Why We Lost the GMO Labeling Initiatives in CA and WA and How To Win Next Time

I just published a new column in the Huffington Post, click here to read and comment on their pages, about what I view as the failed tactics that have contributed to losing both propositions to label GMO food inn California and Washington. I know that this issue means a lot to many here in the Wacco community, so I thought that I would re-print it here. comments and feedback most welcome!
-Jonathan

Tougher Tactics Desperately Needed to Win War on GMO Food

By Jonathan Greenberg
The Huffington Post
December 6, 2013

As I listened to the ads from the ill-fated campaign to label genetically modified food in Washington, I felt a sickening case of déjà vu. About a year ago, I wrote a controversial article for the Huffington Post, titled “Ten Grassroots Lessons From Monsanto’s Swift Boating of the Prop 37/Label GMO Campaign.” To my disappointment, Washington’s campaign was making the very same communications error that doomed our effort in California in 2012. And it ended the same way: an initial poll showing 90% of the public supporting labeling was reduced nearly in half, to below 49%, and the ballot measure failed.

What I suggested then—and repeat now—is that the decision, by the label GMO campaign managers, to ban all references to food safety and public health, was a lethal error. When up against the better funded, eager-to-deceive Monsanto propaganda machine, it was like entering a gunfight against an assault-rifle equipped enemy while armed with love beads and peace signs.

A New York Times poll released in July showed that some 93% of Americans want labels on genetically modified food, “with most of them worried about the effects on people’s health.” This makes a lot of sense, considering that about 90% of all corn in the United States is grown from seeds genetically altered to contain a pesticide, one that has been proven to remain in our bloodstream long after it is eaten.

Yet in Washington, as in California, the anti-GMO professionals managing the $7.8 million ‘Yes on 522” campaign focused their messaging solely on a consumer’s “right to know” what is in their food. As communications expert Ritch Davidson noted last year, the big problem is, "They're telling us we have a right to know but not why we want to know.”

When I spoke to some of the key organizers behind California’s Right to Know Campaign, they said that their initial “polling showed” that voters do not respond well to “negative” ads. And that talking about health concerns like widely shared consumer worries that genetically modified food might increase the likelihood of cancer, allergies and other illnesses, was negative. Which was why they refused to allow onto the video section of the Yes on Prop 37 website a single one of the hundreds of ‘person on the street’ videos that our volunteer KnowGMO.org effort had collected in California. Most consumers told us that they wanted to label and avoid GM food because of health concerns.

Sadly, the Yes on 522 campaigners in Washington followed California’s losing “right to know” playbook. “Staying positive,” for the Washington Campaign, meant forbidding any mention of food safety and health in any of their ads (like this one here). Or even on their website, where F.A.Q. response #10, wins the Grand Prize for Wimpy Liberal Tactics: in response to their own Frequently Asked Question about why labeling is necessary when “studies that show there are no effects of genetically engineered foods on humans,” the Yes on 522 Campaign would not argue that the only long term study of more than a few months found increased cancer among laboratory mice. Or that the F.D.A. has never studied the impact itself, but instead accepts Monsanto’s studies as gospel. Or that patients prescribed non-GMO diets have seen dramatic recoveries from a number of illnesses. Or that the F.D.A.’s “food safety czar is a former Monsanto executive. Instead, the Washington campaign’s non-answer was, “Initiative 522 is important first step because Washington shoppers should have the right to know what’s in the food they and their families eat.”

Meanwhile, the Monsanto-led No on 522 campaign, with a $22 million war chest made possible by a food industry’s Hall of Shame, took to the airwaves with the same deceptive negative messages that had worked like a charm in California. Despite the fact that what their ads warned of never happened in the many other nations that sensibly require GM food labeling, they argued that labeling would cost consumers hundreds of dollars, create confusion, and hurt farmers and small businesses. So insipid was the Yes on 522 campaign that, like the California campaigners, it again ceded the “public safety” ground to the anti-labeling campaign. Again, just as they had in California, Monsanto and its allies remarkably claimed to be faction standing up for public health. In this slick TV ad for the No on 522 Campaign, a “Registered Pediatric Dietician” expresses grave concern over the impact of “misleading labeling.”

It is worth noting that the most persuasive voices in the struggle to protect our bodies, families, and planet from the potential dangers of genetically modified food are often mothers who make health hazards front and center in their reporting. The tireless food safety blogger and author Robyn O’Brien, who writes the “Inspired Bites” blog for Prevention, regularly ties GMO’s to health issues, such as this report on a major study released in July. At the more radical end of the activist spectrum is Orange County mom Zen Honeycutt, who started “Moms Across America, which organized 172 anti-GMO parades in 44 states. Her latest blog post a few days ago expressed outrage, not restraint, over the health implications of GM food: “Our Sick Children are Collateral Damage in War for Power.”

The self-defeating mythology among professional activists against “going negative” is made worse by a refusal, on the part of many activists, to criticize “people who worked so hard” (and spent so much donated money) on the campaigns. The desire to provide a positive spin on the results of the two failed initiatives to label GMO’s ignores the need to learn from the mistake of avoiding consumer health concerns, presumably because organizers want to encourage activists to “stick with it” next time.

Next time is already underway in both Colorado and Oregon, where groups are working to get labeling measures on state ballots. It is not reassuring to note that they are calling their efforts Oregon Right to Know, and Right to Know Colorado.

It’s time to shift tactics and follow the “lead with the negative” example that Monsanto’s much better paid experts have set. Perhaps for the next election season, campaign organizers will wake up to reality. If they could re-orient the campaigns to create “Right to Safe Food”-focused initiatives, fewer voters would be swayed by Monsanto-funded deceptive ads.

Like millions of parents and activists who oppose genetically modified food, I feel that the stakes are very high in this battle the safety of our world’s food supply. If we are to win it, we are going to have to fight tougher. And smarter.

Monsanto boosters have been criticizing my new Huffington Post column, saying that I am anti-science because I do not feel that GMO food is safe and am concerned about my health and my children's. They also suggest that the HuffPost ought not publish these opinions, and that I am like a climate change denier because I deny the proven science of how safe GM food is. If anyone would like to add their voices to this debate, you can find it on HuffPost here:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonat...b_4400973.html
Thanks,
Jonathan

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Peacetown Jonathan:

I just published a new column in the Huffington Post, click here to read and comment on their pages, about what I view as the failed tactics that have contributed to losing both propositions to label GMO food inn California and Washington. I know that this issue means a lot to many here in the Wacco community, so I thought that I would re-print it here. comments and feedback most welcome!
-Jonathan

Tougher Tactics Desperately Needed to Win War on GMO Food...

Next time is already underway in both Colorado and Oregon, where groups are working to get labeling measures on state ballots. It is not reassuring to note that they are calling their efforts Oregon Right to Know, and Right to Know Colorado.

It’s time to shift tactics and follow the “lead with the negative” example that Monsanto’s much better paid experts have set. Perhaps for the next election season, campaign organizers will wake up to reality. If they could re-orient the campaigns to create “Right to Safe Food”-focused initiatives, fewer voters would be swayed by Monsanto-funded deceptive ads.

Like millions of parents and activists who oppose genetically modified food, I feel that the stakes are very high in this battle the safety of our world’s food supply. If we are to win it, we are going to have to fight tougher. And smarter.

---

Jonathan ~ Thanks for sharing your to-the-point article. Please send it to the campaign directors in OR and CO....and follow-up to see if they grasp your points.

I've read other articles critiquing Prop37's failures:

https://www.earthisland.org/journal/...ll_half_baked/

https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/.../#.UqX6Co2ydrw

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/krist...b_2093912.html

As a 'from-the-beginning' LabelGMOs activist I wondered myself as a Prop37 volunteer why we were being so wimpy?!! This is a high-stakes health and money issue and we should have given it our all.

Also wondered if there might be folks in key positions weakening our campaign strategies since most of us were 'novices' and volunteers deferring to 'the experts.' Does that sound paranoid?

Was VERY suspect of the funds being raised nationally in support of both these campaigns....were ALL those funds raised donated to their earmarked campaigns? Where is the accountability?

Personally, speaking I don't think focusing on legislation is the way to go. It's nutrition & health education and consumer empowerment to choose the best for ourselves and our families. There's no way we can out spend BigAg and GMA. And we don't have their lobbying power influence on our wishy-washy legislators. But we can chip away at their profits daily with our personal grocery shopping choices.

As the Santa Rosa Volunteer Coordinator of the Yes on Prop 37 campaign, I couldn't agree with Jonathon more! We definitely need to change tactics, but I agree with Mudwoman in that trying to get this passed legislatively is not the way to go. In my opinion, after watching California's and Washington's initiatives lose because we were outspent 10 to 1 and no one would stand up and speak the truth, we will always be outspent by Monsatan and the Grocery Manufacturers Association. And we will lose every time. The system is rigged against us. All the more reason to go outside of it and educate and boycott. The ONLY thing Big Ag and the pesticide companies care about is money, so the only way to stop them is to cut into their obscene profits.

The same folks who ran the Yes on 522 campaign were the same ones who ran the Yes on Prop 37 campaign. They did not learn from their mistakes in California. Many wonder, rightly so, if they were actually working for Monsanto. I have no idea about that, but it crossed my mind often last year. According to Pamm Larry, they did the best they knew how and were unwilling to "go negative." Just like Jonathon said.

I do understand their reluctance to do so out of their fear of being targeted and sued by Monsanto. Over the years, Monsanto and the rest of the "Big Six" (Monsanto, Dow, Dupont, Syngenta, Bayer, and BASF) have ruthlessly threatened, harassed, sued, and attempted to intimidate anyone who stood up to them, including over 240 farmers, Dr. Shiva, Jeffery Smith, Dr. Huber, etc. Look how quickly Dr. Oz caved to them after doing ONE show on GMOs. And his wife narrated "Genetic Roulette!" So, you know that Dr. Oz actually believes that GMOs are dangerous; he was just too frightened to continue to say so on his national platform. While I seldom agree with his advice (too conservatively allopathic), it still saddened me to see him bought out.

The campaign is ongoing; the organization is still operating in Sonoma County and has allied with Sonoma County Occupy, but the organization really needs lots more people to work on educating the public; there should be folks in every grocery store in the county on a regular basis handing out info and answering questions. There is talk of doing another initiative, either in 2014 or 2016. Personally, I feel that it's a huge waste of time and precious money and people's efforts to try to push this through again.

As Jeffery Smith has said repeatedly; all it would take is for FIVE PERCENT of the Yes voters on Prop 37 to stop buying foods with GMOs in them and we would reach a tipping point and seriously affect the Big 6's profits. Enough to make a clear difference. We need to help people learn how to find GMOs in their food (nonGMOshoppingguide.com) and give them alternatives to the foods they have come to love and have eaten for most of their lives. We also need to get the truth out about the studies that have been done (Seralini, Swanson, et. al.) and the ones that are presently being done so people know the truth- that GMO foods are dangerous and have negatively impacted everyone's health, including that of the planet.

We also need to recognize that this is part of the big shift that is happening right now and everything is connected- the fluoride issue, GMOs, fracking, government corruption, climate change, war, health problems, pollution, over-crowded prisons, education funding cuts, the divisiveness in our country, income inequality, the lack of civility in public life, the destruction of the commons, the bank bail-outs, habitat destruction, extreme poverty, starvation......you get the picture.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Mudwoman:

Jonathan ~ Thanks for sharing your to-the-point article. Please send it to the campaign directors in OR and CO....and follow-up to see if they grasp your points.

I've read other articles critiquing Prop37's failures:

https://www.earthisland.org/journal/...ll_half_baked/

https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/.../#.UqX6Co2ydrw

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/krist...b_2093912.html

As a 'from-the-beginning' LabelGMOs activist I wondered myself as a Prop37 volunteer why we were being so wimpy?!! This is a high-stakes health and money issue and we should have given it our all.

Also wondered if there might be folks in key positions weakening our campaign strategies since most of us were 'novices' and volunteers deferring to 'the experts.' Does that sound paranoid?

Was VERY suspect of the funds being raised nationally in support of both these campaigns....were ALL those funds raised donated to their earmarked campaigns? Where is the accountability?

Personally, speaking I don't think focusing on legislation is the way to go. It's nutrition & health education and consumer empowerment to choose the best for ourselves and our families. There's no way we can out spend BigAg and GMA. And we don't have their lobbying power influence on our wishy-washy legislators. But we can chip away at their profits daily with our personal grocery shopping choices.

---

So TRUE DreadTori ~ We ARE all connected. The challenges you list are connected. And our individual decisions, choices, actions and inactions have rippling effects on ourselves, our families, our communities, our nation, and the world.

Thanks for your excellent Santa Rosa Volunteer Coordination for the Yes on Prop 37 campaign. And for these astute comments.

With appreciation, admiration, and gratitude,
Mudwoman

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by DreadTori:

As the Santa Rosa Volunteer Coordinator of the Yes on Prop 37 campaign, I couldn't agree with Jonathon more! We definitely need to change tactics, but I agree with Mudwoman in that trying to get this passed legislatively is not the way to go. In my opinion, ...

---

Absolutely, Dreadtori and Mudwoman: we are all connected, and so are these issues. It boils down to one big struggle that we find ourselves in: Humanity vs. The Corporation.

They've been winning for quite some time. If we are to survive, as a people, as a species, we are going to have to rise together and stand and do the hard work to transform a system that currently works for their profits, against our public interest, and our common humanity. Peaceful evolution now! :heart:

Jonathan ~ As you well know, Monsanto's strategy is to immediately comment publicly to shed doubts on "our" authors' points of view. Science without sense and ethics is not good science, but nonsense. I will attempt to post a supportive, sane pro-consumer, pro-nature, pro-health comment tomorrow.

Talk about a revealing segue "You're a climate change denier?!!" Well, guess what? As I'm sure you know, Monsanto just bought the Climate Corporation (based in San Francisco) for $930 million dollars. There are many, many articles on this with Monsanto's 'feel good' PR article right at the top of a Google search.

Here's one from the New Yorker, full of Monsanto-speak: https://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...-monsanto.html

And SFGate: https://www.sfgate.com/business/bott...on-4975474.php

Please note, Monsanto, the Climate Corp's too-young-to-know-better, 33-year-old CEO, and both these publications reflect Monsanto's proPR machine is in high gear. Very disturbing.

If you research climate control (which has been going on globally for decades with no regulatory oversight), our atmosphere is being sprayed with nano particles of aluminum and other toxic metals. Another piece in the puzzle is Monsanto patented aluminum resistant GE seeds in 2009. Here's one article: https://amazingdiscoveries.org/09.01...esistant-seeds

Personally, I don't like or trust the picture taking shape from these puzzle pieces.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Peacetown Jonathan:

Monsanto boosters have been criticizing my new Huffington Post column, saying that I am anti-science because I do not feel that GMO food is safe and am concerned about my health and my children's. They also suggest that the HuffPost ought not publish these opinions, and that I am like a climate change denier because I deny the proven science of how safe GM food is. If anyone would like to add their voices to this debate, you can find it on HuffPost here:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonat...b_4400973.html
Thanks,
Jonathan

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Mudwoman:

Jonathan ~ As you well know, Monsanto's strategy is to immediately comment publicly to shed doubts on "our" authors' points of view. Science without sense and ethics is not good science, but nonsense.

---

no, it's still "science". Evil maybe, but that doesn't seem to be your assertion.

Quote:

---

Please note, Monsanto, the Climate Corp's too-young-to-know-better, 33-year-old CEO, and both these publications reflect Monsanto's proPR machine is in high gear. Very disturbing.

---

ageism is disturbing too.

Quote:

---

If you research climate control (which has been going on globally for decades with no regulatory oversight), our atmosphere is being sprayed with nano particles of aluminum and other toxic metals.

---

really, you want to bring chemtrails into this?

"Monsanto" != "GMO". [ "!+" means "does not equal" - Barry] There are lots of compelling reasons to insist on controlling Monsanto's activities. And I can't support anti-labeling movements on general principles; just because people are afraid of a food because of what's printed on the label doesn't mean it's legitimate to withhold knowledge. The anti-GMO movement might get some more allies from those of us who don't share the whole basketload of fears they have about a very promising technology. If "food" was a new concept, people would have a right to fear it too. If it's not handled correctly, it can kill you, no matter how pure and natural its origins. It's a lot easier to find people who are harmed by pathogens introduced via poop-based fertilizers than it is to find any who are somehow affected because genes from one organism they might eat on its own show up in another. It might violate Kosher or halal, but that again isn't the issue.

Just because one food source is an admirable local farmer and the other is an evil international corporation doesn't mean foods produced by both don't have risks as well as benefits. One's just more scary.

i would guess that 5%+ of gmo label voters do try to avoid them. and this is about 2% of food shoppers. it is very discouraging to be shot down in the big show of electoral politics when it is so difficult to even make a play. but there is no shame in being defeated barely after being outspent 10 to 1. education is even more possible when the entrenched, metadominent paradigm of positivist food engineering corporate spinmeisters, who have both politicians and scientists in a money headlock, throw a blizzard of lies at activist truthtellers. the right to know what we eat has a depth beyond legality and mind, into the realm of body and soul.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by DreadTori:

As the Santa Rosa Volunteer Coordinator of the Yes on Prop 37 campaign, I couldn't agree with Jonathon more! We definitely need to change tactics, but I agree with Mudwoman in that trying to get this passed legislatively is not the way to go. In my opinion, after watching California's and Washington's initiatives lose because we were outspent 10 to 1 and no one would stand up and speak the truth, we will always be outspent by Monsatan and the Grocery Manufacturers Association. And we will lose every time. The system is rigged against us. All the more reason to go outside of it and educate and boycott. The ONLY thing Big Ag and the pesticide companies care about is money, so the only way to stop them is to cut into their obscene profits.
...

---

Just a thought...
If state after state continues to bring up GMO labeling initiatives and the giant Monsanto Corp. keeps outspending 10 to 1, won't that slowly bleed them to death? They can't keep this up forever!

Many older folks on fixed incomes were persuaded to vote against labeling because of the scary ads about the price of food going up if it passed. We need to figure out ways to target older folks with the truth.

Tom

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tomcat:

Just a thought...
If state after state continues to bring up GMO labeling initiatives and the giant Monsanto Corp. keeps outspending 10 to 1, won't that slowly bleed them to death? They can't keep this up forever!

Many older folks on fixed incomes were persuaded to vote against labeling because of the scary ads about the price of food going up if it passed. We need to figure out ways to target older folks with the truth.

---

To Tom- oh yes they CAN "keep this up forever."

Unfortunately, Monsanto and the rest of the 'Big 6" bring in BILLIONS every year; they can easily outspend any labeling campaign "forever." However, I do think that these increased expenditures on their part have alerted them to the vast majority of people in this country who are against what they do. Instead of pausing and doing some soul searching, the people who run these companies have decided that the best way forward for them is to try and change the laws (Monsanto Protection amendment in the farm bill, TPP) in their favor so that no one can ever sue them for any proven harm from the substances they create in the lab. This is the main reason they do not want labeling-it would provide the opportunity to prove that GMOs are harmful. Right now, without labeling, they can say it's from anything-your lifestyle choices, for instance, throwing the responsibility right back onto the victims. Clever, aren't they?

This why we need to continue to fight them by exposing their nefarious tactics and loudly, but intelligently opposing them at every opportunity. We need to stay on top of our local, state, and national reps in government, constantly pushing them to wake up and stay beholden to US, the people, and not to the corporations and uber rich people. Of course, we need to support Move to Amend so that we can overturn the Citizens United decision and the anti-corruption organizations to get all money out of politics.

The second point you make, Tom, is a really good one-"seniors voted against it because of scary ads" saying their food bills were going to go up by as much as $400 a year. We DO need to target older folks, but we also need to understand that many elders spend hours everyday watching TV; they are probably the most brainwashed by the crap on television. And those anti-labeling ads were not only scary, they were very slick and done extremely well. Full of subliminal messages, authority figures in white lab coats with lots of initials behind their names, soft sunshiny lighting, just like all those feel-good food and drug ads; they sounded ever so reasonable. Seniors trust authority figures; this is the generation that came home from WWII, went to school on the GI bill, desperately wanted to "belong" to their communities and the country again, and became the most conformist as well. They think doctors are gods and would never lie to them. They have had the longest exposure to TV's insidious influence.

What I saw repeatedly was that people would listen to us, when we were campaigning for Prop 37, be horrified by what they learned from us, take oodles of handouts and fact sheets, but we weren't there in their homes day after day when the anti ads were bombarding them with lies and confusing information. The anti folks, who are part of the right wing, learned a long time ago that a lie repeated often enough magically turns into "truth." They also learned that if they sow enough confusion, folks will vote against it; this has been seen over and over again in American politics. Confused voters vote against the initiatives and candidates that they don't understand or about which they have serious doubts.

Sadly, many in this "greatest generation" do not see the value in doing research on initiatives or candidates; they TRUST authority figures and the government. Even though mainstream media tries to paint them as angry at the government, the opposite is true for the majority of them (remember that nearly all of them are on Medicare & Social Security, went to school on the government's dime, used special GI mortgages to buy their homes, etc).

Also, this is the generation that doesn't see a link between what they ingest and their health problems; they've been indoctrinated with the idea that the doctor will "fix" them with pharmaceuticals and surgery. Most do not understand that they are primarily responsible for the state of their own health. Along with that, they are so far removed from the natural world (which is the "real world," not the human/business world) that they feel absolutely no responsibility towards the Earth. And, make no mistake, GMOs are damaging the Earth right along with harming us.

Education and major boycotting is what I am supporting along with guerrilla tactics, which I won't reveal here. I do know plenty of activists who are doing all kinds of subversive, but effective things to get the word out to as many people as possible about the dangers of GMOs. Personally, I talk to people in the grocery store, at the movies, standing in line anywhere, about GMOs; I wear a button and a wrist band that often sparks questions and comments, I hand out nonGMOshoppingguides, which have a code to get the app for smartphones. I'm well-educated on this subject and very gregarious and feel comfortable talking to anyone. More people who are like me need to do this. Those who are more introverted can do other things- write blogs, comment online about articles, support organizations with their dollars(OCA, IRT, Cornucopia, Food & Water Watch, etc), get involved with creating organic community gardens in your own neighborhoods, the list goes on and on. The most important thing is to DO SOMETHING.

As I said before, in a previous post on this topic, the ONLY thing the Big 6 cares about is MONEY- obscene amounts of money. Please remember that these companies are run by PEOPLE; people who have lost their humanity, are most likely sociopathic or psychopathic (they certainly behave like that). They live in a bubble surrounded by people who think just like them, who support exploitation of the Earth's resources and poor and working peoples, for their benefit. I don't believe for a minute that these people's minds can be changed in any serious way and I'm a firm believer in change. What I do know in the deepest part of my heart, is that there are more of us than there are of them and we can make choices everyday that do not support their death culture.

I don't agree that GMOs may be a "promising technology" as you say. Here's why- we needed to assess the REAL cost of these before introducing them into the environment. (That's called the 'Precautionary Principle"- most of the rest of the civilized world practices this) That did not happen and we now have a irreversible problem on our hands. GMOs are in the environment, will be forever, and have already altered the Earth. Right now, it looks pretty dire. Many of the GMO seeds are terminator ones- meaning they cannot reproduce, so farmers must buy seeds every year from the companies that own them- the price goes up year after year, eventually bankrupting the farmer, and viola! here comes the savior Monsanto to give that farmer pennies on the dollar for their farm land, which is then planted with even more GMO seeds and literally drenched with poisons. That KILLS the soil. And us, eventually. What happens when ALL the seeds are terminator ones?

In case you don't know this- soil is alive, full of micro-organisms that keep that dirt viable and perfect for growing food. It's been that way for MILLIONS of years. In 40 years, we've managed to kill off so much of those precious organisms that our conventionally grown food plants have lost over 50% of their nutrition.
On top of that, we humans have ingested so many pesticide and fertilizer chemicals that the rates of a large number of diseases has skyrocketed.

Your assertion that "It's a lot easier to find people who are harmed by pathogens introduced via poop-based fertilizers than it is to find any who are somehow affected because genes from one organism they might eat on its own show up in another" just doesn't hold water. First, "genes from one organism they might eat on it's own" shows me that you haven't done enough research on what's actually being inserted into GMO seeds. Most people are not willing to eat bacterias and pathogens that cause disease in humans, nor are they willing to ingest ever more chemicals from the pesticides inserted into the seeds. "Poop based fertilizers" have been used for thousands of years with very little harm to us, as long as it's aged and composted, which destroys the harmful pathogens, and as long as good cleaning & care happens.

On top of this, as long as GMO seeds and foods are not labeled, how the heck can you make that statement?
Do you know of studies where these two methods were compared? Double blind, controlled scientific studies? Only in Europe do independent studies get done on the effect of GMOs and those are too few (The Big 6 companies refuse to allow their seeds to be researched by anyone other than their own scientists and when even THOSE scientists come up with damning evidence, those results are NEVER released to the public). The studies that have proven that they are harmful are immediately discounted, as Mudwoman mentioned in one of her posts, by Monsanto, et. al.

The Big 6 then do everything they possibly can to get that study buried or retracted. They get someone on the board of whatever publication had the audacity to print the truth and retract the scientific article (this just happened around the Seralini study). Or they sue to shut people up. Or they try to intimidate truth-tellers (ask Jeffery Smith, Dr. Shiva, Dr. Huber, etc. how many times their lives have been threatened). One of the most damning things they have done is convince presidents to appoint them to run the FDA, USDA, EPA so that they can push their harmful agendas from an official platform.

They pay off people all the time to keep their mouths shut- as I said in a previous post, look what they did to TV's Dr. Oz. The look on that man's face when he announced that organic produce was only for the elites and that there was no significant difference between GMOs and organic produce, was so telling- he looked sick at heart and ashamed of himself. I'm sure that his show was threatened with cancellation and his livlihood put in dnager. His own wife narrated last year's powerful film "Genetic Roulette," which tells the horrible truth about GMOs. How truly sad and misguided the people of the Big 6 are.

And, lastly, yes, bring chemtrails into it. Like I said on a previous post on this thread- it's ALL connected- GMOs, fluoridation of water, the decimation of the Earth's forests, bank bail-outs, pollution of our air, water, and food, war, fracking, oil drilling, the lack of civility in society, the loss of critical habitat and keystone species like wolves, polar bears, etc, our exploding prison population, the defunding of education, subprime mortgages and home foreclosures, the massive numbers of homeless, uninsured, and low-wage workers....the list goes on and on.

And, please don't call me, or Mudwoman, or any of us who have eyes to see and brains to think, conspiracy theorists; that's just a way to shove what's happening under the rug and shut us up so the powerful can continue to exploit the planet and human beings into death. WAKE UP!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

no, it's still "science". Evil maybe, but that doesn't seem to be your assertion.ageism is disturbing too.really, you want to bring chemtrails into this?

"Monsanto" != "GMO". [ "!+" means "does not equal" - Barry] There are lots of compelling reasons to insist on controlling Monsanto's activities. And I can't support anti-labeling movements on general principles; just because people are afraid of a food because of what's printed on the label doesn't mean it's legitimate to withhold knowledge. The anti-GMO movement might get some more allies from those of us who don't share the whole basketload of fears they have about a very promising technology. If "food" was a new concept, people would have a right to fear it too. If it's not handled correctly, it can kill you, no matter how pure and natural its origins. It's a lot easier to find people who are harmed by pathogens introduced via poop-based fertilizers than it is to find any who are somehow affected because genes from one organism they might eat on its own show up in another. It might violate Kosher or halal, but that again isn't the issue.

Just because one food source is an admirable local farmer and the other is an evil international corporation doesn't mean foods produced by both don't have risks as well as benefits. One's just more scary.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by DreadTori:

I don't agree that GMOs may be a "promising technology" as you say. Here's why- we needed to assess the REAL cost of these before introducing them into the environment.....

In case you don't know this- soil is alive, full of micro-organisms that keep that dirt viable and perfect for growing food..

---

no kidding. I had no idea.

you're conflating Monsanto with GMO again. And ignoring my point. If you condemn GMO as a concept, rather than condemning the industry for bad behavior, you attack the problem from the wrong direction AND make it less likely you'll get the results you want. Your examples all center on specific actions of companies that clearly need restraint. None are inherent in GMO as a concept.

Quote:

---

And, please don't call me, or Mudwoman, or any of us who have eyes to see and brains to think, conspiracy theorists; that's just a way to shove what's happening under the rug and shut us up so the powerful can continue to exploit the planet and human beings into death. WAKE UP!

---

don't put words in my mouth, either. Because the claim of nanoparticle spraying is so closely associated with conspiracy theorists, I questioned whether it was deliberate. Maybe it's because I'm without eyes or a brain, made worse by being so thoroughly asleep, but I just don't accept that your conclusions about GMOs in general naturally follow from your issues with the corporations who are currently exploiting the technology. I think the correct tack to take is to challenge the laws that Monsanto et al use to push their products into the ag community. That's where the real problem lies, and where more people are directly harmed.

ok, after a short nap, I'll follow up a bit on Barry's suggestion. Why are GMOs promising? I gotta say, I think it's self evident. The harder question is whether GMOs are too dangerous to pursue.
But to give it a direct answer: There is no such thing as the perfect life form. If you can find a heritable characteristic on one organism that is generally beneficial, you have a candidate modification - if the genes of another organism were modified to introduce that characteristic to that individual, bingo! QED.

The acronym now means a bit more than its simple English expansion; it's generally agreed that it refers to organisms that descend from naturally-occurring life forms which have had inheritable genes deliberately inserted. So normal breeding processes don't fit the term, nor do genetic changes due to viral infections or other fundamentally biological processes. Most people may not know it, but there are many ways for you to carry genes that didn't come from your mother or father. But many people aren't particularly interested in those details anyway. They're not focused on the biology; they care more about who's doing it and the motives behind it.

There are a lot of reasons to be careful with development of GMOs. I'm reminded of a probably apocryphal story, (sounds like a Feynman one..) in which one of the nuclear physicists was asked if the experiments in the collider might result in a tiny black whole that would eat the earth - and the answer was "we don't think so". As our own species has proved, biological creatures have the capability of uncontrolled growth. So the critters made with GMO technology are indeed more dangerous than, say, non-breeding robots, because they replicate and spread better. But so are critters that are bred by humans, or that arise randomly (H5N7? AIDS?).

For some, the potential danger, coupled with the association of GMO research with reviled capitalistic corporations, is all they need to resist any and all use of the technology. Those with a warm & fuzzy urban-centric vision of nature somehow seem less concerned with naturally-arising dangerous organisms. Personally I fear the rising power of fear in our world. We need someone to come up with a rephrasing of Franklin's "He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither" . It's not a question of what we deserve, and it's not only freedom we give up - but searching endlessly for safety is futile.

Hey, Podfish, I wasn't just replying to you; I was writing for anyone who wanders into this thread. You'd be surprised at how many people don't know that soil is alive. I apologize if I came off snarkily responding to you. I'm not perfect and I do get snarky when I feel frustrated. Because I had endocrine, gastro-intestinal, and adrenal issues, which disappeared after I moved GMOs out of my diet, I'm quite passionate about them.

I get where you're coming from thinking that I'm conflating GMOs with Monsanto. I'm well aware that there are many groups who are doing all kinds of research into genetically modifying organisms. Some are for food, some for drugs, some for helping treat spinal cord injuries, auto-immune diseases, neurological conditions, congenital defects, and then there's the use in manufacturing and nano-technology. etc. There may be safe uses for them, but that needs to be proved BEFORE they are released into the outside world.

Personally, I am concerned with food. That's where the majority of people are affected. Monsanto is the company that owns the most patented GMO seeds, which is why the LabelGMO movement focuses on them. Plus they have gone on record saying that their stated goal is to own all seeds on the planet, genetically modify them, and then they can control the world food supply. They're doing it for the profits they could make, but we all know that it will ultimately mean that some people will starve because they can't afford to buy seeds or the food that comes from those altered plants. We're already allowing that to happen (1.5 BILLION people with major food insecurity, over 40,000 die every day from starvation, most are children); I don't think increasing the numbers of starving humans is the way to go.

Many of the genetic modification that is being done for the other reasons is being done in very controlled indoor environments. All kinds of precautions are used to keep those modifications from escaping out into our environment. Unfortunately, that has NOT been the case with food. I'm still very concerned about all genetic modification because it attempts to change what has been in place for millions of years. And without thinking the ramifications through, which, in my opinion, is the big danger. So, I'm not so much condemning genetic modification as much as I'm saying we need to slow down, think this through, do thorough experimentation for years in extremely controlled environments before we use and expose them in the natural world. (Again, the Precautionary Principle)

My last comment, in the previous posting from which you quote, about " don't call me a conspiracy theorist" was more prophylactic than responsive. It seems like every time any of us expresses concern about any of those issues I mentioned, someone comes on and accuses us of being tin-foil hat wearing fruitcakes. And, in this day and age, that's all it takes to get marginalized or dismissed. As far as chemtrails go, I don't know for sure what they are, but they concern me.

As far as trying to challenge the laws that allow Monsanto to flood the world with GMOs, I'm totally supportive of that. The problem is, our government reps have their hands deep in the pockets of companies like Monsanto, which makes those challenges even harder. They are the ones who make and change laws and they're not going to do it if that's where their election campaign money comes from.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

no kidding. I had no idea....

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

The harder question is whether GMOs are too dangerous to pursue....

---

Yes, you are correct that the harder question is whether GMOs are too dangerous to pursue. Too bad the people who have already pursued them didn't even attempt to evaluate that.

I think the story you mention is one of Feynman's; I'm pretty sure I saw him tell it in a video I saw. I LOVE science, but sometimes we humans are really stupid in our relentless pursuit of control.

Who has a "warm & fuzzy, urban-centric vision of Nature?" Not me-I spent most of my childhood surrounded by corn and soybean farms, my grandmothers grew all their own food, raised their own livestock. I spent summers on those farms, working. My grandmothers DID have a relationship with the dirt and the seeds they sowed, the plants they cared for, and then harvested to feed their families. They had deep respect for the wisdom of the Earth and if you asked them where they got all their knowledge, they'd tell you that they learned a lot from the dirt and the plants. They also had a deep respect for all that could go wrong- those "naturally arising dangers." I saw how drought and insects and rodents could devastate fields and how one tornado, one flood, one late or early frost could ruin an entire year's crop. I have absolutely no doubt that, if they were alive today, they would be appalled at the kind of genetic modification going on and would be dead set against it. One of my grandmother's favorite sayings was "just coz you can do something doesn't mean you should."

I know a lot of down-to-earth farmers both here and in the Midwest (who care deeply about those "details of biology") that don't only care about who's doing GE and the motives behind it. They've had to deal with Monsanto, Dupont, Dow, BASF trying to convince them that using GMOs would double their yields, reduce their fertilizer and pesticide use and therefore costs, and help feed the "starving masses." I know a whole slew of guys who get out their shotguns when the reps from those companies come calling. A lot of them have to inspect their fields every day for evidence of cross contamination from BigAg GMO fields nearby, knowing that if they don't find them, and one of those reps does, the farmer will be in for a suit that will probably bankrupt him and he'll lose his land. All of them know farmers who that happened to. The farmers I know in the Midwest have been on their land for 4-5 generations; the last thing they want is to lose their land.

On a last note, I agree with you about the rising power of fear in the world. Searching for safety and security is futile; it's an illusion that we can ever be perfectly safe. I did hear a program the other day about fear, probably on NPR or KPFA. The scientist who was being interviewed said that we're basically wired to move into fear whenever something unfamiliar comes into view. "The other" is a potential danger and we unconsciously and automatically react with a surge of cortisol. He explained that we can never really "get over" that biological response; it's going to happen whether we want it to or not; we have no control over it. But, and this is an important piece- fear is also a valuable indicator for us, especially if we take the time to discern what the object of our fear really is, explore it thoroughly, as safely as possible. Like i said above, I LOVE science, but it needs to be tempered with risk assessment; something that has not been done with GMO seeds.

Senator Feinstein seeks GMO Labeling !

In a tiny article on page two of the Business section under Agriculture in the Sunday PD, she urges President Obama to require labeling for foods that contain GMO's.

Well, Finally!

This should have been Front Page News, IMHO.
Perhaps if she had called this out loudly before the California and Washington votes things might have come out differently.

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/articl...ness/131229926

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by PressDemocrat:

In a Dec. 19 letter, Feinstein maintained that consumers have the right to know whether their food contains GMOs.“Your administration should re-evaluate the Food and Drug Administration’s outdated policy that genetically engineered food does not need to disclose this fact on required labels,” Feinstein wrote.

---

Tom

Slow your roll, Tomcat! :wink:

Unfortunately, Feinstein and a group of senators, including Elizabeth Warren, are calling for a federal GMO labeling law, but guess who will get to decide what that law says? If you guessed the FDA, which is basically owned by Monsanto and the rest of the Big 6, you're right. Organic Consumers Association has written extensively about this and there have been petitions asking these senators to be careful. Monsanto, et. al. would like nothing more than to have the last say about what gets labeled and how.

And, personally, there is no way I would trust Diane Feinstein to get this right, unless it meant mega bucks for her and her husband.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tomcat:

Senator Feinstein seeks GMO Labeling !
In a tiny article on page two of the Business section under Agriculture in the Sunday PD, she urges President Obama to require labeling for foods that contain GMO's.

Well, Finally!

This should have been Front Page News, IMHO.
Perhaps if she had called this out loudly before the California and Washington votes things might have come out differently.

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/articl...ness/131229926

---

DreadTori,

Excuse me??? Not sure exactly what "Roll" you want me to "Slow". :hmmm:

This thread is about "Why we lost the GMO Labeling initiatives in CA and WA and how to win next time".
Having had the support of Feinstein for that vote may have made the difference and might help next time around.

I fully understand how our federal government works with the big money Corps, but I am just very happy to hear anybody connected with the federal and/or local governments come out in support of GMO Labeling.

The main point of my post was that this news was buried deep in the PD business section and I wanted to make sure that people knew about it, as I almost missed it myself.

So, naw, I don't think I'll "Slow my Roll" anytime soon. :wink:

Tom

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by DreadTori:

Slow your roll, Tomcat! :wink:

Unfortunately, Feinstein and a group of senators, including Elizabeth Warren, are calling for a federal GMO labeling law, but guess who will get to decide what that law says? If you guessed the FDA, which is basically owned by Monsanto and the rest of the Big 6, you're right. Organic Consumers Association has written extensively about this and there have been petitions asking these senators to be careful. Monsanto, et. al. would like nothing more than to have the last say about what gets labeled and how.

And, personally, there is no way I would trust Diane Feinstein to get this right, unless it meant mega bucks for her and her husband.

---

As the Santa Rosa volunteer coordinator for the Prop 37 campaign and the ongoing Sonoma County GMO Labeling campaign, I've posted on this subject quite a few times over the last three years. Many of us here in California, were very involved with the folks in Washington state earlier this year when they tried to pass a labeling law. Unfortunately, the same folks who ran our campaign here ran the Washington one and they made exactly the same mistakes.

Nearly all of us realized that no matter how much education we do, no matter who supports us, whether that's celebrities, Congresspeople, or local leaders, it just doesn't stand up to the Big 6's relentless PR campaign before an election. They have BILLIONS to spend to confuse voters and they know that those voters vote "no." These last two campaigns convinced me once and for all that the system is completely rigged. Whoever has the big money and is willing to lie, obfuscate, and manipulate will win.

All of us who have put our hearts and souls into getting GMO foods labeled know this. We met with Pamm Larry a few weeks after the election last year and she was heartbroken that Prop 37 didn't pass. All of us were angry and sad, but unwilling to give up. Within a few months after the election, a group of senators came together and decided to push for a federal labeling law. At first, I was excited about it too, but when I looked closer, what I saw was that they were pushing to have the FDA decide what would be in the law. There has been a concerted effort to educate these senators about the FDA, which has been controlled and run by previous Monsanto executives and attorneys for over 20 years. The Organic Consumers Association has spearheaded this effort, which, unfortunately, doesn't seem to be having much effect on the senators. They still trust the FDA; we do not.

It's really important that the FDA NOT be involved in creating rules about GMO foods; it's like the proverbial fox guarding the hen house. This is why I am not impressed with Feinstein getting on board with this attempt to federally label. I am also not impressed with the PD's publishing this. They swallowed all of Monsanto's lies about Prop 37 and then editorialized all of it, spewing it out to Sonoma County last year. Fortunately, most of us knew they were just a mouthpiece for the Big 6 and Prop 37 passed here.

THAT'S why I'm not impressed, Tomcat. I know that it looks like a step in the right direction, but it's false.

On another note, I just received the following this morning:

Please join the call to action from California State Grange and our new statewide coalition, Californians For GE Labeling, seeking both CA State Senate and Assemblymember authors for a 2014 CALIFORNIA State GE Food Labeling Bill.

Suit back up, California, GAME ON!

MARK YOUR CALENDARS – JOIN US! RALLY & PRESS CONFERENCE SEEKING BILL AUTHOR!

Date: Monday January 6, 2014
Time: 9:30 am – Noon
Place: CA State Capitol, Sacramento – West Steps

TAKE ACTION: Help us find a CA State Assembly and/or Senator to author and co-author a new GE Food labeling bill, which will mandate the labeling of GE foods offered for retail sale in the State of California.

Proposition 37 came close to passing in CA even though opponents of labeling GE Foods spent over $46 million dollars to prevent us from knowing which of the foods in our grocery stores are genetically engineered. It's time to let our elected officials know WE’RE BACK to urge support for introduction of a GE labeling law! We have a bill, we need authors to support it and vote YES! Now is the time for California to finish what we started! Let's work together to make California the first state to pass a clean, strong GE labeling law!

HOW TO TAKE ACTION:

A. Find out who your CA Assemblymember or Senator is by clicking here. Call and email:

1. State your name, address, and that you are a constituent of the Assemblymember/Senator.
2. Ask them, “Will the Assemblymember/Senator step up and be a true leader for the state of California and author or co-author, and support a GE Foods Labeling bill during the 2014 Legislative Session?” Tell them we have the bill language for them to review, and are happy to provide it.
3. If the answer is, “yes” thank them and report back to us.
4. If there is no commitment either way, let them know you will be calling back for an answer.
5. Tell them that the rest of the nation is watching, we consider Prop 37 a huge victory, and we want to join CA as one of the largest states in the union, leading to way to pass a strong GE labeling bill in 2014.
6. Ask them to sign on as a cosponsor and support the bill when it comes up for a vote in 2014.
   

BASIC POINTS for GE LABELING:

• 1996: GE (aka: GMO, genetically modified organisms) foods were introduced into the U.S. food supply by the biotech industry without adequate testing for human health or environmental risks and we've been eating them without labels ever since.
• 64 countries around the world -- including the EU (since 1998), China (since 2001), Russia, and Japan -- label GE Foods. What do they know that Americans don’t know?
• American children under the age of 19 have been on a steady diet of GE Foods since birth.
• The FDA says foods that have been genetically engineered are as safe as conventional foods and don't require any special labeling. If biotech tech industry and big food believe their GE Foods are safe, we Americans say, “Label them now.”
• FDA’s own scientists, many scientists around the world, and doctors, urge GE Labeling.
• Independent GE feeding studies on rats, pigs, and human breast cancer cells show causation for health risks.
• GE crop farming techniques require ever-increasing use of pesticide, herbicide and chemical environmental poisons.
• “Bt” corn, soy, canola and cotton crops, a GE variety, are classified by the EPA as “insecticides” because every cell of the plant produces the poison Bt pesticide. So, why are they approved for human consumption in food products?
• RoundUp, the herbicide most commonly sprayed on GE crops -- has been shown to have toxic effects on human health. But without labels there is no traceability, no accountability, and no liability. Labels will give Californians the information we need to choose for ourselves what we want to eat and feed our families.
• The FDA won't label GMOs, so it's been left up to our state governments to give us the right to know what's in our food.
  

Please forward this email to every Californian you know who votes and eats food.

Thank you for taking action to write, call and for your support! We need all hands on deck to make this happen.

Report back to [email protected] with any questions or possible authors.
See you at the rally! Happy Holidays and New Year!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tomcat:

DreadTori,

Excuse me??? Not sure exactly what "Roll" you want me to "Slow". :hmmm:
..

---