The battle in California over Proposition 37, which would require labeling of foods containing GMOs, is really heating up. Millions of dollars are already being poured into the opposition campaign, with much of it going to former Big Tobacco shills.
Over at GMO HQ, Monsanto recently posted this missive called "Taking a Stand: Proposition 37, The California Labeling Proposal," in which the biotech giant explains why it is opposing the measure (to the tune of $4.2 million so far).
Even for a corporation not exactly known for its honesty and transparency, this brief webpage is riddled with deception and outright falsehoods about the initiative and its proponents. Here are the 10 most blatant examples:
1) The law "would require a warning label on food products."
No warning label would be required. Rather, the words "partially produced with genetic engineering" or "may be partially produced with genetic engineering" would be required on the back of the package -- similar to what is now required for ingredient or allergen labeling. For whole foods, like the sweet corn coming soon to a Walmart near you, a sign would be posted on the store shelf with the words "genetically engineered." The aim is simply to offer consumers additional information about the contents of the foods they purchase.
2) "The safety and benefits of these ingredients are well established."
Unfortunately, no long-term studies exist on either the safety or benefits of GMO ingredients, so Monsanto has no basis for making such a claim. Indeed, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not even require safety studies of genetically engineered foods. Meanwhile, some independent studies raise questions about links to allergies and other potential health risks.
3) "The American Medical Association just re-affirmed that there is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods."
This statement, while true, is taken out of context and is misleading because the AMA also (for the first time) called for mandatory premarket safety studies of GMOs. As Consumers Union recently noted in its reaction to AMA's announcement, labeling and testing logically go together:
The AMA's stance on mandatory labeling isn't consistent with its support for mandatory pre-market safety assessments. If unexpected adverse health effects, such as an allergic reaction, happen as a result of GE, then labeling could perhaps be the only way to determine that the GE process was linked to the adverse health effect.
4) Food companies "have had the choice" to use GM ingredients.
Choice is a good thing; however, consumers have never had the choice. Prop 37 will give consumers a long-overdue choice about eating genetically engineered food.
5) "FDA says that such labeling would be inherently misleading to consumers."
Of course FDA refuses to require GMO labeling, thanks to Monsanto's arm-twisting that began more than 20 years ago. Food Democracy Now's Dave Murphy explained the FDA decision in May upon its 20-year anniversary, which came as a result of a broader deregulatory push by the first Bush administration:
Twenty years ago this week, then-Vice President Dan Quayle announced the FDA's policy on genetically engineered food as part of his "regulatory relief initiative." As Quayle explained in the 1992 press conference, the American biotechnology industry would reap huge profits "as long as we resist the spread of unnecessary regulations."Dan Quayle's 1992 policy announcement is premised on the notion that genetically engineered crops are "substantially equivalent" to regular crops and thus do not need to be labeled or safety tested. The policy was crafted by Michael Taylor, a former Monsanto lawyer who was hired by the Bush FDA to fill the newly created position of deputy commissioner of policy.
Five years earlier, then-Vice President George H.W. Bush visited a Monsanto lab for a photo op with the developers of Roundup Ready crops. According to a video report of the meeting, when Monsanto executives worried about the approval process for their new crops, Bush laughed and told them, "Call me. We're in the dereg businesses. Maybe we can help."
Call they did. It's typical for corporations to get their policy agenda approved through back-channel lobbying and revolving door appointments and then point to the magical policy outcome as evidence of scientific decision-making.
6) "Consumers have broad food choices today, but could be denied these choices if Prop 37 prevails."
There is no basis in logic that consumers could be denied food choices. Indeed, Proposition 37 actually broadens the meaningful food choices available through greater transparency. Right now, people are eating in the dark.
7) "Interestingly, the main proponents of Proposition 37 are special interest groups and individuals opposed to food biotechnology who are not necessarily engaged in the production of our nation's food supply."
In fact, quite a large number of food producers, farmers and others very much "engaged in the production of our nation's food supply" support the campaign. (See the growing list of endorsements.) Speaking of "special interest groups" wouldn't that label apply to the likes of Monsanto and all the industrial food producers who oppose Proposition 37?
8) "Beneath their right to know slogan is a deceptive marketing campaign aimed at stigmatizing modern food production."
"Modern food production" -- is that Monsanto's latest euphemism for scientifically altering the genetic code of the food supply? In truth, nothing is hidden "beneath" the Right to Know campaign, that's all it's about. But because Monsanto has no good argument for why consumers don't have the right to know how their food is produced, it has to resort to distracting deceptions.
9) "[Proponents] opinions are in stark contrast with leading health associations."
Another look at the long list of Prop 37 endorsements reveal that Monsanto and friends are actually out of step with leading health associations, such as:
Again, logic defies this talking point, especially since all polling indicates a "majority of consumers" want GMO food to be labeled. Indeed, the most recent California poll shows the proposition winning by a 3-to-1 margin. No wonder Monsanto has to resort to such nonsensical talking points.
Follow Michele Simon on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MicheleRSimon
Michele Simon: Big Tobacco Shills Trying to Stop GMO Labeling in California
John Robbins: Which 'Natural' Food Companies Are Fighting the Effort to Label GMOs?
Obviously, at only 2 minutes, we are just scratching the surface but it is a great jumping off point and can help get the the conversation started. We need to create awareness on the issue. Please SHARE!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qMh9jJk4fQ
GMO's are entirely safe and reasonable.
Being against GMO's is about as intelligent as the old men fearing 'tractors' would destroy farming and that fields ought to be plowed by horse.
Also the argument that if GM seeds are so good why wouldn't they want to label them is hilarious. There is no chance at all for a consumer to be mislead about a GM label? If an uninformed gullible person spent 5 minuets reading these comments they would probably be afraid to eat anything ever again.
It's garbage whipped by by superstitious people to scare people away from something that is quite good for them, and good for everyone.
THERE ISN'T A SINGLE STUDY INDICATING THAT GMO'S ARE BAD FOR YOU IN ANY WAY.
NO LABEL NEEDED.
Did you think about that first sentence before your hit the send key?
You're not fooling anybody, you know. You are obviously a plant for the anti-gmo crowd.
But your coda is wonderful!
For a period, if a big enough event happened, non-GMO corn (for example) would skyrocket to 5-10x the cost of GMO corn.
I'm not on the side of not labeling GMO foods. I think it'd be nice to know. However, that could be a good reason why not to label it -- from a consumer standpoint.
That is how the free market works. Labeling GMOs is not just something that is nice to have. It is the foundation of consumer choice. By preventing choice, despite public mandate, the FDA and big-agriculture is willfully subverting the free market system.
The fact that Monsanto is killing off species of natural plant life on this earth should send chills up your spine. Here's the common sense part. If we kill the natural plant life and something goes wrong with this genetically altered plant life where will we be then?
Call me crazy but that doesn't sound like a good thing now does it?
We need to halt production. Funny thing is some of this plant life can not be killed with conventional weed kill. Uh oh. This isn't science fiction this is real life and we are in trouble.
http://monsantoblog.com/2012/08/14/taking-a-stand-proposition-37-the-california-labeling-proposal/
"It is incorrect to say that consumers would be denied choices if prop 37 is passed, in fact the very opposite is true. People have the right to know what is in the food they buy. In fact, contrast to the statement above, the majority of consumers DO want to know if foods contain genetically modified ingredients. Why not let openness and honesty prevail?"
Tried to be non confrontational
Just curious..
BTW - I havent seen any comments on that page yet
Now, all you guys need to do is fill in the "credible" part of this sentence and youll get any label you want!! I wish you the best of luck in this endeavor.
Partial list:
Taylor Farms Retail, Inc. recalls Organic Baby Spinach because it may be contaminated with Salmonella.
FunFresh Foods recalled their World Berries Organic “Cacao Nibs”: E. coli.
Moonstruck Organic Cheese recalled their Tomme d’Or cheeses: Listeria.
Mellace Family Brands Raw Organic Cashews. Salmonella.
Also this year an organic farm was responsible for at least 10 people being diagnosed with Campylobacter infections from raw milk. In 2011 there were nine outbreaks.
In 2011, a salmonella outbreak from Tiny Greens Organic Farm sickened people in 26 states.
Also in 2011 an eColi outbreak in Germany was linked to organic sprouts which killed 50 and hospitalized thousands.
Earlier this month? Organic grape tomatoes recalled. Menno Beachy Certified Organic Grape Tomato.
Now let's see how many illneses, deaths or recalls have happened in the last 16 years of gmo foods. Go ahead, guess. Zero.
Perhaps we should label organic foods? They sound dangerous.
Can you imagine if the Germany eColi outbreak was caused by gmos? These very same advocates would be screaming bloody murder.
This is a perfect example of the same type of anti-scientific denialism that progressive always complain about from conservatives. As a progressive myself, it is quite disappointing to see such uneducated rhetoric. You want to make anti-GMO arguments, go for it, just don't pretend like you have any clue about science.
Genetic modification refers to actual changes in the DNA of a plant; every cell contains that change. it is not the same as selective breeding which is a time honored practice that has not shown any ill effects. There is a distinct difference. You can selectively breed for a larger fruit or a tastier veg; GM crops add traits that do not naturally occur in plants, such as pesticides. If you do not care whether your food contains GMOs, that is fine. You can continue to buy them. But for those of us who want traditionall food without GM, we have the right to know, so that we too can buy what we want to eat
From the actual Norwegian article:
"She stresses, however, that the experiments did not focus primarily on body weight, and that weight gain is only one of the findings.
- Body weight is not a suitable indicator for the effects of genetically modified foods. Increased body weight can come from many things, she points out."
Why are people so easily duped by these clowns?
"If you want to avoid obesity, then avoid eating genetically engineered (GE) corn, corn based products and animals that are fed a diet of GE grain. Scientists in Norway have released results from experimental feeding studies, carried out over a ten year period. The results show a positive link between GE corn and obesity. Animals fed a GE corn diet got fatter quicker and retained the weight compared to animals fed a non-GE grain diet. The studies were performed on rats, mice, pigs and salmon achieving the same results." More >> http://bit.ly/RyXvRD
That's a credible source...