, and do what we can to free our family, friends, and anyone who has the sense to listen.
All else is just submission to slavery. Enjoy your frankenfood, cancer, and diabetes. It's all you have to look forward to, otherwise.
It's what they do. It's all they do. And for decades.
And the cancer rates keep climbing and climbing and climbing...
Why aren't these talking points with the candidates for ANY office in the land? Because they are ALL bought and paid for window dressing for the Beast System. A system of death, slavery, and darkness.
That's why.
Prop 37 in California is a step toward freedom from slavery. But who is there to help?
The media? Not a chance. They are owned by the same devils who own big agra.
The politicians? Yeah, right.
The courts? They are the worst of the bunch; soulless lawyers seeking only to gain power and money.
That leaves us. We have to find our freedom, become self-aware of the truths of this time, and do what we can to free our family, friends, and anyone who has the sense to listen.
All else is just submission to slavery. Enjoy your frankenfood, cancer, and diabetes. It's all you have to look forward to, otherwise.
Why do they want to kill us en masse?
Poisoning our food, water, and air...
It's what they do. It's all they do. And for decades.
And the cancer rates keep climbing and climbing and climbing...
Why aren't these talking points with the candidates for ANY office in the land? Because they are ALL bought and paid for window dressing for the Beast System. A system of death, slavery, and darkness.
That's why.
Prop 37 in California is a step toward freedom from slavery. But who is there to help?
The media? Not a chance. They are owned by the same devils who own big agra.
The politicians? Yeah, right.
The courts? They are the worst of the bunch; soulless lawyers seeking only to gain power and money.
That leaves us. We have to find our freedom, become self-aware of the truths of this time, and do what we can to free our family, friends, and anyone who has the sense to listen.
All else is just submission to slavery. Enjoy your frankenfood, cancer, and diabetes. It's all you have to look forward to, otherwise.
It's what they do. It's all they do. And for decades.
And the cancer rates keep climbing and climbing and climbing...
Why aren't these talking points with the candidates for ANY office in the land? Because they are ALL bought and paid for window dressing for the Beast System. A system of death, slavery, and darkness.
That's why.
Prop 37 in California is a step toward freedom from slavery. But who is there to help?
The media? Not a chance. They are owned by the same devils who own big agra.
The politicians? Yeah, right.
The courts? They are the worst of the bunch; soulless lawyers seeking only to gain power and money.
That leaves us. We have to find our freedom, become self-aware of the truths of this time, and do what we can to free our family, friends, and anyone who has the sense to listen.
All else is just submission to slavery. Enjoy your frankenfood, cancer, and diabetes. It's all you have to look forward to, otherwise.
Food Companies Against Our Right to Know
The Big Processed Food companies dumped another $5-plus million into the No on 37 campaign on Friday, indicating that the campaign against our right to know what's in our food is recognizing that even a million dollars a day of advertising isn't enough to bring them to victory. Shame on these companies that are labeling their food honestly in 61 other countries but are spending millions to oppose our right to know here in California.
KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC. $1,094,852
SMITHFIELD FOODS, INC. $454,908
PEPSICO, INC. $429,100
UNILEVER $372,100
KRAFT FOOD GROUP $304,500
COCA-COLA NORTH AMERICA $291,100
CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY $250,000
GENERAL MILLS, INC. $227,100
BUNGE NORTH AMERICA, INC. $165,361
KELLOGG COMPANY $158,200
NESTLE USA, INC. $146,200
FLOWERS FOODS, INC. $135,415
WELCH FOODS, INC. $122,752
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL $107,000
HERSHEY COMPANY $98,800
THE J.M. SMUCKER COMPANY $97,000
HILLSHIRE BRANDS COMPANY $85,900
BIMBO BAKERIES USA $84,600
TREE TOP, INC. $81,261
MEAD JOHNSON NUTRITION COMPANY $80,000
CLEMENT PAPPAS & COMPANY, INC. $66,984
ABBOTT NUTRITION $46,900
FARIBAULT FOODS, INC. $44,838
B&G FOODS, INC. $40,000
KNOUSE FOODS COOPERATIVE, INC. $28,900
OCEAN SPRAY CRANBERRIES, INC. $25,000
GOYA DE PUERTO RICO, INC. $24,049
BRUCE FOODS CORPORATION $21,604
SUNNY DELIGHT BEVERAGES COMPANY $20,700
LAND O'LAKES, INC. $20,700
GOYA FOODS GREAT LAKES $14,470
SNACK FOOD ASSOCIATION $10,000
HIRZEL CANNING COMPANY $9,978
CLOROX COMPANY $6,900
MOODY DUNBAR, INC. $5,000
TOTAL $5,172,171
KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC. $1,094,852
SMITHFIELD FOODS, INC. $454,908
PEPSICO, INC. $429,100
UNILEVER $372,100
KRAFT FOOD GROUP $304,500
COCA-COLA NORTH AMERICA $291,100
CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY $250,000
GENERAL MILLS, INC. $227,100
BUNGE NORTH AMERICA, INC. $165,361
KELLOGG COMPANY $158,200
NESTLE USA, INC. $146,200
FLOWERS FOODS, INC. $135,415
WELCH FOODS, INC. $122,752
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL $107,000
HERSHEY COMPANY $98,800
THE J.M. SMUCKER COMPANY $97,000
HILLSHIRE BRANDS COMPANY $85,900
BIMBO BAKERIES USA $84,600
TREE TOP, INC. $81,261
MEAD JOHNSON NUTRITION COMPANY $80,000
CLEMENT PAPPAS & COMPANY, INC. $66,984
ABBOTT NUTRITION $46,900
FARIBAULT FOODS, INC. $44,838
B&G FOODS, INC. $40,000
KNOUSE FOODS COOPERATIVE, INC. $28,900
OCEAN SPRAY CRANBERRIES, INC. $25,000
GOYA DE PUERTO RICO, INC. $24,049
BRUCE FOODS CORPORATION $21,604
SUNNY DELIGHT BEVERAGES COMPANY $20,700
LAND O'LAKES, INC. $20,700
GOYA FOODS GREAT LAKES $14,470
SNACK FOOD ASSOCIATION $10,000
HIRZEL CANNING COMPANY $9,978
CLOROX COMPANY $6,900
MOODY DUNBAR, INC. $5,000
TOTAL $5,172,171
Food Companies Against Our Right to Know
The Big Processed Food companies dumped another $5-plus million into the No on 37 campaign on Friday, indicating that the campaign against our right to know what's in our food is recognizing that even a million dollars a day of advertising isn't enough to bring them to victory. Shame on these companies that are labeling their food honestly in 61 other countries but are spending millions to oppose our right to know here in California.
KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC. $1,094,852
SMITHFIELD FOODS, INC. $454,908
PEPSICO, INC. $429,100
UNILEVER $372,100
KRAFT FOOD GROUP $304,500
COCA-COLA NORTH AMERICA $291,100
CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY $250,000
GENERAL MILLS, INC. $227,100
BUNGE NORTH AMERICA, INC. $165,361
KELLOGG COMPANY $158,200
NESTLE USA, INC. $146,200
FLOWERS FOODS, INC. $135,415
WELCH FOODS, INC. $122,752
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL $107,000
HERSHEY COMPANY $98,800
THE J.M. SMUCKER COMPANY $97,000
HILLSHIRE BRANDS COMPANY $85,900
BIMBO BAKERIES USA $84,600
TREE TOP, INC. $81,261
MEAD JOHNSON NUTRITION COMPANY $80,000
CLEMENT PAPPAS & COMPANY, INC. $66,984
ABBOTT NUTRITION $46,900
FARIBAULT FOODS, INC. $44,838
B&G FOODS, INC. $40,000
KNOUSE FOODS COOPERATIVE, INC. $28,900
OCEAN SPRAY CRANBERRIES, INC. $25,000
GOYA DE PUERTO RICO, INC. $24,049
BRUCE FOODS CORPORATION $21,604
SUNNY DELIGHT BEVERAGES COMPANY $20,700
LAND O'LAKES, INC. $20,700
GOYA FOODS GREAT LAKES $14,470
SNACK FOOD ASSOCIATION $10,000
HIRZEL CANNING COMPANY $9,978
CLOROX COMPANY $6,900
MOODY DUNBAR, INC. $5,000
TOTAL $5,172,171
KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC. $1,094,852
SMITHFIELD FOODS, INC. $454,908
PEPSICO, INC. $429,100
UNILEVER $372,100
KRAFT FOOD GROUP $304,500
COCA-COLA NORTH AMERICA $291,100
CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY $250,000
GENERAL MILLS, INC. $227,100
BUNGE NORTH AMERICA, INC. $165,361
KELLOGG COMPANY $158,200
NESTLE USA, INC. $146,200
FLOWERS FOODS, INC. $135,415
WELCH FOODS, INC. $122,752
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL $107,000
HERSHEY COMPANY $98,800
THE J.M. SMUCKER COMPANY $97,000
HILLSHIRE BRANDS COMPANY $85,900
BIMBO BAKERIES USA $84,600
TREE TOP, INC. $81,261
MEAD JOHNSON NUTRITION COMPANY $80,000
CLEMENT PAPPAS & COMPANY, INC. $66,984
ABBOTT NUTRITION $46,900
FARIBAULT FOODS, INC. $44,838
B&G FOODS, INC. $40,000
KNOUSE FOODS COOPERATIVE, INC. $28,900
OCEAN SPRAY CRANBERRIES, INC. $25,000
GOYA DE PUERTO RICO, INC. $24,049
BRUCE FOODS CORPORATION $21,604
SUNNY DELIGHT BEVERAGES COMPANY $20,700
LAND O'LAKES, INC. $20,700
GOYA FOODS GREAT LAKES $14,470
SNACK FOOD ASSOCIATION $10,000
HIRZEL CANNING COMPANY $9,978
CLOROX COMPANY $6,900
MOODY DUNBAR, INC. $5,000
TOTAL $5,172,171
Food Companies Against Our Right to Know
The Big Processed Food companies dumped another $5-plus million into the No on 37 campaign on Friday, indicating that the campaign against our right to know what's in our food is recognizing that even a million dollars a day of advertising isn't enough to bring them to victory. Shame on these companies that are labeling their food honestly in 61 other countries but are spending millions to oppose our right to know here in California.
KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC. $1,094,852
SMITHFIELD FOODS, INC. $454,908
PEPSICO, INC. $429,100
UNILEVER $372,100
KRAFT FOOD GROUP $304,500
COCA-COLA NORTH AMERICA $291,100
CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY $250,000
GENERAL MILLS, INC. $227,100
BUNGE NORTH AMERICA, INC. $165,361
KELLOGG COMPANY $158,200
NESTLE USA, INC. $146,200
FLOWERS FOODS, INC. $135,415
WELCH FOODS, INC. $122,752
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL $107,000
HERSHEY COMPANY $98,800
THE J.M. SMUCKER COMPANY $97,000
HILLSHIRE BRANDS COMPANY $85,900
BIMBO BAKERIES USA $84,600
TREE TOP, INC. $81,261
MEAD JOHNSON NUTRITION COMPANY $80,000
CLEMENT PAPPAS & COMPANY, INC. $66,984
ABBOTT NUTRITION $46,900
FARIBAULT FOODS, INC. $44,838
B&G FOODS, INC. $40,000
KNOUSE FOODS COOPERATIVE, INC. $28,900
OCEAN SPRAY CRANBERRIES, INC. $25,000
GOYA DE PUERTO RICO, INC. $24,049
BRUCE FOODS CORPORATION $21,604
SUNNY DELIGHT BEVERAGES COMPANY $20,700
LAND O'LAKES, INC. $20,700
GOYA FOODS GREAT LAKES $14,470
SNACK FOOD ASSOCIATION $10,000
HIRZEL CANNING COMPANY $9,978
CLOROX COMPANY $6,900
MOODY DUNBAR, INC. $5,000
TOTAL $5,172,171
KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC. $1,094,852
SMITHFIELD FOODS, INC. $454,908
PEPSICO, INC. $429,100
UNILEVER $372,100
KRAFT FOOD GROUP $304,500
COCA-COLA NORTH AMERICA $291,100
CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY $250,000
GENERAL MILLS, INC. $227,100
BUNGE NORTH AMERICA, INC. $165,361
KELLOGG COMPANY $158,200
NESTLE USA, INC. $146,200
FLOWERS FOODS, INC. $135,415
WELCH FOODS, INC. $122,752
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL $107,000
HERSHEY COMPANY $98,800
THE J.M. SMUCKER COMPANY $97,000
HILLSHIRE BRANDS COMPANY $85,900
BIMBO BAKERIES USA $84,600
TREE TOP, INC. $81,261
MEAD JOHNSON NUTRITION COMPANY $80,000
CLEMENT PAPPAS & COMPANY, INC. $66,984
ABBOTT NUTRITION $46,900
FARIBAULT FOODS, INC. $44,838
B&G FOODS, INC. $40,000
KNOUSE FOODS COOPERATIVE, INC. $28,900
OCEAN SPRAY CRANBERRIES, INC. $25,000
GOYA DE PUERTO RICO, INC. $24,049
BRUCE FOODS CORPORATION $21,604
SUNNY DELIGHT BEVERAGES COMPANY $20,700
LAND O'LAKES, INC. $20,700
GOYA FOODS GREAT LAKES $14,470
SNACK FOOD ASSOCIATION $10,000
HIRZEL CANNING COMPANY $9,978
CLOROX COMPANY $6,900
MOODY DUNBAR, INC. $5,000
TOTAL $5,172,171
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Friends and Enemies of Your Right to Know
Juicing and Raw Foods: Friends and Enemies of Your Right to Know: By Ronnie Cummins, OCA Director Organic Consumers Association, August 23, 2012 In recent weeks, several public interest groups, includin...
Friends and Enemies of Your Right to Know
Juicing and Raw Foods: Friends and Enemies of Your Right to Know: By Ronnie Cummins, OCA Director Organic Consumers Association, August 23, 2012 In recent weeks, several public interest groups, includin...
Friends and Enemies of Your Right to Know
Juicing and Raw Foods: Friends and Enemies of Your Right to Know: By Ronnie Cummins, OCA Director Organic Consumers Association, August 23, 2012 In recent weeks, several public interest groups, includin...
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Companies trying to stop GMO labeling of foods and by how much spent lobbying California
MONSANTO COMPANY $4,208,000.00
E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO. $4,025,200.00
PEPSICO, INC. $1,716,300.00
BASF PLANT SCIENCE $1,642,300.00
BAYER CROPSCIENCE $1,618,400.00
DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC $1,184,800.00
NESTLE USA, INC. $1,169,400.00
COCA-COLA NORTH AMERICA $1,164,400.00
CONAGRA FOODS $1,076,700.00 These companies are making food products that are killing us all. It's slow, it's called cancer and disease, and it will get 1 in 2 in the next ten years. We HAVE TO KNOW what is in our food to make an informed choice.
E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO. $4,025,200.00
PEPSICO, INC. $1,716,300.00
BASF PLANT SCIENCE $1,642,300.00
BAYER CROPSCIENCE $1,618,400.00
DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC $1,184,800.00
NESTLE USA, INC. $1,169,400.00
COCA-COLA NORTH AMERICA $1,164,400.00
CONAGRA FOODS $1,076,700.00 These companies are making food products that are killing us all. It's slow, it's called cancer and disease, and it will get 1 in 2 in the next ten years. We HAVE TO KNOW what is in our food to make an informed choice.
Companies trying to stop GMO labeling of foods and by how much spent lobbying California
MONSANTO COMPANY $4,208,000.00
E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO. $4,025,200.00
PEPSICO, INC. $1,716,300.00
BASF PLANT SCIENCE $1,642,300.00
BAYER CROPSCIENCE $1,618,400.00
DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC $1,184,800.00
NESTLE USA, INC. $1,169,400.00
COCA-COLA NORTH AMERICA $1,164,400.00
CONAGRA FOODS $1,076,700.00 These companies are making food products that are killing us all. It's slow, it's called cancer and disease, and it will get 1 in 2 in the next ten years. We HAVE TO KNOW what is in our food to make an informed choice.
E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO. $4,025,200.00
PEPSICO, INC. $1,716,300.00
BASF PLANT SCIENCE $1,642,300.00
BAYER CROPSCIENCE $1,618,400.00
DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC $1,184,800.00
NESTLE USA, INC. $1,169,400.00
COCA-COLA NORTH AMERICA $1,164,400.00
CONAGRA FOODS $1,076,700.00 These companies are making food products that are killing us all. It's slow, it's called cancer and disease, and it will get 1 in 2 in the next ten years. We HAVE TO KNOW what is in our food to make an informed choice.
Companies trying to stop GMO labeling of foods and by how much spent lobbying California
MONSANTO COMPANY $4,208,000.00
E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO. $4,025,200.00
PEPSICO, INC. $1,716,300.00
BASF PLANT SCIENCE $1,642,300.00
BAYER CROPSCIENCE $1,618,400.00
DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC $1,184,800.00
NESTLE USA, INC. $1,169,400.00
COCA-COLA NORTH AMERICA $1,164,400.00
CONAGRA FOODS $1,076,700.00 These companies are making food products that are killing us all. It's slow, it's called cancer and disease, and it will get 1 in 2 in the next ten years. We HAVE TO KNOW what is in our food to make an informed choice.
E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO. $4,025,200.00
PEPSICO, INC. $1,716,300.00
BASF PLANT SCIENCE $1,642,300.00
BAYER CROPSCIENCE $1,618,400.00
DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC $1,184,800.00
NESTLE USA, INC. $1,169,400.00
COCA-COLA NORTH AMERICA $1,164,400.00
CONAGRA FOODS $1,076,700.00 These companies are making food products that are killing us all. It's slow, it's called cancer and disease, and it will get 1 in 2 in the next ten years. We HAVE TO KNOW what is in our food to make an informed choice.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Facts - Yes on Prop 37
Why Labeling GMOs is Important
What is Proposition 37? Proposition 37 is a common-sense November ballot measure that will help consumers make informed choices about the food they eat. Written with broad input from food groups, industry, science, legal and health experts Prop. 37 (The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act) requires clear labels letting consumers know if foods are genetically modified.
What Are Genetically Engineered Foods (GMOs)? A genetically engineered food is a plant or meat product that has had its DNA artificially altered in a laboratory by genes from other plants, animals, viruses, or bacteria in order to produce foreign compounds in that food. This type of genetic alteration is not found in nature and is experimental. Many of the foods we currently eat and feed our families (including certain baby formulas and a high percentage of corn, soy, cotton and sugar beets commonly used in processed foods sold in the U.S.), but we don’t know which ones without labeling.
Example: Genetically Modified corn has been engineered in a laboratory to produce pesticides in its own tissue. GMO corn is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency as an Insecticide, but is sold unlabeled. [EPA Pesticides]. Walmart is now selling Monsanto's sweet corn that has been genetically engineered to contain an insecticide, but consumers don't know because it's not labeled.
Are Genetically Engineered Foods Safe? GMOs have not been proven safe, and long-term health studies have not been conducted. A growing body of peer-reviewed studies has linked these foods to allergies, organ toxicity, and other health problems. These studies must be followed up. However, unlike the strict safety evaluations required for the approval of new drugs, the US Food and Drug Administration does not require safety studies for genetically engineered foods. The United Nations/World Health Organization food standards group and the American Medical Association have called for mandatory safety testing of genetically engineered foods -- a standard the U.S. fails to meet.
GMOs Linked to Environmental Problems: Various environmental problems associated with genetic engineering have been well documented, including biodiversity loss, an overall increase in pesticide use, the emergence of super weeds that are threatening millions of acres of farmland, and the unintentional contamination of non-GMO and organic crops.
We Have a Right to Know What's in Our Food: Fifty countries around the world—representing more than 40% of the world’s population---already require GMO labeling, including all of Europe, Japan, India and China. Polls show that more than 90% of Americans want to know if their food is genetically engineered. We are free to choose what we want to eat and feed our children. The free market is supposed to provide consumers with accurate information about products so we can make informed choices.
Who is in Favor of Proposition 37? Prop 37 was initiated by a grassroots organizing effort with the help of thousands of volunteers across the state, the Right to Know campaign gathered nearly one million signatures from California voters within a 10 week period. More than 2,000 organizations – including media outlets, food manufacturers and retailers, leading consumer, environmental, farming, health, faith-based, political and labor groups – have since endorsed Yes on 37: www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements.
Who is Opposed to Proposition 37? Not one human being has made a contribution to the campaign against Prop. 37. Instead, the campaign is funded entirely by giant pesticide and junk food companies with a track record of making false claims about the safety of their products. The “No” campaign’s two largest donors-- Monsanto and DuPont—are the same companies that told us Agent Orange and DDT were safe. Further undermining the No campaign’s credibility is the fact that its biggest funder—Monsanto—produced a series of ads supporting labeling of GMOs in Europe in the 1990s.
A Simple Proposition for California in 2012: The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act is simple: The initiative would simply require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it is produced through genetic engineering, and would not allow these products to be labeled as “natural.” Prop 37 gives companies 18 months to change their labels, and allows for the GMO disclosure to appear wherever they choose on packaging.
No Cost to Consumers or Food Producers: Companies change their labeling all the time, and research shows that Prop. 37 will have no cost impact on consumers or food producers. In a recent study on the economic impact of Proposition 37, Joanna Shepherd Bailey, Ph.D., Professor at Emory University School of Law, concluded that there would be “no increases in prices as a result of the relabeling required.” In Europe, introduction of GMO labeling produced no increase in food costs. David Byrne, former European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection of the European Parliament, stated that when Europe introduced GMO labeling in 1997, "it did not result in increased costs, despite the horrifying (double-digit) prediction of some interests.”
Prop. 37 Doesn’t Ban the Sale of Any Foods: Despite opposition claims that Prop 37 would "ban the sale of thousands of groceries," it would not ban any foods at all. It merely requires that GMO-containing foods be labeled with the phrase “partially produced with genetic engineering” anywhere on the front or back of packages.
Greater Legal Certainty For Businesses: According to an independent legal analysis by James Cooper, JD, PhD, of George Mason University School of Law, Proposition 37 has been narrowly crafted in a way that provides “greater legal certainty” for businesses than other California consumer disclosure laws. It won’t invite frivolous lawsuits. What it will do is help California consumers make more informed choices about the food they eat.
If Proposition 37 passes, it will be a huge step toward the transparency we deserve. This is about our right to know what's in our food and the right to choose for ourselves what we eat and feed our families. These are fundamental American values. Join us in helping us win back our right to know about the genetic engineering of our food system. Vote Yes on 37 in November, join our campaign, share our ad, donate if you can (every little bit helps!).
Together, we can make history this November!
Why Labeling GMOs is Important
What is Proposition 37? Proposition 37 is a common-sense November ballot measure that will help consumers make informed choices about the food they eat. Written with broad input from food groups, industry, science, legal and health experts Prop. 37 (The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act) requires clear labels letting consumers know if foods are genetically modified.
What Are Genetically Engineered Foods (GMOs)? A genetically engineered food is a plant or meat product that has had its DNA artificially altered in a laboratory by genes from other plants, animals, viruses, or bacteria in order to produce foreign compounds in that food. This type of genetic alteration is not found in nature and is experimental. Many of the foods we currently eat and feed our families (including certain baby formulas and a high percentage of corn, soy, cotton and sugar beets commonly used in processed foods sold in the U.S.), but we don’t know which ones without labeling.
Example: Genetically Modified corn has been engineered in a laboratory to produce pesticides in its own tissue. GMO corn is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency as an Insecticide, but is sold unlabeled. [EPA Pesticides]. Walmart is now selling Monsanto's sweet corn that has been genetically engineered to contain an insecticide, but consumers don't know because it's not labeled.
Are Genetically Engineered Foods Safe? GMOs have not been proven safe, and long-term health studies have not been conducted. A growing body of peer-reviewed studies has linked these foods to allergies, organ toxicity, and other health problems. These studies must be followed up. However, unlike the strict safety evaluations required for the approval of new drugs, the US Food and Drug Administration does not require safety studies for genetically engineered foods. The United Nations/World Health Organization food standards group and the American Medical Association have called for mandatory safety testing of genetically engineered foods -- a standard the U.S. fails to meet.
GMOs Linked to Environmental Problems: Various environmental problems associated with genetic engineering have been well documented, including biodiversity loss, an overall increase in pesticide use, the emergence of super weeds that are threatening millions of acres of farmland, and the unintentional contamination of non-GMO and organic crops.
We Have a Right to Know What's in Our Food: Fifty countries around the world—representing more than 40% of the world’s population---already require GMO labeling, including all of Europe, Japan, India and China. Polls show that more than 90% of Americans want to know if their food is genetically engineered. We are free to choose what we want to eat and feed our children. The free market is supposed to provide consumers with accurate information about products so we can make informed choices.
Who is in Favor of Proposition 37? Prop 37 was initiated by a grassroots organizing effort with the help of thousands of volunteers across the state, the Right to Know campaign gathered nearly one million signatures from California voters within a 10 week period. More than 2,000 organizations – including media outlets, food manufacturers and retailers, leading consumer, environmental, farming, health, faith-based, political and labor groups – have since endorsed Yes on 37: www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements.
Who is Opposed to Proposition 37? Not one human being has made a contribution to the campaign against Prop. 37. Instead, the campaign is funded entirely by giant pesticide and junk food companies with a track record of making false claims about the safety of their products. The “No” campaign’s two largest donors-- Monsanto and DuPont—are the same companies that told us Agent Orange and DDT were safe. Further undermining the No campaign’s credibility is the fact that its biggest funder—Monsanto—produced a series of ads supporting labeling of GMOs in Europe in the 1990s.
A Simple Proposition for California in 2012: The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act is simple: The initiative would simply require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it is produced through genetic engineering, and would not allow these products to be labeled as “natural.” Prop 37 gives companies 18 months to change their labels, and allows for the GMO disclosure to appear wherever they choose on packaging.
No Cost to Consumers or Food Producers: Companies change their labeling all the time, and research shows that Prop. 37 will have no cost impact on consumers or food producers. In a recent study on the economic impact of Proposition 37, Joanna Shepherd Bailey, Ph.D., Professor at Emory University School of Law, concluded that there would be “no increases in prices as a result of the relabeling required.” In Europe, introduction of GMO labeling produced no increase in food costs. David Byrne, former European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection of the European Parliament, stated that when Europe introduced GMO labeling in 1997, "it did not result in increased costs, despite the horrifying (double-digit) prediction of some interests.”
Prop. 37 Doesn’t Ban the Sale of Any Foods: Despite opposition claims that Prop 37 would "ban the sale of thousands of groceries," it would not ban any foods at all. It merely requires that GMO-containing foods be labeled with the phrase “partially produced with genetic engineering” anywhere on the front or back of packages.
Greater Legal Certainty For Businesses: According to an independent legal analysis by James Cooper, JD, PhD, of George Mason University School of Law, Proposition 37 has been narrowly crafted in a way that provides “greater legal certainty” for businesses than other California consumer disclosure laws. It won’t invite frivolous lawsuits. What it will do is help California consumers make more informed choices about the food they eat.
If Proposition 37 passes, it will be a huge step toward the transparency we deserve. This is about our right to know what's in our food and the right to choose for ourselves what we eat and feed our families. These are fundamental American values. Join us in helping us win back our right to know about the genetic engineering of our food system. Vote Yes on 37 in November, join our campaign, share our ad, donate if you can (every little bit helps!).
Together, we can make history this November!
http://www.carighttoknow.org/facts
What is Proposition 37? Proposition 37 is a common-sense November ballot measure that will help consumers make informed choices about the food they eat. Written with broad input from food groups, industry, science, legal and health experts Prop. 37 (The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act) requires clear labels letting consumers know if foods are genetically modified.
What Are Genetically Engineered Foods (GMOs)? A genetically engineered food is a plant or meat product that has had its DNA artificially altered in a laboratory by genes from other plants, animals, viruses, or bacteria in order to produce foreign compounds in that food. This type of genetic alteration is not found in nature and is experimental. Many of the foods we currently eat and feed our families (including certain baby formulas and a high percentage of corn, soy, cotton and sugar beets commonly used in processed foods sold in the U.S.), but we don’t know which ones without labeling.
Example: Genetically Modified corn has been engineered in a laboratory to produce pesticides in its own tissue. GMO corn is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency as an Insecticide, but is sold unlabeled. [EPA Pesticides]. Walmart is now selling Monsanto's sweet corn that has been genetically engineered to contain an insecticide, but consumers don't know because it's not labeled.
Are Genetically Engineered Foods Safe? GMOs have not been proven safe, and long-term health studies have not been conducted. A growing body of peer-reviewed studies has linked these foods to allergies, organ toxicity, and other health problems. These studies must be followed up. However, unlike the strict safety evaluations required for the approval of new drugs, the US Food and Drug Administration does not require safety studies for genetically engineered foods. The United Nations/World Health Organization food standards group and the American Medical Association have called for mandatory safety testing of genetically engineered foods -- a standard the U.S. fails to meet.
GMOs Linked to Environmental Problems: Various environmental problems associated with genetic engineering have been well documented, including biodiversity loss, an overall increase in pesticide use, the emergence of super weeds that are threatening millions of acres of farmland, and the unintentional contamination of non-GMO and organic crops.
We Have a Right to Know What's in Our Food: Fifty countries around the world—representing more than 40% of the world’s population---already require GMO labeling, including all of Europe, Japan, India and China. Polls show that more than 90% of Americans want to know if their food is genetically engineered. We are free to choose what we want to eat and feed our children. The free market is supposed to provide consumers with accurate information about products so we can make informed choices.
Who is in Favor of Proposition 37? Prop 37 was initiated by a grassroots organizing effort with the help of thousands of volunteers across the state, the Right to Know campaign gathered nearly one million signatures from California voters within a 10 week period. More than 2,000 organizations – including media outlets, food manufacturers and retailers, leading consumer, environmental, farming, health, faith-based, political and labor groups – have since endorsed Yes on 37: www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements.
Who is Opposed to Proposition 37? Not one human being has made a contribution to the campaign against Prop. 37. Instead, the campaign is funded entirely by giant pesticide and junk food companies with a track record of making false claims about the safety of their products. The “No” campaign’s two largest donors-- Monsanto and DuPont—are the same companies that told us Agent Orange and DDT were safe. Further undermining the No campaign’s credibility is the fact that its biggest funder—Monsanto—produced a series of ads supporting labeling of GMOs in Europe in the 1990s.
A Simple Proposition for California in 2012: The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act is simple: The initiative would simply require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it is produced through genetic engineering, and would not allow these products to be labeled as “natural.” Prop 37 gives companies 18 months to change their labels, and allows for the GMO disclosure to appear wherever they choose on packaging.
No Cost to Consumers or Food Producers: Companies change their labeling all the time, and research shows that Prop. 37 will have no cost impact on consumers or food producers. In a recent study on the economic impact of Proposition 37, Joanna Shepherd Bailey, Ph.D., Professor at Emory University School of Law, concluded that there would be “no increases in prices as a result of the relabeling required.” In Europe, introduction of GMO labeling produced no increase in food costs. David Byrne, former European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection of the European Parliament, stated that when Europe introduced GMO labeling in 1997, "it did not result in increased costs, despite the horrifying (double-digit) prediction of some interests.”
Prop. 37 Doesn’t Ban the Sale of Any Foods: Despite opposition claims that Prop 37 would "ban the sale of thousands of groceries," it would not ban any foods at all. It merely requires that GMO-containing foods be labeled with the phrase “partially produced with genetic engineering” anywhere on the front or back of packages.
Greater Legal Certainty For Businesses: According to an independent legal analysis by James Cooper, JD, PhD, of George Mason University School of Law, Proposition 37 has been narrowly crafted in a way that provides “greater legal certainty” for businesses than other California consumer disclosure laws. It won’t invite frivolous lawsuits. What it will do is help California consumers make more informed choices about the food they eat.
If Proposition 37 passes, it will be a huge step toward the transparency we deserve. This is about our right to know what's in our food and the right to choose for ourselves what we eat and feed our families. These are fundamental American values. Join us in helping us win back our right to know about the genetic engineering of our food system. Vote Yes on 37 in November, join our campaign, share our ad, donate if you can (every little bit helps!).
Together, we can make history this November!
Why Labeling GMOs is Important
What is Proposition 37? Proposition 37 is a common-sense November ballot measure that will help consumers make informed choices about the food they eat. Written with broad input from food groups, industry, science, legal and health experts Prop. 37 (The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act) requires clear labels letting consumers know if foods are genetically modified.
What Are Genetically Engineered Foods (GMOs)? A genetically engineered food is a plant or meat product that has had its DNA artificially altered in a laboratory by genes from other plants, animals, viruses, or bacteria in order to produce foreign compounds in that food. This type of genetic alteration is not found in nature and is experimental. Many of the foods we currently eat and feed our families (including certain baby formulas and a high percentage of corn, soy, cotton and sugar beets commonly used in processed foods sold in the U.S.), but we don’t know which ones without labeling.
Example: Genetically Modified corn has been engineered in a laboratory to produce pesticides in its own tissue. GMO corn is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency as an Insecticide, but is sold unlabeled. [EPA Pesticides]. Walmart is now selling Monsanto's sweet corn that has been genetically engineered to contain an insecticide, but consumers don't know because it's not labeled.
Are Genetically Engineered Foods Safe? GMOs have not been proven safe, and long-term health studies have not been conducted. A growing body of peer-reviewed studies has linked these foods to allergies, organ toxicity, and other health problems. These studies must be followed up. However, unlike the strict safety evaluations required for the approval of new drugs, the US Food and Drug Administration does not require safety studies for genetically engineered foods. The United Nations/World Health Organization food standards group and the American Medical Association have called for mandatory safety testing of genetically engineered foods -- a standard the U.S. fails to meet.
GMOs Linked to Environmental Problems: Various environmental problems associated with genetic engineering have been well documented, including biodiversity loss, an overall increase in pesticide use, the emergence of super weeds that are threatening millions of acres of farmland, and the unintentional contamination of non-GMO and organic crops.
We Have a Right to Know What's in Our Food: Fifty countries around the world—representing more than 40% of the world’s population---already require GMO labeling, including all of Europe, Japan, India and China. Polls show that more than 90% of Americans want to know if their food is genetically engineered. We are free to choose what we want to eat and feed our children. The free market is supposed to provide consumers with accurate information about products so we can make informed choices.
Who is in Favor of Proposition 37? Prop 37 was initiated by a grassroots organizing effort with the help of thousands of volunteers across the state, the Right to Know campaign gathered nearly one million signatures from California voters within a 10 week period. More than 2,000 organizations – including media outlets, food manufacturers and retailers, leading consumer, environmental, farming, health, faith-based, political and labor groups – have since endorsed Yes on 37: www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements.
Who is Opposed to Proposition 37? Not one human being has made a contribution to the campaign against Prop. 37. Instead, the campaign is funded entirely by giant pesticide and junk food companies with a track record of making false claims about the safety of their products. The “No” campaign’s two largest donors-- Monsanto and DuPont—are the same companies that told us Agent Orange and DDT were safe. Further undermining the No campaign’s credibility is the fact that its biggest funder—Monsanto—produced a series of ads supporting labeling of GMOs in Europe in the 1990s.
A Simple Proposition for California in 2012: The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act is simple: The initiative would simply require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it is produced through genetic engineering, and would not allow these products to be labeled as “natural.” Prop 37 gives companies 18 months to change their labels, and allows for the GMO disclosure to appear wherever they choose on packaging.
No Cost to Consumers or Food Producers: Companies change their labeling all the time, and research shows that Prop. 37 will have no cost impact on consumers or food producers. In a recent study on the economic impact of Proposition 37, Joanna Shepherd Bailey, Ph.D., Professor at Emory University School of Law, concluded that there would be “no increases in prices as a result of the relabeling required.” In Europe, introduction of GMO labeling produced no increase in food costs. David Byrne, former European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection of the European Parliament, stated that when Europe introduced GMO labeling in 1997, "it did not result in increased costs, despite the horrifying (double-digit) prediction of some interests.”
Prop. 37 Doesn’t Ban the Sale of Any Foods: Despite opposition claims that Prop 37 would "ban the sale of thousands of groceries," it would not ban any foods at all. It merely requires that GMO-containing foods be labeled with the phrase “partially produced with genetic engineering” anywhere on the front or back of packages.
Greater Legal Certainty For Businesses: According to an independent legal analysis by James Cooper, JD, PhD, of George Mason University School of Law, Proposition 37 has been narrowly crafted in a way that provides “greater legal certainty” for businesses than other California consumer disclosure laws. It won’t invite frivolous lawsuits. What it will do is help California consumers make more informed choices about the food they eat.
If Proposition 37 passes, it will be a huge step toward the transparency we deserve. This is about our right to know what's in our food and the right to choose for ourselves what we eat and feed our families. These are fundamental American values. Join us in helping us win back our right to know about the genetic engineering of our food system. Vote Yes on 37 in November, join our campaign, share our ad, donate if you can (every little bit helps!).
Together, we can make history this November!
http://www.carighttoknow.org/facts
Facts - Yes on Prop 37
Why Labeling GMOs is Important
What is Proposition 37? Proposition 37 is a common-sense November ballot measure that will help consumers make informed choices about the food they eat. Written with broad input from food groups, industry, science, legal and health experts Prop. 37 (The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act) requires clear labels letting consumers know if foods are genetically modified.
What Are Genetically Engineered Foods (GMOs)? A genetically engineered food is a plant or meat product that has had its DNA artificially altered in a laboratory by genes from other plants, animals, viruses, or bacteria in order to produce foreign compounds in that food. This type of genetic alteration is not found in nature and is experimental. Many of the foods we currently eat and feed our families (including certain baby formulas and a high percentage of corn, soy, cotton and sugar beets commonly used in processed foods sold in the U.S.), but we don’t know which ones without labeling.
Example: Genetically Modified corn has been engineered in a laboratory to produce pesticides in its own tissue. GMO corn is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency as an Insecticide, but is sold unlabeled. [EPA Pesticides]. Walmart is now selling Monsanto's sweet corn that has been genetically engineered to contain an insecticide, but consumers don't know because it's not labeled.
Are Genetically Engineered Foods Safe? GMOs have not been proven safe, and long-term health studies have not been conducted. A growing body of peer-reviewed studies has linked these foods to allergies, organ toxicity, and other health problems. These studies must be followed up. However, unlike the strict safety evaluations required for the approval of new drugs, the US Food and Drug Administration does not require safety studies for genetically engineered foods. The United Nations/World Health Organization food standards group and the American Medical Association have called for mandatory safety testing of genetically engineered foods -- a standard the U.S. fails to meet.
GMOs Linked to Environmental Problems: Various environmental problems associated with genetic engineering have been well documented, including biodiversity loss, an overall increase in pesticide use, the emergence of super weeds that are threatening millions of acres of farmland, and the unintentional contamination of non-GMO and organic crops.
We Have a Right to Know What's in Our Food: Fifty countries around the world—representing more than 40% of the world’s population---already require GMO labeling, including all of Europe, Japan, India and China. Polls show that more than 90% of Americans want to know if their food is genetically engineered. We are free to choose what we want to eat and feed our children. The free market is supposed to provide consumers with accurate information about products so we can make informed choices.
Who is in Favor of Proposition 37? Prop 37 was initiated by a grassroots organizing effort with the help of thousands of volunteers across the state, the Right to Know campaign gathered nearly one million signatures from California voters within a 10 week period. More than 2,000 organizations – including media outlets, food manufacturers and retailers, leading consumer, environmental, farming, health, faith-based, political and labor groups – have since endorsed Yes on 37: www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements.
Who is Opposed to Proposition 37? Not one human being has made a contribution to the campaign against Prop. 37. Instead, the campaign is funded entirely by giant pesticide and junk food companies with a track record of making false claims about the safety of their products. The “No” campaign’s two largest donors-- Monsanto and DuPont—are the same companies that told us Agent Orange and DDT were safe. Further undermining the No campaign’s credibility is the fact that its biggest funder—Monsanto—produced a series of ads supporting labeling of GMOs in Europe in the 1990s.
A Simple Proposition for California in 2012: The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act is simple: The initiative would simply require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it is produced through genetic engineering, and would not allow these products to be labeled as “natural.” Prop 37 gives companies 18 months to change their labels, and allows for the GMO disclosure to appear wherever they choose on packaging.
No Cost to Consumers or Food Producers: Companies change their labeling all the time, and research shows that Prop. 37 will have no cost impact on consumers or food producers. In a recent study on the economic impact of Proposition 37, Joanna Shepherd Bailey, Ph.D., Professor at Emory University School of Law, concluded that there would be “no increases in prices as a result of the relabeling required.” In Europe, introduction of GMO labeling produced no increase in food costs. David Byrne, former European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection of the European Parliament, stated that when Europe introduced GMO labeling in 1997, "it did not result in increased costs, despite the horrifying (double-digit) prediction of some interests.”
Prop. 37 Doesn’t Ban the Sale of Any Foods: Despite opposition claims that Prop 37 would "ban the sale of thousands of groceries," it would not ban any foods at all. It merely requires that GMO-containing foods be labeled with the phrase “partially produced with genetic engineering” anywhere on the front or back of packages.
Greater Legal Certainty For Businesses: According to an independent legal analysis by James Cooper, JD, PhD, of George Mason University School of Law, Proposition 37 has been narrowly crafted in a way that provides “greater legal certainty” for businesses than other California consumer disclosure laws. It won’t invite frivolous lawsuits. What it will do is help California consumers make more informed choices about the food they eat.
If Proposition 37 passes, it will be a huge step toward the transparency we deserve. This is about our right to know what's in our food and the right to choose for ourselves what we eat and feed our families. These are fundamental American values. Join us in helping us win back our right to know about the genetic engineering of our food system. Vote Yes on 37 in November, join our campaign, share our ad, donate if you can (every little bit helps!).
Together, we can make history this November!
Why Labeling GMOs is Important
What is Proposition 37? Proposition 37 is a common-sense November ballot measure that will help consumers make informed choices about the food they eat. Written with broad input from food groups, industry, science, legal and health experts Prop. 37 (The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act) requires clear labels letting consumers know if foods are genetically modified.
What Are Genetically Engineered Foods (GMOs)? A genetically engineered food is a plant or meat product that has had its DNA artificially altered in a laboratory by genes from other plants, animals, viruses, or bacteria in order to produce foreign compounds in that food. This type of genetic alteration is not found in nature and is experimental. Many of the foods we currently eat and feed our families (including certain baby formulas and a high percentage of corn, soy, cotton and sugar beets commonly used in processed foods sold in the U.S.), but we don’t know which ones without labeling.
Example: Genetically Modified corn has been engineered in a laboratory to produce pesticides in its own tissue. GMO corn is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency as an Insecticide, but is sold unlabeled. [EPA Pesticides]. Walmart is now selling Monsanto's sweet corn that has been genetically engineered to contain an insecticide, but consumers don't know because it's not labeled.
Are Genetically Engineered Foods Safe? GMOs have not been proven safe, and long-term health studies have not been conducted. A growing body of peer-reviewed studies has linked these foods to allergies, organ toxicity, and other health problems. These studies must be followed up. However, unlike the strict safety evaluations required for the approval of new drugs, the US Food and Drug Administration does not require safety studies for genetically engineered foods. The United Nations/World Health Organization food standards group and the American Medical Association have called for mandatory safety testing of genetically engineered foods -- a standard the U.S. fails to meet.
GMOs Linked to Environmental Problems: Various environmental problems associated with genetic engineering have been well documented, including biodiversity loss, an overall increase in pesticide use, the emergence of super weeds that are threatening millions of acres of farmland, and the unintentional contamination of non-GMO and organic crops.
We Have a Right to Know What's in Our Food: Fifty countries around the world—representing more than 40% of the world’s population---already require GMO labeling, including all of Europe, Japan, India and China. Polls show that more than 90% of Americans want to know if their food is genetically engineered. We are free to choose what we want to eat and feed our children. The free market is supposed to provide consumers with accurate information about products so we can make informed choices.
Who is in Favor of Proposition 37? Prop 37 was initiated by a grassroots organizing effort with the help of thousands of volunteers across the state, the Right to Know campaign gathered nearly one million signatures from California voters within a 10 week period. More than 2,000 organizations – including media outlets, food manufacturers and retailers, leading consumer, environmental, farming, health, faith-based, political and labor groups – have since endorsed Yes on 37: www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements.
Who is Opposed to Proposition 37? Not one human being has made a contribution to the campaign against Prop. 37. Instead, the campaign is funded entirely by giant pesticide and junk food companies with a track record of making false claims about the safety of their products. The “No” campaign’s two largest donors-- Monsanto and DuPont—are the same companies that told us Agent Orange and DDT were safe. Further undermining the No campaign’s credibility is the fact that its biggest funder—Monsanto—produced a series of ads supporting labeling of GMOs in Europe in the 1990s.
A Simple Proposition for California in 2012: The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act is simple: The initiative would simply require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it is produced through genetic engineering, and would not allow these products to be labeled as “natural.” Prop 37 gives companies 18 months to change their labels, and allows for the GMO disclosure to appear wherever they choose on packaging.
No Cost to Consumers or Food Producers: Companies change their labeling all the time, and research shows that Prop. 37 will have no cost impact on consumers or food producers. In a recent study on the economic impact of Proposition 37, Joanna Shepherd Bailey, Ph.D., Professor at Emory University School of Law, concluded that there would be “no increases in prices as a result of the relabeling required.” In Europe, introduction of GMO labeling produced no increase in food costs. David Byrne, former European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection of the European Parliament, stated that when Europe introduced GMO labeling in 1997, "it did not result in increased costs, despite the horrifying (double-digit) prediction of some interests.”
Prop. 37 Doesn’t Ban the Sale of Any Foods: Despite opposition claims that Prop 37 would "ban the sale of thousands of groceries," it would not ban any foods at all. It merely requires that GMO-containing foods be labeled with the phrase “partially produced with genetic engineering” anywhere on the front or back of packages.
Greater Legal Certainty For Businesses: According to an independent legal analysis by James Cooper, JD, PhD, of George Mason University School of Law, Proposition 37 has been narrowly crafted in a way that provides “greater legal certainty” for businesses than other California consumer disclosure laws. It won’t invite frivolous lawsuits. What it will do is help California consumers make more informed choices about the food they eat.
If Proposition 37 passes, it will be a huge step toward the transparency we deserve. This is about our right to know what's in our food and the right to choose for ourselves what we eat and feed our families. These are fundamental American values. Join us in helping us win back our right to know about the genetic engineering of our food system. Vote Yes on 37 in November, join our campaign, share our ad, donate if you can (every little bit helps!).
Together, we can make history this November!
http://www.carighttoknow.org/facts
What is Proposition 37? Proposition 37 is a common-sense November ballot measure that will help consumers make informed choices about the food they eat. Written with broad input from food groups, industry, science, legal and health experts Prop. 37 (The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act) requires clear labels letting consumers know if foods are genetically modified.
What Are Genetically Engineered Foods (GMOs)? A genetically engineered food is a plant or meat product that has had its DNA artificially altered in a laboratory by genes from other plants, animals, viruses, or bacteria in order to produce foreign compounds in that food. This type of genetic alteration is not found in nature and is experimental. Many of the foods we currently eat and feed our families (including certain baby formulas and a high percentage of corn, soy, cotton and sugar beets commonly used in processed foods sold in the U.S.), but we don’t know which ones without labeling.
Example: Genetically Modified corn has been engineered in a laboratory to produce pesticides in its own tissue. GMO corn is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency as an Insecticide, but is sold unlabeled. [EPA Pesticides]. Walmart is now selling Monsanto's sweet corn that has been genetically engineered to contain an insecticide, but consumers don't know because it's not labeled.
Are Genetically Engineered Foods Safe? GMOs have not been proven safe, and long-term health studies have not been conducted. A growing body of peer-reviewed studies has linked these foods to allergies, organ toxicity, and other health problems. These studies must be followed up. However, unlike the strict safety evaluations required for the approval of new drugs, the US Food and Drug Administration does not require safety studies for genetically engineered foods. The United Nations/World Health Organization food standards group and the American Medical Association have called for mandatory safety testing of genetically engineered foods -- a standard the U.S. fails to meet.
GMOs Linked to Environmental Problems: Various environmental problems associated with genetic engineering have been well documented, including biodiversity loss, an overall increase in pesticide use, the emergence of super weeds that are threatening millions of acres of farmland, and the unintentional contamination of non-GMO and organic crops.
We Have a Right to Know What's in Our Food: Fifty countries around the world—representing more than 40% of the world’s population---already require GMO labeling, including all of Europe, Japan, India and China. Polls show that more than 90% of Americans want to know if their food is genetically engineered. We are free to choose what we want to eat and feed our children. The free market is supposed to provide consumers with accurate information about products so we can make informed choices.
Who is in Favor of Proposition 37? Prop 37 was initiated by a grassroots organizing effort with the help of thousands of volunteers across the state, the Right to Know campaign gathered nearly one million signatures from California voters within a 10 week period. More than 2,000 organizations – including media outlets, food manufacturers and retailers, leading consumer, environmental, farming, health, faith-based, political and labor groups – have since endorsed Yes on 37: www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements.
Who is Opposed to Proposition 37? Not one human being has made a contribution to the campaign against Prop. 37. Instead, the campaign is funded entirely by giant pesticide and junk food companies with a track record of making false claims about the safety of their products. The “No” campaign’s two largest donors-- Monsanto and DuPont—are the same companies that told us Agent Orange and DDT were safe. Further undermining the No campaign’s credibility is the fact that its biggest funder—Monsanto—produced a series of ads supporting labeling of GMOs in Europe in the 1990s.
A Simple Proposition for California in 2012: The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act is simple: The initiative would simply require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it is produced through genetic engineering, and would not allow these products to be labeled as “natural.” Prop 37 gives companies 18 months to change their labels, and allows for the GMO disclosure to appear wherever they choose on packaging.
No Cost to Consumers or Food Producers: Companies change their labeling all the time, and research shows that Prop. 37 will have no cost impact on consumers or food producers. In a recent study on the economic impact of Proposition 37, Joanna Shepherd Bailey, Ph.D., Professor at Emory University School of Law, concluded that there would be “no increases in prices as a result of the relabeling required.” In Europe, introduction of GMO labeling produced no increase in food costs. David Byrne, former European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection of the European Parliament, stated that when Europe introduced GMO labeling in 1997, "it did not result in increased costs, despite the horrifying (double-digit) prediction of some interests.”
Prop. 37 Doesn’t Ban the Sale of Any Foods: Despite opposition claims that Prop 37 would "ban the sale of thousands of groceries," it would not ban any foods at all. It merely requires that GMO-containing foods be labeled with the phrase “partially produced with genetic engineering” anywhere on the front or back of packages.
Greater Legal Certainty For Businesses: According to an independent legal analysis by James Cooper, JD, PhD, of George Mason University School of Law, Proposition 37 has been narrowly crafted in a way that provides “greater legal certainty” for businesses than other California consumer disclosure laws. It won’t invite frivolous lawsuits. What it will do is help California consumers make more informed choices about the food they eat.
If Proposition 37 passes, it will be a huge step toward the transparency we deserve. This is about our right to know what's in our food and the right to choose for ourselves what we eat and feed our families. These are fundamental American values. Join us in helping us win back our right to know about the genetic engineering of our food system. Vote Yes on 37 in November, join our campaign, share our ad, donate if you can (every little bit helps!).
Together, we can make history this November!
Why Labeling GMOs is Important
What is Proposition 37? Proposition 37 is a common-sense November ballot measure that will help consumers make informed choices about the food they eat. Written with broad input from food groups, industry, science, legal and health experts Prop. 37 (The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act) requires clear labels letting consumers know if foods are genetically modified.
What Are Genetically Engineered Foods (GMOs)? A genetically engineered food is a plant or meat product that has had its DNA artificially altered in a laboratory by genes from other plants, animals, viruses, or bacteria in order to produce foreign compounds in that food. This type of genetic alteration is not found in nature and is experimental. Many of the foods we currently eat and feed our families (including certain baby formulas and a high percentage of corn, soy, cotton and sugar beets commonly used in processed foods sold in the U.S.), but we don’t know which ones without labeling.
Example: Genetically Modified corn has been engineered in a laboratory to produce pesticides in its own tissue. GMO corn is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency as an Insecticide, but is sold unlabeled. [EPA Pesticides]. Walmart is now selling Monsanto's sweet corn that has been genetically engineered to contain an insecticide, but consumers don't know because it's not labeled.
Are Genetically Engineered Foods Safe? GMOs have not been proven safe, and long-term health studies have not been conducted. A growing body of peer-reviewed studies has linked these foods to allergies, organ toxicity, and other health problems. These studies must be followed up. However, unlike the strict safety evaluations required for the approval of new drugs, the US Food and Drug Administration does not require safety studies for genetically engineered foods. The United Nations/World Health Organization food standards group and the American Medical Association have called for mandatory safety testing of genetically engineered foods -- a standard the U.S. fails to meet.
GMOs Linked to Environmental Problems: Various environmental problems associated with genetic engineering have been well documented, including biodiversity loss, an overall increase in pesticide use, the emergence of super weeds that are threatening millions of acres of farmland, and the unintentional contamination of non-GMO and organic crops.
We Have a Right to Know What's in Our Food: Fifty countries around the world—representing more than 40% of the world’s population---already require GMO labeling, including all of Europe, Japan, India and China. Polls show that more than 90% of Americans want to know if their food is genetically engineered. We are free to choose what we want to eat and feed our children. The free market is supposed to provide consumers with accurate information about products so we can make informed choices.
Who is in Favor of Proposition 37? Prop 37 was initiated by a grassroots organizing effort with the help of thousands of volunteers across the state, the Right to Know campaign gathered nearly one million signatures from California voters within a 10 week period. More than 2,000 organizations – including media outlets, food manufacturers and retailers, leading consumer, environmental, farming, health, faith-based, political and labor groups – have since endorsed Yes on 37: www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements.
Who is Opposed to Proposition 37? Not one human being has made a contribution to the campaign against Prop. 37. Instead, the campaign is funded entirely by giant pesticide and junk food companies with a track record of making false claims about the safety of their products. The “No” campaign’s two largest donors-- Monsanto and DuPont—are the same companies that told us Agent Orange and DDT were safe. Further undermining the No campaign’s credibility is the fact that its biggest funder—Monsanto—produced a series of ads supporting labeling of GMOs in Europe in the 1990s.
A Simple Proposition for California in 2012: The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act is simple: The initiative would simply require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it is produced through genetic engineering, and would not allow these products to be labeled as “natural.” Prop 37 gives companies 18 months to change their labels, and allows for the GMO disclosure to appear wherever they choose on packaging.
No Cost to Consumers or Food Producers: Companies change their labeling all the time, and research shows that Prop. 37 will have no cost impact on consumers or food producers. In a recent study on the economic impact of Proposition 37, Joanna Shepherd Bailey, Ph.D., Professor at Emory University School of Law, concluded that there would be “no increases in prices as a result of the relabeling required.” In Europe, introduction of GMO labeling produced no increase in food costs. David Byrne, former European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection of the European Parliament, stated that when Europe introduced GMO labeling in 1997, "it did not result in increased costs, despite the horrifying (double-digit) prediction of some interests.”
Prop. 37 Doesn’t Ban the Sale of Any Foods: Despite opposition claims that Prop 37 would "ban the sale of thousands of groceries," it would not ban any foods at all. It merely requires that GMO-containing foods be labeled with the phrase “partially produced with genetic engineering” anywhere on the front or back of packages.
Greater Legal Certainty For Businesses: According to an independent legal analysis by James Cooper, JD, PhD, of George Mason University School of Law, Proposition 37 has been narrowly crafted in a way that provides “greater legal certainty” for businesses than other California consumer disclosure laws. It won’t invite frivolous lawsuits. What it will do is help California consumers make more informed choices about the food they eat.
If Proposition 37 passes, it will be a huge step toward the transparency we deserve. This is about our right to know what's in our food and the right to choose for ourselves what we eat and feed our families. These are fundamental American values. Join us in helping us win back our right to know about the genetic engineering of our food system. Vote Yes on 37 in November, join our campaign, share our ad, donate if you can (every little bit helps!).
Together, we can make history this November!
http://www.carighttoknow.org/facts
Facts - Yes on Prop 37
Why Labeling GMOs is Important
What is Proposition 37? Proposition 37 is a common-sense November ballot measure that will help consumers make informed choices about the food they eat. Written with broad input from food groups, industry, science, legal and health experts Prop. 37 (The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act) requires clear labels letting consumers know if foods are genetically modified.
What Are Genetically Engineered Foods (GMOs)? A genetically engineered food is a plant or meat product that has had its DNA artificially altered in a laboratory by genes from other plants, animals, viruses, or bacteria in order to produce foreign compounds in that food. This type of genetic alteration is not found in nature and is experimental. Many of the foods we currently eat and feed our families (including certain baby formulas and a high percentage of corn, soy, cotton and sugar beets commonly used in processed foods sold in the U.S.), but we don’t know which ones without labeling.
Example: Genetically Modified corn has been engineered in a laboratory to produce pesticides in its own tissue. GMO corn is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency as an Insecticide, but is sold unlabeled. [EPA Pesticides]. Walmart is now selling Monsanto's sweet corn that has been genetically engineered to contain an insecticide, but consumers don't know because it's not labeled.
Are Genetically Engineered Foods Safe? GMOs have not been proven safe, and long-term health studies have not been conducted. A growing body of peer-reviewed studies has linked these foods to allergies, organ toxicity, and other health problems. These studies must be followed up. However, unlike the strict safety evaluations required for the approval of new drugs, the US Food and Drug Administration does not require safety studies for genetically engineered foods. The United Nations/World Health Organization food standards group and the American Medical Association have called for mandatory safety testing of genetically engineered foods -- a standard the U.S. fails to meet.
GMOs Linked to Environmental Problems: Various environmental problems associated with genetic engineering have been well documented, including biodiversity loss, an overall increase in pesticide use, the emergence of super weeds that are threatening millions of acres of farmland, and the unintentional contamination of non-GMO and organic crops.
We Have a Right to Know What's in Our Food: Fifty countries around the world—representing more than 40% of the world’s population---already require GMO labeling, including all of Europe, Japan, India and China. Polls show that more than 90% of Americans want to know if their food is genetically engineered. We are free to choose what we want to eat and feed our children. The free market is supposed to provide consumers with accurate information about products so we can make informed choices.
Who is in Favor of Proposition 37? Prop 37 was initiated by a grassroots organizing effort with the help of thousands of volunteers across the state, the Right to Know campaign gathered nearly one million signatures from California voters within a 10 week period. More than 2,000 organizations – including media outlets, food manufacturers and retailers, leading consumer, environmental, farming, health, faith-based, political and labor groups – have since endorsed Yes on 37: www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements.
Who is Opposed to Proposition 37? Not one human being has made a contribution to the campaign against Prop. 37. Instead, the campaign is funded entirely by giant pesticide and junk food companies with a track record of making false claims about the safety of their products. The “No” campaign’s two largest donors-- Monsanto and DuPont—are the same companies that told us Agent Orange and DDT were safe. Further undermining the No campaign’s credibility is the fact that its biggest funder—Monsanto—produced a series of ads supporting labeling of GMOs in Europe in the 1990s.
A Simple Proposition for California in 2012: The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act is simple: The initiative would simply require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it is produced through genetic engineering, and would not allow these products to be labeled as “natural.” Prop 37 gives companies 18 months to change their labels, and allows for the GMO disclosure to appear wherever they choose on packaging.
No Cost to Consumers or Food Producers: Companies change their labeling all the time, and research shows that Prop. 37 will have no cost impact on consumers or food producers. In a recent study on the economic impact of Proposition 37, Joanna Shepherd Bailey, Ph.D., Professor at Emory University School of Law, concluded that there would be “no increases in prices as a result of the relabeling required.” In Europe, introduction of GMO labeling produced no increase in food costs. David Byrne, former European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection of the European Parliament, stated that when Europe introduced GMO labeling in 1997, "it did not result in increased costs, despite the horrifying (double-digit) prediction of some interests.”
Prop. 37 Doesn’t Ban the Sale of Any Foods: Despite opposition claims that Prop 37 would "ban the sale of thousands of groceries," it would not ban any foods at all. It merely requires that GMO-containing foods be labeled with the phrase “partially produced with genetic engineering” anywhere on the front or back of packages.
Greater Legal Certainty For Businesses: According to an independent legal analysis by James Cooper, JD, PhD, of George Mason University School of Law, Proposition 37 has been narrowly crafted in a way that provides “greater legal certainty” for businesses than other California consumer disclosure laws. It won’t invite frivolous lawsuits. What it will do is help California consumers make more informed choices about the food they eat.
If Proposition 37 passes, it will be a huge step toward the transparency we deserve. This is about our right to know what's in our food and the right to choose for ourselves what we eat and feed our families. These are fundamental American values. Join us in helping us win back our right to know about the genetic engineering of our food system. Vote Yes on 37 in November, join our campaign, share our ad, donate if you can (every little bit helps!).
Together, we can make history this November!
Why Labeling GMOs is Important
What is Proposition 37? Proposition 37 is a common-sense November ballot measure that will help consumers make informed choices about the food they eat. Written with broad input from food groups, industry, science, legal and health experts Prop. 37 (The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act) requires clear labels letting consumers know if foods are genetically modified.
What Are Genetically Engineered Foods (GMOs)? A genetically engineered food is a plant or meat product that has had its DNA artificially altered in a laboratory by genes from other plants, animals, viruses, or bacteria in order to produce foreign compounds in that food. This type of genetic alteration is not found in nature and is experimental. Many of the foods we currently eat and feed our families (including certain baby formulas and a high percentage of corn, soy, cotton and sugar beets commonly used in processed foods sold in the U.S.), but we don’t know which ones without labeling.
Example: Genetically Modified corn has been engineered in a laboratory to produce pesticides in its own tissue. GMO corn is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency as an Insecticide, but is sold unlabeled. [EPA Pesticides]. Walmart is now selling Monsanto's sweet corn that has been genetically engineered to contain an insecticide, but consumers don't know because it's not labeled.
Are Genetically Engineered Foods Safe? GMOs have not been proven safe, and long-term health studies have not been conducted. A growing body of peer-reviewed studies has linked these foods to allergies, organ toxicity, and other health problems. These studies must be followed up. However, unlike the strict safety evaluations required for the approval of new drugs, the US Food and Drug Administration does not require safety studies for genetically engineered foods. The United Nations/World Health Organization food standards group and the American Medical Association have called for mandatory safety testing of genetically engineered foods -- a standard the U.S. fails to meet.
GMOs Linked to Environmental Problems: Various environmental problems associated with genetic engineering have been well documented, including biodiversity loss, an overall increase in pesticide use, the emergence of super weeds that are threatening millions of acres of farmland, and the unintentional contamination of non-GMO and organic crops.
We Have a Right to Know What's in Our Food: Fifty countries around the world—representing more than 40% of the world’s population---already require GMO labeling, including all of Europe, Japan, India and China. Polls show that more than 90% of Americans want to know if their food is genetically engineered. We are free to choose what we want to eat and feed our children. The free market is supposed to provide consumers with accurate information about products so we can make informed choices.
Who is in Favor of Proposition 37? Prop 37 was initiated by a grassroots organizing effort with the help of thousands of volunteers across the state, the Right to Know campaign gathered nearly one million signatures from California voters within a 10 week period. More than 2,000 organizations – including media outlets, food manufacturers and retailers, leading consumer, environmental, farming, health, faith-based, political and labor groups – have since endorsed Yes on 37: www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements.
Who is Opposed to Proposition 37? Not one human being has made a contribution to the campaign against Prop. 37. Instead, the campaign is funded entirely by giant pesticide and junk food companies with a track record of making false claims about the safety of their products. The “No” campaign’s two largest donors-- Monsanto and DuPont—are the same companies that told us Agent Orange and DDT were safe. Further undermining the No campaign’s credibility is the fact that its biggest funder—Monsanto—produced a series of ads supporting labeling of GMOs in Europe in the 1990s.
A Simple Proposition for California in 2012: The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act is simple: The initiative would simply require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it is produced through genetic engineering, and would not allow these products to be labeled as “natural.” Prop 37 gives companies 18 months to change their labels, and allows for the GMO disclosure to appear wherever they choose on packaging.
No Cost to Consumers or Food Producers: Companies change their labeling all the time, and research shows that Prop. 37 will have no cost impact on consumers or food producers. In a recent study on the economic impact of Proposition 37, Joanna Shepherd Bailey, Ph.D., Professor at Emory University School of Law, concluded that there would be “no increases in prices as a result of the relabeling required.” In Europe, introduction of GMO labeling produced no increase in food costs. David Byrne, former European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection of the European Parliament, stated that when Europe introduced GMO labeling in 1997, "it did not result in increased costs, despite the horrifying (double-digit) prediction of some interests.”
Prop. 37 Doesn’t Ban the Sale of Any Foods: Despite opposition claims that Prop 37 would "ban the sale of thousands of groceries," it would not ban any foods at all. It merely requires that GMO-containing foods be labeled with the phrase “partially produced with genetic engineering” anywhere on the front or back of packages.
Greater Legal Certainty For Businesses: According to an independent legal analysis by James Cooper, JD, PhD, of George Mason University School of Law, Proposition 37 has been narrowly crafted in a way that provides “greater legal certainty” for businesses than other California consumer disclosure laws. It won’t invite frivolous lawsuits. What it will do is help California consumers make more informed choices about the food they eat.
If Proposition 37 passes, it will be a huge step toward the transparency we deserve. This is about our right to know what's in our food and the right to choose for ourselves what we eat and feed our families. These are fundamental American values. Join us in helping us win back our right to know about the genetic engineering of our food system. Vote Yes on 37 in November, join our campaign, share our ad, donate if you can (every little bit helps!).
Together, we can make history this November!
http://www.carighttoknow.org/facts
What is Proposition 37? Proposition 37 is a common-sense November ballot measure that will help consumers make informed choices about the food they eat. Written with broad input from food groups, industry, science, legal and health experts Prop. 37 (The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act) requires clear labels letting consumers know if foods are genetically modified.
What Are Genetically Engineered Foods (GMOs)? A genetically engineered food is a plant or meat product that has had its DNA artificially altered in a laboratory by genes from other plants, animals, viruses, or bacteria in order to produce foreign compounds in that food. This type of genetic alteration is not found in nature and is experimental. Many of the foods we currently eat and feed our families (including certain baby formulas and a high percentage of corn, soy, cotton and sugar beets commonly used in processed foods sold in the U.S.), but we don’t know which ones without labeling.
Example: Genetically Modified corn has been engineered in a laboratory to produce pesticides in its own tissue. GMO corn is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency as an Insecticide, but is sold unlabeled. [EPA Pesticides]. Walmart is now selling Monsanto's sweet corn that has been genetically engineered to contain an insecticide, but consumers don't know because it's not labeled.
Are Genetically Engineered Foods Safe? GMOs have not been proven safe, and long-term health studies have not been conducted. A growing body of peer-reviewed studies has linked these foods to allergies, organ toxicity, and other health problems. These studies must be followed up. However, unlike the strict safety evaluations required for the approval of new drugs, the US Food and Drug Administration does not require safety studies for genetically engineered foods. The United Nations/World Health Organization food standards group and the American Medical Association have called for mandatory safety testing of genetically engineered foods -- a standard the U.S. fails to meet.
GMOs Linked to Environmental Problems: Various environmental problems associated with genetic engineering have been well documented, including biodiversity loss, an overall increase in pesticide use, the emergence of super weeds that are threatening millions of acres of farmland, and the unintentional contamination of non-GMO and organic crops.
We Have a Right to Know What's in Our Food: Fifty countries around the world—representing more than 40% of the world’s population---already require GMO labeling, including all of Europe, Japan, India and China. Polls show that more than 90% of Americans want to know if their food is genetically engineered. We are free to choose what we want to eat and feed our children. The free market is supposed to provide consumers with accurate information about products so we can make informed choices.
Who is in Favor of Proposition 37? Prop 37 was initiated by a grassroots organizing effort with the help of thousands of volunteers across the state, the Right to Know campaign gathered nearly one million signatures from California voters within a 10 week period. More than 2,000 organizations – including media outlets, food manufacturers and retailers, leading consumer, environmental, farming, health, faith-based, political and labor groups – have since endorsed Yes on 37: www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements.
Who is Opposed to Proposition 37? Not one human being has made a contribution to the campaign against Prop. 37. Instead, the campaign is funded entirely by giant pesticide and junk food companies with a track record of making false claims about the safety of their products. The “No” campaign’s two largest donors-- Monsanto and DuPont—are the same companies that told us Agent Orange and DDT were safe. Further undermining the No campaign’s credibility is the fact that its biggest funder—Monsanto—produced a series of ads supporting labeling of GMOs in Europe in the 1990s.
A Simple Proposition for California in 2012: The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act is simple: The initiative would simply require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it is produced through genetic engineering, and would not allow these products to be labeled as “natural.” Prop 37 gives companies 18 months to change their labels, and allows for the GMO disclosure to appear wherever they choose on packaging.
No Cost to Consumers or Food Producers: Companies change their labeling all the time, and research shows that Prop. 37 will have no cost impact on consumers or food producers. In a recent study on the economic impact of Proposition 37, Joanna Shepherd Bailey, Ph.D., Professor at Emory University School of Law, concluded that there would be “no increases in prices as a result of the relabeling required.” In Europe, introduction of GMO labeling produced no increase in food costs. David Byrne, former European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection of the European Parliament, stated that when Europe introduced GMO labeling in 1997, "it did not result in increased costs, despite the horrifying (double-digit) prediction of some interests.”
Prop. 37 Doesn’t Ban the Sale of Any Foods: Despite opposition claims that Prop 37 would "ban the sale of thousands of groceries," it would not ban any foods at all. It merely requires that GMO-containing foods be labeled with the phrase “partially produced with genetic engineering” anywhere on the front or back of packages.
Greater Legal Certainty For Businesses: According to an independent legal analysis by James Cooper, JD, PhD, of George Mason University School of Law, Proposition 37 has been narrowly crafted in a way that provides “greater legal certainty” for businesses than other California consumer disclosure laws. It won’t invite frivolous lawsuits. What it will do is help California consumers make more informed choices about the food they eat.
If Proposition 37 passes, it will be a huge step toward the transparency we deserve. This is about our right to know what's in our food and the right to choose for ourselves what we eat and feed our families. These are fundamental American values. Join us in helping us win back our right to know about the genetic engineering of our food system. Vote Yes on 37 in November, join our campaign, share our ad, donate if you can (every little bit helps!).
Together, we can make history this November!
Why Labeling GMOs is Important
What is Proposition 37? Proposition 37 is a common-sense November ballot measure that will help consumers make informed choices about the food they eat. Written with broad input from food groups, industry, science, legal and health experts Prop. 37 (The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act) requires clear labels letting consumers know if foods are genetically modified.
What Are Genetically Engineered Foods (GMOs)? A genetically engineered food is a plant or meat product that has had its DNA artificially altered in a laboratory by genes from other plants, animals, viruses, or bacteria in order to produce foreign compounds in that food. This type of genetic alteration is not found in nature and is experimental. Many of the foods we currently eat and feed our families (including certain baby formulas and a high percentage of corn, soy, cotton and sugar beets commonly used in processed foods sold in the U.S.), but we don’t know which ones without labeling.
Example: Genetically Modified corn has been engineered in a laboratory to produce pesticides in its own tissue. GMO corn is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency as an Insecticide, but is sold unlabeled. [EPA Pesticides]. Walmart is now selling Monsanto's sweet corn that has been genetically engineered to contain an insecticide, but consumers don't know because it's not labeled.
Are Genetically Engineered Foods Safe? GMOs have not been proven safe, and long-term health studies have not been conducted. A growing body of peer-reviewed studies has linked these foods to allergies, organ toxicity, and other health problems. These studies must be followed up. However, unlike the strict safety evaluations required for the approval of new drugs, the US Food and Drug Administration does not require safety studies for genetically engineered foods. The United Nations/World Health Organization food standards group and the American Medical Association have called for mandatory safety testing of genetically engineered foods -- a standard the U.S. fails to meet.
GMOs Linked to Environmental Problems: Various environmental problems associated with genetic engineering have been well documented, including biodiversity loss, an overall increase in pesticide use, the emergence of super weeds that are threatening millions of acres of farmland, and the unintentional contamination of non-GMO and organic crops.
We Have a Right to Know What's in Our Food: Fifty countries around the world—representing more than 40% of the world’s population---already require GMO labeling, including all of Europe, Japan, India and China. Polls show that more than 90% of Americans want to know if their food is genetically engineered. We are free to choose what we want to eat and feed our children. The free market is supposed to provide consumers with accurate information about products so we can make informed choices.
Who is in Favor of Proposition 37? Prop 37 was initiated by a grassroots organizing effort with the help of thousands of volunteers across the state, the Right to Know campaign gathered nearly one million signatures from California voters within a 10 week period. More than 2,000 organizations – including media outlets, food manufacturers and retailers, leading consumer, environmental, farming, health, faith-based, political and labor groups – have since endorsed Yes on 37: www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements.
Who is Opposed to Proposition 37? Not one human being has made a contribution to the campaign against Prop. 37. Instead, the campaign is funded entirely by giant pesticide and junk food companies with a track record of making false claims about the safety of their products. The “No” campaign’s two largest donors-- Monsanto and DuPont—are the same companies that told us Agent Orange and DDT were safe. Further undermining the No campaign’s credibility is the fact that its biggest funder—Monsanto—produced a series of ads supporting labeling of GMOs in Europe in the 1990s.
A Simple Proposition for California in 2012: The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act is simple: The initiative would simply require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it is produced through genetic engineering, and would not allow these products to be labeled as “natural.” Prop 37 gives companies 18 months to change their labels, and allows for the GMO disclosure to appear wherever they choose on packaging.
No Cost to Consumers or Food Producers: Companies change their labeling all the time, and research shows that Prop. 37 will have no cost impact on consumers or food producers. In a recent study on the economic impact of Proposition 37, Joanna Shepherd Bailey, Ph.D., Professor at Emory University School of Law, concluded that there would be “no increases in prices as a result of the relabeling required.” In Europe, introduction of GMO labeling produced no increase in food costs. David Byrne, former European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection of the European Parliament, stated that when Europe introduced GMO labeling in 1997, "it did not result in increased costs, despite the horrifying (double-digit) prediction of some interests.”
Prop. 37 Doesn’t Ban the Sale of Any Foods: Despite opposition claims that Prop 37 would "ban the sale of thousands of groceries," it would not ban any foods at all. It merely requires that GMO-containing foods be labeled with the phrase “partially produced with genetic engineering” anywhere on the front or back of packages.
Greater Legal Certainty For Businesses: According to an independent legal analysis by James Cooper, JD, PhD, of George Mason University School of Law, Proposition 37 has been narrowly crafted in a way that provides “greater legal certainty” for businesses than other California consumer disclosure laws. It won’t invite frivolous lawsuits. What it will do is help California consumers make more informed choices about the food they eat.
If Proposition 37 passes, it will be a huge step toward the transparency we deserve. This is about our right to know what's in our food and the right to choose for ourselves what we eat and feed our families. These are fundamental American values. Join us in helping us win back our right to know about the genetic engineering of our food system. Vote Yes on 37 in November, join our campaign, share our ad, donate if you can (every little bit helps!).
Together, we can make history this November!
http://www.carighttoknow.org/facts
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)