Why I'm Voting "NO" on Prop 37

Why I'm voting "NO" on Prop 37

by Laurel Blair, NTP

To those who are familiar with my nutritional philosophy, it may come as a surprise to hear that I plan to vote against California Prop 37, an upcoming ballot initiative to label genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the food supply.

Before I get accused of being a shill for Monsanto, let me assure you that I am about as anti-GMO as they come. I am generally not in favor of banning things that I personally disagree with (like trans fats, for example), but when it comes to GMOs, I make an exception. I would support an outright ban on GMOs because they represent such an overwhelming threat to the environment and human health, not to mention the contamination of non-GMO and organic crops.

Proponents of Prop 37 call it “Right to Know”, and the focus of their campaign is that consumers should have the right to know if their food contains ingredients produced through genetic engineering. They point to the fact that 50 other countries have GMO labeling laws in place. Prop 37 would require that products with genetically modified (GM) ingredients be conspicuously labeled “Genetically Engineered” on the front of the package or, in the case of products that are not packaged, on a label on the shelf or bin where the product is sold. It would further declare products to be misbranded if they are labeled “natural” yet contain GM ingredients.

In the past few months I have heard a lot about Prop 37, how great it is, and how everyone should vote for it, but not one word about the exemptions it contains. I have to assume that most of its supporters simply have not read the text of the measure. Under Prop 37, animal products from animals fed diets containing GMOs or injected with GM drugs would be exempt from the labeling requirement. GM enzymes or processing aids would also be exempt, as would all alcoholic beverages. Incredibly, all restaurant food, medical food, and other food intended for immediate human consumption would be exempt from the labeling requirement. And all food would be exempt if a sworn statement is provided stating that the food has not been intentionally or knowingly contaminated with GMOs.

I highly doubt that many who plan to vote in favor of Prop 37 are aware that their "right to know" does not apply to restaurants and food bars, or that meat, milk, and eggs from animals fed or injected with GMOs will not be labeled. And do we really trust the processed food industry to tell us the truth about their products? These kinds of exemptions are in direct ethical conflict with the points outlined in Prop 37’s own Findings and Declarations. If the dangers of GMOs are so great that the people have a right to know which foods contain them, they should have a right to know in ALL cases, not just a select few.

I first began researching Prop 37 after my husband expressed his concern that GMO labeling would end up just like trans fat labeling. Man made trans fats are supposed to be labeled in the Nutrition Facts panel on a food label, but a loophole allows food processors to list the amount as zero grams if it contains less than .5 grams of trans fat per serving. They simply make the serving sizes smaller, and suddenly they are allowed to slap a label of “Trans Fat Free” on the front of their package! Additionally, another loophole makes mono- and di-glycerides exempt from the labeling requirement, even though they contain varying amounts of trans fatty acids. Often they are listed several times on an ingredient list, so the true amount of trans fat present in a product labeled "Trans Fat Free" could be significantly more than .5 grams.

Seeing as there is no safe level of artificial trans fat in the diet, it is difficult to see how such a rule could be justifiable, except perhaps to those who have a vested interest in continuing to put these unsafe fats in our food. This kind of government mandated deception is reprehensible and will undoubtedly harm the health of millions of people, who are being led to believe that the foods they buy are free of trans fats. Today, even with the labeling law in place, the only way to know for sure if your food contains trans fats is to read the ingredient list.

My husband worried that eventually some loophole would be found or legislated that would render GMO labeling similarly deceptive. He felt that whenever we create new regulations, there is a high likelihood that those regulations will be corrupted and used against us. The first thing I did after he mentioned his concern was to read the text of the proposition. And, lo and behold, the loophole was already there! One of the exemptions states:

“Until July 1, 2019, any processed food that would be subject to section 110809 solely because it includes one or more genetically engineered ingredients, provided that: (i) no single such ingredient accounts for more than one-half of one percent of the total weight of such processed food; and (ii) the processed food does not contain more than ten such ingredients. ”

Essentially, Prop 37 allows foods to be exempt from the so-called mandatory labeling and still contain up to 5% GMO ingredients by total weight! A product could have 10 different GM ingredients and still not require a label! This absurd loophole would be in place for five years, giving Monsanto & Friends plenty of time to quietly make it permanent or find another way to deceive consumers into buying their products.

Perhaps the most disturbing thing is that the Organic Consumer's Association and other organizations that collected money and signatures to get Prop 37 on the ballot did not inform anyone of the true nature of the measure. People were told they were donating to "label GMOs" because "it's our right to know!" To then write tons of loopholes and allow 5% GMO content in unlabeled products is nothing short of a betrayal of consumer trust. The whole thing was a deception from the get go. And when questioned about the deceptiveness of their campaign, the OCA and CARightToKnow have replied that labeling all GMOs is too extreme and would never pass! Seeing as the vast majority of Prop 37 supporters believe that is precisely what the measure would do, the doublespeak coming from the Prop 37 campaign is unbelievable.

Some people might feel that Prop 37 is “a step in the right direction.” But when are we going to stop using that phrase to justify all kinds of terrible policies? How could a measure that would give consumers a false belief that they are avoiding GMOs possibly be construed as being a step in the right direction? The deception inherent in Prop 37 makes it totally unethical in my book. Two wrongs NEVER make a right. As bad as GMOs are, we are never going to get out of this mess with legislation that deceives and confuses consumers.

I feel that this is not an issue of “right to know“ but rather one of personal responsibility. No one but yourself is stopping you from knowing what is in your food. Right now if a person is concerned about GMOs, they do a little research to find out what ingredients contain them, then they read labels to avoid those ingredients. But if Prop 37 passes, it is doubtless that many people will think, “Oh, the government labels GMOs, so I am safe because I don’t buy the things with that label. I am keeping myself and the environment healthy and keeping my hard-earned dollars out of Monsanto’s pockets.” Those same people could be eating restaurant or food bar food that's loaded with GMOs, as well as buying chicken that was fed almost entirely on GM grains, milk from cows injected with GM growth hormones (and also fed GM grains), breakfast cereal that contains up to 10 different GM ingredients, and vitamins produced with GMOs!

How many times are we going to let politicians and corporations corrupt and distort well intended regulations to use them against us before we get wise to their game? We need to realize we cannot and should not rely on the government to tell us the truth about anything, especially when the government and big business are BFFs. We need to stop giving our power away and decide that we‘re going to own it ourselves! If the 90%+ of people who support GMO labeling were to educate themselves and completely boycott all GM products and ingredients, that would represent a major financial blow to Monsanto, as well as huge wins for human and animal health, the environment, and personal responsibility.


How to Avoid GMOs in the Food Supply

1. There areeight GM foods available in the United States: corn, soybean, canola, cottonseed, sugar beets, Hawaiian papaya, zucchini, and yellow squash. Always choose organic versions of these foods.

2. GM Alfalfa is also grown and fed to livestock, along with GM corn and soybeans. GM drugs and growth hormones may be given to non-organic livestock. Always choose organic animal products, or buy from local farmers and verify that they do not give their animals any GM feed or injections.

3. If “sugar” is listed as an ingredient, it is very likely that some of that sugar is from GM sugar beets. Choose “pure cane sugar“ instead. Or better yet, use unrefined sweeteners that are rich in minerals like Sucanat, Rapadura, or palm sugar.

4. Check out this list of additives and ingredients that could potentially be GM:

https://www.nongmoshoppingguide.com/...gredients.html

Most of these ingredients are harmful for reasons other than their potential GMO content and should be avoided anyway.

5. Vitamins and supplements are often produced either from GMO ingredients or with the use of GMO organisms. Some of the most common are on the ingredient list under point 4 above. This is a huge part of the reason why I recommend getting nutrients from foods, or from supplements that are really foods, like fermented cod liver oil.

6. While not technically part of the food supply, body care products are another hidden source of GM ingredients. Many substances pass through the skin easily, so it’s probably wise to avoid putting GMOs on your scalp or skin Many shampoos and conditioners contain plant proteins, so check to make sure these are organic.

Bravo Laurel !!

I had no idea.

To add to the list of GMO foods, a new one ---Okanagan Non-Browning Apple (APHIS-2012-0025)
Take Action!

Okanagan's "Arctic" apple would be the first genetically engineered version of a food that people directly bite into. According to the latest study by the Environmental Working Group, conventionally grown apples are the most pesticide contaminated fruit or vegetable on the market. Conventional apples are dangerous, and GMO apples are just a dumb idea - one not even supported by many in the apple industry itself!

After watching the newly released Why in the World Are They Spraying? which is different than What in the World Are They Spraying? I got so angry at the destruction and collusion of Monsanto, the 1%, etc. to create weather disasters via chemtrail weather modification so they can come in and offer their fungus proof GMO corn or their drought proof GMO soy, or swoop in and buy ailing farmer's land (it's called disaster capitalism) that I thought we are asking too little in labeling GMO's! We should be banning them outright. It's just so incredibly destructive.

I'd say Why in the World Are They Spraying is a must watch if we are to have any non-GMO food in the future as weather modification is making it increasingly harder to grow organic. I really hope folks take the time to see it as it educates and motivates one to act so well.

Monsanto et. al have got their claws in at every level to be still winning if they lose Prop 37. Thanks for exposing this Laurel.


[QUOTE=DynamicBalance;157316]Why I'm voting "NO" on Prop 37

by Laurel Blair, NTP

To those who are familiar with my nutritional philosophy, it may come as a surprise to hear that I plan to vote against California Prop 37, an upcoming ballot initiative to label genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the food supply.

Before I get accused of being a shill for Monsanto, let me assure you that I am about as anti-GMO as they come. I am generally not in favor of banning things that I personally disagree with (like trans fats, for example), but when it comes to GMOs, I make an exception. I would support an outright ban on GMOs because they represent such an overwhelming threat to the environment and human health, not to mention the contamination of non-GMO and organic crops.

So the Proposition isn't perfect. What is? It's a start.

If passed, we'll know more than we did before. And the gaps provide new opportunities for public education by informed activists.

If it fails, it will be seen as a defeat for the anti-GMO movement. Weighing the pros and cons, I'm voting for it. And I encourage others to do so as well.

I knew about the problems in it before today, by the way.

This set of concerns reminds me of the Prop. 19 debate two years ago. Similar instance of the, "The Perfect, being The Enemy of The Good."

Pick your fights. Know which side you're on.

Who benefits? Who suffers? Why?

Then decide.

Thank you, Laurel, for not only compiling the information of what is in the proposition, but giving good tips on what we can really do. I would never have read the full context of the proposition if it wasn't for your husband bringing it to my attention on FB. I have contributed to the funding of 37 from the get-go, I wanted nothing more than to stop Monsanto and corporate interests from creating and selling frankenfoods, but when I read that the labeling was so selective and that there was such a lack of transparency in how they advertise what the proposition is really NOT doing, I was so disappointed. I invite everyone who is supporting this proposition to read it in its entirety. https://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/in...food_v2%29.pdf

I contacted Organic Consumers Association (who never responded), Institute for Responsible Technology (who passed me onto CA Right to Know campaign only saying, "We are more than happy to help you with questions about the health risks of GMOs, however questions about the labeling initiative are best addressed by the California Right to Know campaign directly"), Natural News (no response), and Yes on 37 where I wrote on their FB page w/o any response. But then Gabe Smalley, Field Director for Yes on 37 wrote me through email. His responses to me were disconcerting:

"This proposition was designed very deliberately to apply to foods sold in stores which contain genetically altered ingredients. That's why meat from animals who have been fed genetically engineered feed, for example, isn't included.' . [doesn't make any sense...if you give them GMO'd feed and use GMO'd ingredients, the whole animal is affected and contaminated. Their definition of 'contain' seems to be exclusively limited].

"What we need in this country, and state, is to get our food labeled. [agreed!] Many campaigns fail because they take on far more than the voters are ready for. This is not a campaign to ban gmo's or anything further than simply labeling products which are sold in grocery stores." [this implies that voters may not be ready for 'too' much and other campaigns have failed when 'too' much was included. I doubt this because the voters and consumers want transparency... they want to know that what they are voting for really has labels that allow them to make clear decisions on what they eat. And contrary to what Gabe stated, it is much more than labeling in how they advertise, even on their FB page, as they talk about the results of French tests pf rats eating GMO'd food, which is grains, which form tumors...and writes about Roundup... and Genetically engineered corn being linked to mammary tumors, kidney and liver damage. I wonder if this man doesn't get that people can do research and see that there are huge gaps.]

Gabe felt that this was the first in the nation vote and since the whole country (and some of the world) is looking at California to make the change, it should be supported no matter if it doesn't include "...different aspects of food, labeling, pesticides, and other related issues." This in itself says a great deal about the integrity of the proposition and those who wrote it...because the world is watching so the 'show' must go on?

For me, I can choose to vote no, which gives my vote to Monsanto and their corporate interests and propaganda; OR just not vote on it, which allows me to say that it's not worthy of my acknowledgement. I'll probably do the later.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by DynamicBalance:

Why I'm voting "NO" on Prop 37

by Laurel Blair, NTP

To those who are familiar with my nutritional philosophy, it may come as a surprise to hear that I plan to vote against California Prop 37, an upcoming ballot initiative to label genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the food supply.

Before I get accused of being a shill for Monsanto, let me assure you that I am about as anti-GMO as they come. I am generally not in favor of banning things that I personally disagree with (like trans fats, for example), but when it comes to GMOs, I make an exception. I would support an outright ban on GMOs because they represent such an overwhelming threat to the environment and human health, not to mention the contamination of non-GMO and organic crops.

Proponents of Prop 37 call it “Right to Know”, and the focus of their campaign is that consumers should have the right to know if their food contains ingredients produced through genetic engineering. They point to the fact that 50 other countries have GMO labeling laws in place. Prop 37 would require that products with genetically modified (GM) ingredients be conspicuously labeled “Genetically Engineered” on the front of the package or, in the case of products that are not packaged, on a label on the shelf or bin where the product is sold. It would further declare products to be misbranded if they are labeled “natural” yet contain GM ingredients.

In the past few months I have heard a lot about Prop 37, how great it is, and how everyone should vote for it, but not one word about the exemptions it contains. I have to assume that most of its supporters simply have not read the text of the measure. Under Prop 37, animal products from animals fed diets containing GMOs or injected with GM drugs would be exempt from the labeling requirement. GM enzymes or processing aids would also be exempt, as would all alcoholic beverages. Incredibly, all restaurant food, medical food, and other food intended for immediate human consumption would be exempt from the labeling requirement. And all food would be exempt if a sworn statement is provided stating that the food has not been intentionally or knowingly contaminated with GMOs.

I highly doubt that many who plan to vote in favor of Prop 37 are aware that their "right to know" does not apply to restaurants and food bars, or that meat, milk, and eggs from animals fed or injected with GMOs will not be labeled. And do we really trust the processed food industry to tell us the truth about their products? These kinds of exemptions are in direct ethical conflict with the points outlined in Prop 37’s own Findings and Declarations. If the dangers of GMOs are so great that the people have a right to know which foods contain them, they should have a right to know in ALL cases, not just a select few.

I first began researching Prop 37 after my husband expressed his concern that GMO labeling would end up just like trans fat labeling. Man made trans fats are supposed to be labeled in the Nutrition Facts panel on a food label, but a loophole allows food processors to list the amount as zero grams if it contains less than .5 grams of trans fat per serving. They simply make the serving sizes smaller, and suddenly they are allowed to slap a label of “Trans Fat Free” on the front of their package! Additionally, another loophole makes mono- and di-glycerides exempt from the labeling requirement, even though they contain varying amounts of trans fatty acids. Often they are listed several times on an ingredient list, so the true amount of trans fat present in a product labeled "Trans Fat Free" could be significantly more than .5 grams.

Seeing as there is no safe level of artificial trans fat in the diet, it is difficult to see how such a rule could be justifiable, except perhaps to those who have a vested interest in continuing to put these unsafe fats in our food. This kind of government mandated deception is reprehensible and will undoubtedly harm the health of millions of people, who are being led to believe that the foods they buy are free of trans fats. Today, even with the labeling law in place, the only way to know for sure if your food contains trans fats is to read the ingredient list.

My husband worried that eventually some loophole would be found or legislated that would render GMO labeling similarly deceptive. He felt that whenever we create new regulations, there is a high likelihood that those regulations will be corrupted and used against us. The first thing I did after he mentioned his concern was to read the text of the proposition. And, lo and behold, the loophole was already there! One of the exemptions states:

“Until July 1, 2019, any processed food that would be subject to section 110809 solely because it includes one or more genetically engineered ingredients, provided that: (i) no single such ingredient accounts for more than one-half of one percent of the total weight of such processed food; and (ii) the processed food does not contain more than ten such ingredients. ”

Essentially, Prop 37 allows foods to be exempt from the so-called mandatory labeling and still contain up to 5% GMO ingredients by total weight! A product could have 10 different GM ingredients and still not require a label! This absurd loophole would be in place for five years, giving Monsanto & Friends plenty of time to quietly make it permanent or find another way to deceive consumers into buying their products.

Perhaps the most disturbing thing is that the Organic Consumer's Association and other organizations that collected money and signatures to get Prop 37 on the ballot did not inform anyone of the true nature of the measure. People were told they were donating to "label GMOs" because "it's our right to know!" To then write tons of loopholes and allow 5% GMO content in unlabeled products is nothing short of a betrayal of consumer trust. The whole thing was a deception from the get go. And when questioned about the deceptiveness of their campaign, the OCA and CARightToKnow have replied that labeling all GMOs is too extreme and would never pass! Seeing as the vast majority of Prop 37 supporters believe that is precisely what the measure would do, the doublespeak coming from the Prop 37 campaign is unbelievable.

Some people might feel that Prop 37 is “a step in the right direction.” But when are we going to stop using that phrase to justify all kinds of terrible policies? How could a measure that would give consumers a false belief that they are avoiding GMOs possibly be construed as being a step in the right direction? The deception inherent in Prop 37 makes it totally unethical in my book. Two wrongs NEVER make a right. As bad as GMOs are, we are never going to get out of this mess with legislation that deceives and confuses consumers.

I feel that this is not an issue of “right to know“ but rather one of personal responsibility. No one but yourself is stopping you from knowing what is in your food. Right now if a person is concerned about GMOs, they do a little research to find out what ingredients contain them, then they read labels to avoid those ingredients. But if Prop 37 passes, it is doubtless that many people will think, “Oh, the government labels GMOs, so I am safe because I don’t buy the things with that label. I am keeping myself and the environment healthy and keeping my hard-earned dollars out of Monsanto’s pockets.” Those same people could be eating restaurant or food bar food that's loaded with GMOs, as well as buying chicken that was fed almost entirely on GM grains, milk from cows injected with GM growth hormones (and also fed GM grains), breakfast cereal that contains up to 10 different GM ingredients, and vitamins produced with GMOs!

How many times are we going to let politicians and corporations corrupt and distort well intended regulations to use them against us before we get wise to their game? We need to realize we cannot and should not rely on the government to tell us the truth about anything, especially when the government and big business are BFFs. We need to stop giving our power away and decide that we‘re going to own it ourselves! If the 90%+ of people who support GMO labeling were to educate themselves and completely boycott all GM products and ingredients, that would represent a major financial blow to Monsanto, as well as huge wins for human and animal health, the environment, and personal responsibility.


How to Avoid GMOs in the Food Supply

1. There areeight GM foods available in the United States: corn, soybean, canola, cottonseed, sugar beets, Hawaiian papaya, zucchini, and yellow squash. Always choose organic versions of these foods.

2. GM Alfalfa is also grown and fed to livestock, along with GM corn and soybeans. GM drugs and growth hormones may be given to non-organic livestock. Always choose organic animal products, or buy from local farmers and verify that they do not give their animals any GM feed or injections.

3. If “sugar” is listed as an ingredient, it is very likely that some of that sugar is from GM sugar beets. Choose “pure cane sugar“ instead. Or better yet, use unrefined sweeteners that are rich in minerals like Sucanat, Rapadura, or palm sugar.

4. Check out this list of additives and ingredients that could potentially be GM:

https://www.nongmoshoppingguide.com/...gredients.html

Most of these ingredients are harmful for reasons other than their potential GMO content and should be avoided anyway.

5. Vitamins and supplements are often produced either from GMO ingredients or with the use of GMO organisms. Some of the most common are on the ingredient list under point 4 above. This is a huge part of the reason why I recommend getting nutrients from foods, or from supplements that are really foods, like fermented cod liver oil.

6. While not technically part of the food supply, body care products are another hidden source of GM ingredients. Many substances pass through the skin easily, so it’s probably wise to avoid putting GMOs on your scalp or skin Many shampoos and conditioners contain plant proteins, so check to make sure these are organic.

---

Thank you very much for this very thoughtful and detailed post. You have obviously done your homework and have included very important information both about the downfalls of this proposition and how to avoid GMOs in our diet. I realize that this is a very complicated issue and Prop 37 does not address the magnitude of the infiltration of GMOs in to our food supply or the massive influence of corporate power and control in our daily lives and diets. With that said, I am VOTING YES ON PROP 37 because we have to start somewhere and I believe that we have a good beginning here. First and foremost, Prop 37 is bringing awareness to the issue of genetically modified foods. Many people, just don't know about it. With knowledge (and food package labeling), comes power.....the power to make choices about what we are purchasing......And in this case, while, maybe not perfect, reading labels and either purchasing foods that are labeled genetically modified or rejecting the product entirely at least gives the consumer a choice and sends a message to Monsanto. One thing we know for sure is that companies like Monsanto, want to show a profit and if their products are not selling, just perhaps they might jump on the bandwagon (like many large companies have done around organic products), and eliminate GMO's from the food supply..... I know we have our work cut out for us and there is no easy fix, but Prop 37 is a place to start.......

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by DynamicBalance:

Why I'm voting "NO" on Prop 37

by Laurel Blair, NTP

To those who are familiar with my nutritional philosophy, it may come as a surprise to hear that I plan to vote against California Prop 37, an upcoming ballot initiative to label genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the food supply.

Before I get accused of being a shill for Monsanto, let me assure you that I am about as anti-GMO as they come. ......

....... so check to make sure these are organic.

---

I am most certainly voting YES on 37!!

If I don't "they" win and they will have more and more power, patents, control and dominion as time goes on.

Not a good thing to risk due to some imperfections in the proposition...

Thousands and thousands of people have worked countless hours on this proposition...it would be very difficult to get that momentum back again.

Voting yes sends a message to a giant monster that we have power and we will not let them win. Waiting for perfection here is actually quite dangerous!!

ok it is not purrfekt, but to assume us who know the details and will vote for it don't, thats your stuff. it will help me and the trans fat story has been an overall success, at least now i can consider eating girl scout cookies! just because those who know, know almost all served food and most of the stuff in stores is disease producing crap is a reason not to participate in democratic process; is unreasonably high expectation. no i don't think corporate consumption food producers are paying you, i just think you are unwilling to accept what is possible, because you know too well what would be right :..(

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by DynamicBalance:

Why I'm voting "NO" on Prop 37

by Laurel Blair, NTP

To those who are familiar with my nutritional philosophy, it may come as a surprise to hear that I plan to vote against California Prop 37, an upcoming ballot initiative to label genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the food supply.

Before I get accused of being a shill for Monsanto, let me assure you that I am about as anti-GMO as they come. I am generally not in favor of banning things that I personally disagree with (like trans fats, for example), but when it comes to GMOs, I make an exception. I would support an outright ban on GMOs because they represent such an overwhelming threat to the environment and human health, not to mention the contamination of non-GMO and organic crops.

Proponents of Prop 37 call it “Right to Know”, and the focus of their campaign is that consumers should have the right to know if their food contains ingredients produced through genetic engineering. They point to the fact that 50 other countries have GMO labeling laws in place. Prop 37 would require that products with genetically modified (GM) ingredients be conspicuously labeled “Genetically Engineered” on the front of the package or, in the case of products that are not packaged, on a label on the shelf or bin where the product is sold. It would further declare products to be misbranded if they are labeled “natural” yet contain GM ingredients.

In the past few months I have heard a lot about Prop 37, how great it is, and how everyone should vote for it, but not one word about the exemptions it contains. I have to assume that most of its supporters simply have not read the text of the measure. Under Prop 37, animal products from animals fed diets containing GMOs or injected with GM drugs would be exempt from the labeling requirement. GM enzymes or processing aids would also be exempt, as would all alcoholic beverages. Incredibly, all restaurant food, medical food, and other food intended for immediate human consumption would be exempt from the labeling requirement. And all food would be exempt if a sworn statement is provided stating that the food has not been intentionally or knowingly contaminated with GMOs.

I highly doubt that many who plan to vote in favor of Prop 37 are aware that their "right to know" does not apply to restaurants and food bars, or that meat, milk, and eggs from animals fed or injected with GMOs will not be labeled. And do we really trust the processed food industry to tell us the truth about their products? These kinds of exemptions are in direct ethical conflict with the points outlined in Prop 37’s own Findings and Declarations. If the dangers of GMOs are so great that the people have a right to know which foods contain them, they should have a right to know in ALL cases, not just a select few.

I first began researching Prop 37 after my husband expressed his concern that GMO labeling would end up just like trans fat labeling. Man made trans fats are supposed to be labeled in the Nutrition Facts panel on a food label, but a loophole allows food processors to list the amount as zero grams if it contains less than .5 grams of trans fat per serving. They simply make the serving sizes smaller, and suddenly they are allowed to slap a label of “Trans Fat Free” on the front of their package! Additionally, another loophole makes mono- and di-glycerides exempt from the labeling requirement, even though they contain varying amounts of trans fatty acids. Often they are listed several times on an ingredient list, so the true amount of trans fat present in a product labeled "Trans Fat Free" could be significantly more than .5 grams.

Seeing as there is no safe level of artificial trans fat in the diet, it is difficult to see how such a rule could be justifiable, except perhaps to those who have a vested interest in continuing to put these unsafe fats in our food. This kind of government mandated deception is reprehensible and will undoubtedly harm the health of millions of people, who are being led to believe that the foods they buy are free of trans fats. Today, even with the labeling law in place, the only way to know for sure if your food contains trans fats is to read the ingredient list.

My husband worried that eventually some loophole would be found or legislated that would render GMO labeling similarly deceptive. He felt that whenever we create new regulations, there is a high likelihood that those regulations will be corrupted and used against us. The first thing I did after he mentioned his concern was to read the text of the proposition. And, lo and behold, the loophole was already there! One of the exemptions states:

“Until July 1, 2019, any processed food that would be subject to section 110809 solely because it includes one or more genetically engineered ingredients, provided that: (i) no single such ingredient accounts for more than one-half of one percent of the total weight of such processed food; and (ii) the processed food does not contain more than ten such ingredients. ”

Essentially, Prop 37 allows foods to be exempt from the so-called mandatory labeling and still contain up to 5% GMO ingredients by total weight! A product could have 10 different GM ingredients and still not require a label! This absurd loophole would be in place for five years, giving Monsanto & Friends plenty of time to quietly make it permanent or find another way to deceive consumers into buying their products.

Perhaps the most disturbing thing is that the Organic Consumer's Association and other organizations that collected money and signatures to get Prop 37 on the ballot did not inform anyone of the true nature of the measure. People were told they were donating to "label GMOs" because "it's our right to know!" To then write tons of loopholes and allow 5% GMO content in unlabeled products is nothing short of a betrayal of consumer trust. The whole thing was a deception from the get go. And when questioned about the deceptiveness of their campaign, the OCA and CARightToKnow have replied that labeling all GMOs is too extreme and would never pass! Seeing as the vast majority of Prop 37 supporters believe that is precisely what the measure would do, the doublespeak coming from the Prop 37 campaign is unbelievable.

Some people might feel that Prop 37 is “a step in the right direction.” But when are we going to stop using that phrase to justify all kinds of terrible policies? How could a measure that would give consumers a false belief that they are avoiding GMOs possibly be construed as being a step in the right direction? The deception inherent in Prop 37 makes it totally unethical in my book. Two wrongs NEVER make a right. As bad as GMOs are, we are never going to get out of this mess with legislation that deceives and confuses consumers.

I feel that this is not an issue of “right to know“ but rather one of personal responsibility. No one but yourself is stopping you from knowing what is in your food. Right now if a person is concerned about GMOs, they do a little research to find out what ingredients contain them, then they read labels to avoid those ingredients. But if Prop 37 passes, it is doubtless that many people will think, “Oh, the government labels GMOs, so I am safe because I don’t buy the things with that label. I am keeping myself and the environment healthy and keeping my hard-earned dollars out of Monsanto’s pockets.” Those same people could be eating restaurant or food bar food that's loaded with GMOs, as well as buying chicken that was fed almost entirely on GM grains, milk from cows injected with GM growth hormones (and also fed GM grains), breakfast cereal that contains up to 10 different GM ingredients, and vitamins produced with GMOs!

How many times are we going to let politicians and corporations corrupt and distort well intended regulations to use them against us before we get wise to their game? We need to realize we cannot and should not rely on the government to tell us the truth about anything, especially when the government and big business are BFFs. We need to stop giving our power away and decide that we‘re going to own it ourselves! If the 90%+ of people who support GMO labeling were to educate themselves and completely boycott all GM products and ingredients, that would represent a major financial blow to Monsanto, as well as huge wins for human and animal health, the environment, and personal responsibility.


How to Avoid GMOs in the Food Supply

1. There areeight GM foods available in the United States: corn, soybean, canola, cottonseed, sugar beets, Hawaiian papaya, zucchini, and yellow squash. Always choose organic versions of these foods.

2. GM Alfalfa is also grown and fed to livestock, along with GM corn and soybeans. GM drugs and growth hormones may be given to non-organic livestock. Always choose organic animal products, or buy from local farmers and verify that they do not give their animals any GM feed or injections.

3. If “sugar” is listed as an ingredient, it is very likely that some of that sugar is from GM sugar beets. Choose “pure cane sugar“ instead. Or better yet, use unrefined sweeteners that are rich in minerals like Sucanat, Rapadura, or palm sugar.

4. Check out this list of additives and ingredients that could potentially be GM:

https://www.nongmoshoppingguide.com/...gredients.html

Most of these ingredients are harmful for reasons other than their potential GMO content and should be avoided anyway.

5. Vitamins and supplements are often produced either from GMO ingredients or with the use of GMO organisms. Some of the most common are on the ingredient list under point 4 above. This is a huge part of the reason why I recommend getting nutrients from foods, or from supplements that are really foods, like fermented cod liver oil.

6. While not technically part of the food supply, body care products are another hidden source of GM ingredients. Many substances pass through the skin easily, so it’s probably wise to avoid putting GMOs on your scalp or skin Many shampoos and conditioners contain plant proteins, so check to make sure these are organic.

---

Whether you or I vote for it or against it won't change whether Prop. 37 wins or loses - or it's ultimate effect.

And it's not important whether it passes or fails. What's important is that the truth about GMO foods be known.
Because once people know the truth, they will avoid them if they care about their health - and that of their children.
This is what I see as the great value of the Right to Know initiative: that it has called major attention to the issue of
genetically engineered foods. Much of the truth is coming out, and this can result in the major shift in public
awareness that will be the undoing of the biotech industry. I would like to believe that while there are some who
don't want to know, most of us resent the "mushroom treatment" (being kept in the dark and fed horseshit) and
being used as guinea pigs without our awareness or consent.

If you haven't yet seen the movie "Genetic Roulette," please do so. I have a copy available for group or public viewing.
You may also be able to view it online here: https://geneticroulettemovie.com/

Clint Summer

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:

ok it is not purrfekt, but to assume us who know the details and will vote for it don't, thats your stuff. it will help me and the trans fat story has been an overall success, at least now i can consider eating girl scout cookies! just because those who know, know almost all served food and most of the stuff in stores is disease producing crap is a reason not to participate in democratic process; is unreasonably high expectation. no i don't think corporate consumption food producers are paying you, i just think you are unwilling to accept what is possible, because you know too well what would be right :..(

---

`
"Whether you or I vote for it or against it won't change whether Prop. 37 wins or loses..."

Clint, Could you unpack that and explain what you base it on?

Because when it comes to California Propositions, as far as I know, whether enough people vote for or against them, determines whether they are adopted.

Big Agra has far more money than consumer rights advocates and the environmental movement (unless we're talking comprador green washing faux enviro groups).

So most people will probably only see anti-37 propaganda. I haven't researched it, but I'm willing to bet far more money is being spent by the Anti-37 side, than the Yes on 37. As for those focused on knowing what is GMO and what isn't, with a purist and totalizing approach, who are they going to get that message to?

The "average" voter who is not invested in "Deep" politics? Or those of us in the alt crunchy scene, who read things like waccobb.net?

In other words, I'm saying that if Prop 37 requires the biggest and fullest tent to have a chance, those picking it apart from inside the tent, are more influential than those outside, even if those outside have bigger microphones and broader stages.

Among those engaged in this issue, who is going to be able to best spread doubt and skepticism? An ad on TV or Radio, or a community member invested in the issue.

So, yeah, how we reading this thread vote, matters. Percentage wise, it may be a bare fraction, but in such plebiscites, those fragments add up.

It's not like voting for President this time (and most others). Where the results by state, except in the eight swing states, are a foregone conclusion. Here in Cali, there's only the precedent of previous environmental and health proposition votes, local and state, and that record shows that efforts like Prop 37 have a slim chance, mostly because of the overwhelming preponderance in influence, from the Corporate Dollah.

-

If Prop. 37 were as pathetic a sell-out as this original post described, it's hard to see why big money would be going toward its defeat. Most change is incremental, and as with health care, defeating a less-than-perfect bill would make it less likely to get any kind of bill, not more so.

And yes, I think it'd be lovely if we all had the time to research every component of every item we consume, not to mention shampoo, containers, cat food and toilet paper. But most of us have other things we could do with that time, like earning a living, etc. I'm on a low-salt diet, and it's damned helpful to look at a label and see the salt content of that all-salt piece of crap I might otherwise have bought. That still doesn't help me on the rare occasions I eat at restaurants, but it makes a big difference otherwise.

The argument in that article might relate to a social order and a population all in the sociopolitical and educational demographic of the writer, but not to the California populace who actually exist and who would stand to benefit greatly from the proposition as it stands.

Cheers—
Conrad

I am not sure why you all worry so much about the labeling- that scary stuff and more crap is already in plenty of our foods for many, many years.*

Why don't you (we) fight Monsanto instead as some european countries do for years, more and more farmers winning their cases more successfully...???

We should fight more the food stores not to sell Monsanto's stuff- but- don't they get cut out of the market if they don't- will they fight for us, get stuck with empty shelfs? (does not look like it- money speaks ones more)

Some european countries are fighting for the labeling too- for quite some time now.

Quote:

---

Gabe felt that this was the first in the nation vote and since the whole country (and some of the world) is looking at California to make the change, it should be supported no matter if it doesn't include "...different aspects of food, labeling, pesticides, and other related issues." This in itself says a great deal about the integrity of the proposition and those who wrote it...because the world is watching so the 'show' must go on?

---

Well, it's pretty hard for me to imagine that my vote - or your vote - would change the outcome of the election. If it did - if it were that close, there would be a recount which might or might not change the outcome. Also, it seems to me that the closer the count is, the more meaningless the outcome is. In this case, it might mean that many people haven't bothered to do their own research and have instead bought the biotech and big food corporate spiel. Or they have done their research and decided (like Laurel) it's a bad proposition.

I had been thinking I would write something titled: Why I'm voting for Prop 37. But now I think I'll change that to: Why I make every effort - and incur extra expense - to avoid eating anything containing or fed GMOs. (It's very simple: because I care about my health - and the health of farmlands and the life that inhabits them!)

May the truth free us from ignorance and exploitation!

Clint Summer

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:

`
"Whether you or I vote for it or against it won't change whether Prop. 37 wins or loses..."

Clint, Could you unpack that and explain what you base it on?

Because when it comes to California Propositions, as far as I know, whether enough people vote for or against them, determines whether they are adopted.

Big Agra has far more money than consumer rights advocates and the environmental movement (unless we're talking comprador green washing faux enviro groups).

So most people will probably only see anti-37 propaganda. I haven't researched it, but I'm willing to bet far more money is being spent by the Anti-37 side, than the Yes on 37. As for those focused on knowing what is GMO and what isn't, with a purist and totalizing approach, who are they going to get that message to?

The "average" voter who is not invested in "Deep" politics? Or those of us in the alt crunchy scene, who read things like waccobb.net?

In other words, I'm saying that if Prop 37 requires the biggest and fullest tent to have a chance, those picking it apart from inside the tent, are more influential than those outside, even if those outside have bigger microphones and broader stages.

Among those engaged in this issue, who is going to be able to best spread doubt and skepticism? An add on TV or Radio, or a community member invested in the issue.

So, yeah, how we reading this thread vote, matters. Percentage wise, it may be a bare fraction, but in such plebiscites, those fragments add up.

It's not like voting for President this time (and most others). Where the results by state, except in the eight swing states, are a foregone conclusion. Here in Cali, there's only the precedent of previous environmental and health proposition votes, local and state, and that record shows that efforts like Prop 37 have a slim chance, mostly because of the overwhelming preponderance in influence, from the Corporate Dollah.

-

---

Hello Clint, how are you? I hope fine.

I appreciate what you have said. Nonetheless, I enthusiastically and sincerely beg you for your vote in favor of Prop. 37. Please, Clint, vote for Prop. 37. Your vote might only be a microscopic step forward but it is progress nonetheless. With enough of our votes, our little steps, our barbaric society becomes that much more civilized. It is a slow and too often a frustrating process but our culture does move forward. All you have to do is study history to see it.

If what I'm saying is not true then why bother protesting against circumcision, for example?

Thank you ahead of time for your vote, sincerely,

Edward

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by CSummer:

Well, it's pretty hard for me to imagine that my vote - or your vote - would change the outcome of the election. If it did - if it were that close, there would be a recount which might or might not change the outcome. Also, it seems to me that the closer the count is, the more meaningless the outcome is. In this case, it might mean that many people haven't bothered to do their own research and have instead bought the biotech and big food corporate spiel. Or they have done their research and decided (like Laurel) it's a bad proposition.

I had been thinking I would write something titled: Why I'm voting for Prop 37. But now I think I'll change that to: Why I make every effort - and incur extra expense - to avoid eating anything containing or fed GMOs. (It's very simple: because I care about my health - and the health of farmlands and the life that inhabits them!)

May the truth free us from ignorance and exploitation!

Clint Summer

---

I'm voting yes. The point is not the loopholes in Prop 37. The point is that if it passes, even with its imperfections, it will be a MAJOR economic disruption for the GMO industry. That is why evil Monsanto and their corporate kin are spending millions to defeat it. California passing this measure would kick their money-grubbing teeth out. If purity is your thing, then shop carefully. But in any case, vote YES on 37!

I am voting yes on Prop 37. Before I read this link I thought Wow, Monsanto is infiltrating progressive BBs to divide & conquer. Then I read the post. It is well thought out and makes good points.

Monsanto has contributed $9,992,000.00 to defeat this proposal. https://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaig...011&view=late1 The Big 6 pesticide firms have put in $19 million of the $32 donated to defeat Prop 37. I think that alone would get my vote. But over the years I have read about the suicides of hundreds of thousands farmers in India due to GMOs, Monsanto suing and putting out of business US farmers when Monsanto seeds were carried into their neighboring farms by wind and insects, and farmers who raise pigs for food going out of business when the GMO grain they were feeding their animals made many of the pigs sterile. You can find people's videos on YouTube. Check out this important 2 minute video on the first study of the long term effects of GMO. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoTBX...eature=related

Kelloggs has donated $632,500 to defeat Prop 37. I read that in the 50 countries that now have labeling laws, Kelloggs has chosen to reformulate their corn flakes without GMOs rather than to label them with. I'm voting for Prop 37 because of my concerns for my grandchildren and the children of California, not because it's a great law. There are probably thousands of children in Sonoma County and hundreds of thousands in California that get up every morning and pour themselves a bowl of GMO cereal with GMO milk while their parents are busy getting ready for work and making the kids school lunches. Many of these parents will first hear of Prop 37 when they see a Monsanto funded commercial or skim their voter pamphlet.

In 2005, we had Measure M that would have placed a 10 year moratorium on the use and cultivation of GMOs in Sonoma County. The goal was to secure a moratorium county by county. It passed in Marin, Mendocino and Trinity. But, after losing in Sonoma County by a 58 to 42 margin (and a few other counties) that was it. Monsanto came in and ran the campaign through the Sonoma County Farm Bureau donating about $900,000 to the effort and teaching them how to win an election. Many of the farmers already used Monsanto products and were energized by the large amount of money coming in. Their victory was seen as support for Sonoma County farmers.

If Prop 37 passes you may think we're only gaining a little bit of ground. But, that's better than where we are today.
Ruth

Protesting or educating has a chance of increasing awareness that can lead to changes in behavior. I don't see how voting one way or the other, per se, will do that. If I act like I'm voting and am enthusiastic about voting Yes on 37, that might influence others to do the same. Whether or not I actually vote - or how I vote - won't change anything (and if it does, it shouldn't!).

If I seem a bit disenchanted with the whole election/voting thing, it's only because I see it as a game that means nothing other than who has the most money or power to influence how masses of people vote. It generally fails to enable the awareness and wisdom that real positive change requires, and it does not empower us to create the kind of society we really want (and the world needs).

But I'll join you, Ed, in saying Yes on 37! More importantly, I'll encourage everyone I know to avoid all GMOs as they would any other unhealthy food. And many thanks to Laurel for listing the foods to avoid!

Peace,
Clint

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:

Hello Clint, how are you? I hope fine.

I appreciate what you have said. Nonetheless, I enthusiastically and sincerely beg you for your vote in favor of Prop. 37. Please, Clint, vote for Prop. 37. Your vote might only be a microscopic step forward but it is progress nonetheless. With enough of our votes, our little steps, our barbaric society becomes that much more civilized. It is a slow and too often a frustrating process but our culture does move forward. All you have to do is study history to see it.

If what I'm saying is not true then why bother protesting against circumcision, for example?

Thank you ahead of time for your vote, sincerely,

Edward

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by ruthnew:

I am voting yes on Prop 37. Before I read this link I thought Wow, Monsanto is infiltrating progressive BBs to divide & conquer. Then I read the post. It is well thought out and makes good points.

Monsanto has contributed $9,992,000.00 to defeat this proposal. https://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaig...011&view=late1 The Big 6 pesticide firms have put in $19 million of the $32 donated to defeat Prop 37. I think that alone would get my vote. But over the years I have read about the suicides of hundreds of thousands farmers in India due to GMOs, Monsanto suing and putting out of business US farmers when Monsanto seeds were carried into their neighboring farms by wind and insects, and farmers who raise pigs for food going out of business when the GMO grain they were feeding their animals made many of the pigs sterile. You can find people's videos on YouTube. Check out this important 2 minute video on the first study of the long term effects of GMO. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoTBX...eature=related

Kelloggs has donated $632,500 to defeat Prop 37. I read that in the 50 countries that now have labeling laws, Kelloggs has chosen to reformulate their corn flakes without GMOs rather than to label them with. I'm voting for Prop 37 because of my concerns for my grandchildren and the children of California, not because it's a great law. There are probably thousands of children in Sonoma County and hundreds of thousands in California that get up every morning and pour themselves a bowl of GMO cereal with GMO milk while their parents are busy getting ready for work and making the kids school lunches. Many of these parents will first hear of Prop 37 when they see a Monsanto funded commercial or skim their voter pamphlet.

In 2005, we had Measure M that would have placed a 10 year moratorium on the use and cultivation of GMOs in Sonoma County. The goal was to secure a moratorium county by county. It passed in Marin, Mendocino and Trinity. But, after losing in Sonoma County by a 58 to 42 margin (and a few other counties) that was it. Monsanto came in and ran the campaign through the Sonoma County Farm Bureau donating about $900,000 to the effort and teaching them how to win an election. Many of the farmers already used Monsanto products and were energized by the large amount of money coming in. Their victory was seen as support for Sonoma County farmers.

If Prop 37 passes you may think we're only gaining a little bit of ground. But, that's better than where we are today.
Ruth

---

Here's a Documentary that is a must watch, I had downloaded it off Torrent and watch it last night

Genetic Roulette- The Gamble of Our Lives
Jeffrey Smith's new GMO Documentary

https://geneticroulettemovie.com/wp-...l1-212x300.jpg

When the US government ignored repeated warnings by its own scientists and allowed untested genetically modified (GM) crops into our environment and food supply, it was a gamble of unprecedented proportions. The health of all living things and all future generations were put at risk by an infant technology.

After two decades, physicians and scientists have uncovered a grave trend. The same serious health problems found in lab animals, livestock, and pets that have been fed GM foods are now on the rise in the US population. And when people and animals stop eating genetically modified organisms (GMOs), their health improves.

This seminal documentary provides compelling evidence to help explain the deteriorating health of Americans, especially among children, and offers a recipe for protecting ourselves and our future.
https://geneticroulettemovie.com

Excellent!
Well stated in few words.
Vote YES Prop 37. If for no other reason it will create drag on the GMO industry's efforts and allow reasonable minds to plant more real food.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by neil:

I'm voting yes. The point is not the loopholes in Prop 37. The point is that if it passes, even with its imperfections, it will be a MAJOR economic disruption for the GMO industry. That is why evil Monsanto and their corporate kin are spending millions to defeat it. California passing this measure would kick their money-grubbing teeth out. If purity is your thing, then shop carefully. But in any case, vote YES on 37!

---

There is a video here about the problems rats begin to develop after 4 months of eating GMO corn:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/101760711

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by datars:

Here's a Documentary that is a must watch, I had downloaded it off Torrent and watch it last night

Genetic Roulette- The Gamble of Our Lives
Jeffrey Smith's new GMO Documentary

https://geneticroulettemovie.com/wp-...l1-212x300.jpg

When the US government ignored repeated warnings by its own scientists and allowed untested genetically modified (GM) crops into our environment and food supply, it was a gamble of unprecedented proportions. The health of all living things and all future generations were put at risk by an infant technology.

After two decades, physicians and scientists have uncovered a grave trend. The same serious health problems found in lab animals, livestock, and pets that have been fed GM foods are now on the rise in the US population. And when people and animals stop eating genetically modified organisms (GMOs), their health improves.

This seminal documentary provides compelling evidence to help explain the deteriorating health of Americans, especially among children, and offers a recipe for protecting ourselves and our future.
https://geneticroulettemovie.com

---

Laurel,

Thank you for your post which is well-thought out and sincere and has certainly provoked a lot of discussion, which is good.

But I disagree with you for two primary reasons (some of which others have already stated in their own way):

First, the perfect is often the enemy of the good. Proposition 37 clearly is not perfect. What is? In fact, the more history I read, the more I understand that no good has ever been accomplished in a straight line--- when we look back on history we tend to see it as an inevitable linear progression, but as it was actually lived, moving forward without benefit of knowing the end of the story, it was often messy, contentious and with as many steps backwards as forwards as sideways--- whether we're talking about the establishment of democracy in ancient Greece, the abolition of slavery, the development of science, the movements for minority or women's or gay rights-- the reality of all of them was often very messy, drawn out and non-linear. So, any step forward is a step forward. All we can do is the best we can do at a given moment with the reality and compromises that present themselves.

Second, the idea the each individual is going to research each food and product they use to determine whether there are GMOs in it is completely unrealistic. Just ain't gonna happen. Even here in woo--woo-west county most people just aren't going to have the time, energy or focus to do that--- much less your average person in Sacramento or Fresno or San Bernardino, etc. And it's how large numbers of people act, not small elites, that are critical to whether GMOs are accepted in the marketplace or not.

The simple fact is that labeling, even if imperfect, may well turn the public against GMOs, which is why Monsanto, and the entire industry, are so afraid of it.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sara S:

There is a video here about the problems rats begin to develop after 4 months of eating GMO corn:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/101760711

---

Genetic Roulette
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0rf0WGBlUk

https://vimeo.com/6575475

Why I am voting Yes on 37 or What you call "loop holes" I see as opportunities for compliance.
What if the proposition was "perfect" and did not have these "loop holes"?
Let's talk canola. There is already wide spread contamination in the environment of GE canola. The proposition give 18 months to change labels. In agriculture that is not much time to change crops and insure no contamination. With canola we may never be able to assure 100% GMO free, it is out there in the environment. If the demand for non GMO processed food is great, it may not be a simple switch to a non-GMO seed and then the next crop is non-GMO. In fact, with canola, I would not be surprised if a whole new crop will need to replace the demand for that oil (Hemp? oh yeah, that's another story...) From a practical point of view it could take a few years for agriculture to meet the needs for non-GMO crops.
How would it have served consumers to write a proposition that while it may have looked more "perfect" on paper would turn out to be impracticable or even impossible to comply with? I can see where if you don't farm you might not have thought of the actual implementation to respond to the change in demand that could be driven by consumer choices. Which, by the way is what this is all about. Give the consumer information to make a choice. Will that actually be the down fall of GMOs? I hope so, but I don't know. Even after this initiative passes in November those of us who understand the inherent dangers of this technology at this early stage of the game will still have a role in helping to educate others who do not have the knowledge to make an informed choice.
Tracy Graves

Haven't yet decided how I'll vote on this one.
Regarding Canola, be aware that it is made from Rapeseed oil. The name Canola comes from the chemist who discovered the way to use petrochemical solvents to reduce the toxic erucic acid content. Whether it is GE or not, I steer clear of it.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tgraves:

Why I am voting Yes on 37 or What you call "loop holes" I see as opportunities for compliance.
What if the proposition was "perfect" and did not have these "loop holes"?
Let's talk canola.

---

One more good link

Genetic Roulette- The Gamble of Our Lives (By Jeffrey Smith)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odCSWY05u4Q
They are poisoning us, and we must stop them. Please share this video with as many people as will watch! PLEASE VISIT https://geneticroulettemovie.com/ and get more involved and please donate whatever you can to Dr. Jeffrey M. Smith and his powerful movement!!!! (Money, time, other resources!)

Hello Waccos,

This has certainly been an interesting discussion! I've been wanting to respond to some of the points brought up in this thread, but simply haven't had time up until now, as I'm preparing to move to a new home. Also, some additional information has come to light that I'd like to share with you.

I spoke with Pamm Larry of labelgmos.org, and was finally able to get some answers as to why the exemptions are there. It's kind of unbelievable that none of the other organizations involved in promoting Prop 37 were able to do that - the OCA actually stopped returning my calls! They are definitely off my list of trusted organizations.

Pamm explained that the reason for so many exemptions is that if part of the bill is successfully challenged in court, the entire bill would be thrown out. This is particularly relevant to the animal product exemption, because even if the products were produced with the use of GMO feed and drugs, the products or animals themselves are not genetically modified. Pamm said the feeling was that Monsanto & Co. might try to challenge the animal products as having to be labeled as GMO because of that technicality.

I understand where the Prop 37 writers were coming from on this issue, but personally I would have handled it a LOT differently if it was up to me. By far, my biggest beef with Prop 37 is the way the campaign was conducted. Need an example? CARightToKnow does not mention the exemptions anywhere on their website. Their FAQs include a question about what would happen if Prop 37 passed, and their answer is that GMOs would be labeled in retail outlets like grocery stores. That covers the restaurant exemption, but not any of the others, including the fact that food bars in grocery stores (like Whole Foods, for example) would not be labeled. I have listened to many interviews and speeches given in support of Prop 37, and never heard a single mention of any exemption. To me, this amounts to withholding essential information! When you tell people they are voting or donating to "label GMOs" and conveniently forget to mention that not all GMOs would be labeled, that is deceptive and dishonest.

Pamm even told me that she and other campaigners do not talk about the exemptions publicly. She claims that she tells people about them when asked directly or in one-on-one conversations. I can't verify that one way or another, but I have a really big problem with the fact that the campaign does not talk about the exemptions publicly. Pamm said the reason for this is that in politics, you have to have a very simple message, and that if you give people too many details, they will simply vote no. To me, this amounts to a belief that voters are too stupid to understand relatively simple concepts, and that we have to dumb things down in order to pass them.

Pamm was not happy about my interpretation of what she said, and even replied, "I didn't call anyone stupid!" Which is true. But it seems to me that all the campaign needed to say was, "We decided to exclude animal products from animals fed or injected with GMOs because of concern that that part of the bill would be challenged by Monsanto, causing the entire bill to be struck down. We felt they would challenge the labeling of these products as GMOs because the animal itself is not genetically modified. We plan in the future to campaign for labeling of animal products, but rather than calling them GMOs we would strive to get them labeled as 'fed or injected with GMO ingredients', which is more accurate and much more likely to resist legal challenges." I mean, is that really so difficult of a concept to understand? I really don't get how anyone could feel that refusing to publicly disclose the exemptions amounts to anything less than dumbing down the message. It's clear to me that most supporters of Prop 37 still support it even after learning of the exemptions, so I'm really not sure what the true motive is here.

I'm frankly shocked that not a single person on this thread that is in favor of Prop 37 seems to be bothered at all by this kind of dishonesty in the campaign. If Monsanto or some other corporation was doing the same kind of thing (and they are), I'm sure all of you would not hesitate to point out how they cannot be trusted. So why do you turn a blind eye to dishonesty and deception in a campaign whose goals you support? To me, that is the most disturbing thing. If even the people who campaign to label GMOs use deception to pass their bill, and if we then ignore that fact because it's not convenient to our political philosophy, we are doomed to get swindled time and time again! I personally cannot support a campaign that fails to disclose essential information and leads people to believe that all GMOs would be labeled when they would not. After all, this is a campaign to bring more honesty to the food supply, is it not? Is it too much to ask that the campaign itself be conducted honestly?

So my response to the argument that "the perfect is the enemy of the good" is that dishonesty and deception are never good, no matter who uses them and for what purpose. I wrote this article because I was so shocked to learn that all GMOs would not be labeled as I was led to believe when I donated money to the Prop 37 campaign. I wanted to inform my community about the true nature of the bill so that they would be able to make informed decisions when voting, and even more importantly, while shopping. Perhaps in my anger over being deceived by an organization I trusted, I may have come off as more of a perfectionist than I really am. Let me make this clear: I would not be opposed to Prop 37 if they had simply been honest from day one about what the proposition would really do and why it had to be that way. If they had demonstrated integrity in their campaign, no matter how imperfect the bill, I would have considered giving them my vote

Let me move on to another argument . . . that Prop 37 would represent "a MAJOR economic disruption for the GMO industry". Are you sure about that? The fact is that the vast, vast, vast majority of GMOs end up in animal feed. Less than 10% of GM corn grown in the U.S. ends up in human food. The rest goes mostly to animal feed and ethanol production. A whopping 98% of the soybean crop ends up as animal feed. Some of the soybeans are made into soybean oil, but the meal leftover (which makes up most of the soybean) is fed to livestock. Same with cottonseed. GM alfalfa, which was just approved recently, obviously all goes to animal feed. Canola is used in the same way as soybean, with the meal going to animal feed, although the yield of edible oil (if you can call refined, bleached, and deodorized rancid oil edible!) is quite a bit higher than soybean. Even the pulp from sugar beets ends up as livestock feed. And obviously GM growth hormones and drugs are only ending up in animal products. The point is, if the makers of Prop 37 had truly wanted to make a real impact on the biotech industry, they would have tackled animal products first. Labeling animal products as fed or injected with GMOs would be a truly devastating blow to the biotech industry.

Another argument I’ve heard a lot is, “If Prop 37 is such a weak bill, then why is Monsanto spending so much money to defeat it?” One of the previous posters gave a number (nearly $10 million) that does not appear to be accurate. I clicked on the link and according to my math, they have donated $7.1 million to the No on 37 campaign. Now, $7 million might seem like a lot to me and you, but to Monsanto, it’s pocket change. We are talking about a corporation that makes $1.6 billion per year in net income, and has nearly $20 billion in assets! It’s pretty hard to visualize such huge numbers, so just to give you an idea, $1 billion is one thousand millions. And Monsanto has 20 times that much! I’m pretty certain that if Prop 37 represented such a huge threat to Monsanto as some people are claiming, they would have spent quite a bit more than $7.1 million to defeat it.

Many of you say that we can’t just rely on people doing the research themselves to avoid GMOs. For starters, I never said we have to rely on education alone. I donated money to get Prop 37 on the ballot! If the people want GMOs labeled, they should get their way. The problem with Prop 37 is that I, like so many others, was led to believe that it would label all GMOs when I donated. How many people out there are not going to realize that restaurant food, food bar food, medical food, animal products, alcohol, processing aids, enzymes, and foods that contain less than 5% GMO content won’t be labeled? How many realize that companies can simply swear that their products are non-GMO and be exempt from labeling? That is my gravest concern about Prop 37.

Ultimately, the truth that we need to recognize is that, Prop 37 or no Prop 37, those who really want to avoid GMOs will still have to do the research themselves. I am certainly not delusional enough to think that the majority of people are going to educate themselves on this issue, or on other health issues. But if a person is concerned about the health, environmental, and genetic contamination issues caused by GMOs (as I’m sure the vast majority of Prop 37 supporters are), and they still don’t bother to learn how to actually avoid those foods in their daily life . . . well, I really don’t know what else to say to that person! At some point we have to decide to take personal responsibility for our choices, especially when they affect the health of our families and our planet.

Avoiding GMOs is definitely not as hard as some people seem to believe. It does not require researching every single product you buy. It does take memorizing a short list of ingredients that should always be organic, as well as avoiding ingredients that are clearly manufactured, isolated substances, and are NOT real foods. There are only a handful of ingredients that sound like real foods but can be made from GMOs, so there really isn’t much memorizing required. And of course, there are non-GMO shopping guides available, as well as smart phone apps and pocket sized guides that you can take to the store with you. I don’t really recommend these because most of the non-GMO products they feature are still horribly unhealthy, and as a nutritional therapist, I want people to be healthy. But it’s definitely better than eating the same kinds of processed foods that are genetically modified, so for some people these might be valuable. The point is, it’s easier than you think to avoid these things.

Some say that trans fat labeling has been a success, or that it has led to increased awareness around trans fats, and that GMO labeling will do the same. I strongly disagree. The majority of people still do not know that hydrogenated oils are trans fats, even though it has been nine years since the law was passed! The labeling makes people feel that they don’t have to know how to identify a trans fat, because they know that the government requires them to be labeled anyway. The ones who do know about hydrogenated oils are rarely aware of the ½ gram per serving loophole. And even the ones who know about the loophole are pretty much all oblivious to the fact that mono- and di-glycerides usually contain trans fats that don’t have to be disclosed on the label. A product could contain significantly more than the ½ gram trans fat per serving limit and still be labeled as containing zero grams trans fat!

How many of you knew about that? I’m willing to bet the answer is close to zero, because very few people do know. In reality, labeling has been little more than a way for the food industry to keep using trans fats while labeling their products “trans fat free”. And it also saddens me that the labels make no distinction between naturally occurring trans fats in animal products, which are highly beneficial for health, and the toxic manmade versions in processed foods. Many people may be avoiding foods that could benefit their health because of the trans fat labeling. Ultimately, whether we’re talking about trans fats or GMOs, those who want to know the whole truth have to do the research themselves, label or no label. That is why I advocate for personal responsibility and self-education first and foremost.

To your health,

Laurel Blair, NTP
www.dynamicbalancenutrition.com

actually, i am very distressed by the dishonesty. here it is: carighttoknow, oca & institute for responsible techonogy, for starters, are united nations ngos. in the past, as soon as i type the lettters UN or NGOs i was done for. right now, i don't give a damn. these ngos are controlled opposition. mike adams health ranger is also affiliated with the un. last i heard he was not yet certain as to how he felt about codex alimentarius! one of the big outpoints here is that we should not be putting so many effing MILLIONS of dollars toward a gesture - labelling - we should be putting our energy and integrity toward BANNING gmos. anything else is nothing more than controlled opposition distraction. since the un funds both sides of all evil, this whole pro/con thing could be completely staged. who gets the money in the end? since when does it require millions of dollars to address an egregious, killing issue?

we are being played, in no uncertain terms. we are being deliberately poisoned. we should be screaming for a ban. not asking that we be partially notified of the poisoning of our entire world. this whole charade makes me sick.

Dear Dynamic Balance,

I read about some of the exemptions in pro prop 37 sites before I donated to the campaign and all on https://www.noprop37.com/facts/exemptions/ before I read your first post.

I am sorry that I gave an incorrect number for Monsanto donations. It was not intentional. When I went through the 26 pages of donations on the Secretary of State’s website, I think that I added one donation twice. I should have printed my post and fact checked it. I see now that Monsanto has donated $7,100,500 to the No on Prop 37 campaign.

In your current post, I was hurt by you statement: “I'm frankly shocked that not a single person on this thread that is in favor of Prop 37 seems to be bothered at all by this kind of dishonesty in the campaign. If Monsanto or some other corporation was doing the same kind of thing (and they are), I'm sure all of you would not hesitate to point out how they cannot be trusted. So why do you turn a blind eye to dishonesty and deception in a campaign whose goals you support? To me, that is the most disturbing thing.” That is so judgmental. You don’t know me. I am not turning a blind eye to dishonesty and deception. I choose not to focus on the negative because I see a positive side. I don’t often post but I think it is important for Prop 37 to pass.

I read that a few weeks back at a panel on food policy in Washington, D.C., which was part of the Association of Food Journalists' annual conference, the panelists were asked what the most important food policy story of 2012 is likely to be. The consensus was California's Proposition 37. Why? Because, if the law passes in California, it's likely to open the door to new food-labeling practices nationwide.


I’ve worked on four campaigns. The first three failed, one by only 6 votes. The fourth passed. The last time we hired a consultant and did a survey. I may not like the way it is but I have to agree with Pamm,” if you give people too many details, they will simply vote no.” I don’t think that means they are too stupid to understand relatively simple concepts. They work hard at their jobs, have families, busy lives, bills, sometimes health issues and voting may be a responsibility but not a top priority. They might have never even have heard of GMOs before. That’s another thing I’m thankful for, putting this issue in the public arena. We were told that you do not win an election intellectually. Almost everyone votes emotionally first and intellectually second. Create what they are going to lose. Paint pictures. Studies say that when you get your mail you pick out what stands out first and decide if you will throw it away. You have 18 seconds to grab their attention. Monsanto knows that. It worked for them before in Sonoma County. I agree with you that is not the way it should be.


Ultimately, what I am concerned about is the children we are leaving this world to. Many have been eating these GMOs all their life and we’re just finding out what the long term effects are. They don’t even buy their own food. We need to educate ourselves first and then find a way to educate their parents. And, I really want my vote to show Monsanto there is something more valuable than money. I see a No vote on Prop 37 as a gift to Monsanto.

Ruth

Vite YES on Prop 37 if you value your health, the health of Californians, and the future of humanity, our soil and our species. This is the front line in the battle against the for-profit, out of control poisoning of our people and our planet. That the originator of this post feels it does not go far enough feels to me to be distracting. It goes further than anything else EVER has in USA history, and companies like Kellog's have already stated that they will NOT buy GMO corn if they had to label it.

Meanwhile, they give hundreds of thousands to the No on Prop 37 so that they can make a little more money by deceiving their consumers. ANd every large food company in the country is with them.

I will be posting more on this soon, but please check out our soon to launch website at www.KnowGMO.org. You can post your video there about how you feel about labeling GMO's, and share it with your social network. The idea is to have 'People-Powered Medias Counter Deceptive Corporate Ads."

Check it out and spread the word! :heart::waccosun:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by pnicholson:

actually, i am very distressed by the dishonesty. here it is: carighttoknow, oca & institute for responsible techonogy, for starters, are united nations ngos. in the past, as soon as i type the lettters UN or NGOs i was done for. right now, i don't give a damn. these ngos are controlled opposition. mike adams health ranger is also affiliated with the un. last i heard he was not yet certain as to how he felt about codex alimentarius! one of the big outpoints here is that we should not be putting so many effing MILLIONS of dollars toward a gesture - labelling - we should be putting our energy and integrity toward BANNING gmos. anything else is nothing more than controlled opposition distraction. since the un funds both sides of all evil, this whole pro/con thing could be completely staged. who gets the money in the end? since when does it require millions of dollars to address an egregious, killing issue?

we are being played, in no uncertain terms. we are being deliberately poisoned. we should be screaming for a ban. not asking that we be partially notified of the poisoning of our entire world. this whole charade makes me sick.

---

What you say here is very interesting. I would not be surprised at all. At the moment, I don't have time to look into this, but I will definitely do so in the future. Maybe you could provide some references?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by ruthnew:

Dear Dynamic Balance,

I read about some of the exemptions in pro prop 37 sites before I donated to the campaign and all on https://www.noprop37.com/facts/exemptions/ before I read your first post.

---

Perhaps you could provide some links to sites that support Prop 37 and talk about exemptions. I have only seen one site so far that did so, and it was not affiliated with the Prop 37 campaign. The only mention of any exemption that I have ever seen from a group directly affiliated with Prop 37 was in an email from the OCA, in which they were kind enough to briefly mention the restaurant exemption (but not any of the other exemptions or the fact that the restaurant exemption includes food bars and other food intended for immediate consumption). Still misleading if you ask me.

Quote:

---

I am sorry that I gave an incorrect number for Monsanto donations. It was not intentional. When I went through the 26 pages of donations on the Secretary of State’s website, I think that I added one donation twice. I should have printed my post and fact checked it. I see now that Monsanto has donated $7,100,500 to the No on Prop 37 campaign.

---

I did not think you gave the wrong number intentionally. No worries, everyone makes mistakes. And it was definitely a LONG list, so it would be easy to make a mistake. I only mentioned it because I wanted everyone to be aware that the number was not accurate.

Quote:

---

In your current post, I was hurt by you statement: “I'm frankly shocked that not a single person on this thread that is in favor of Prop 37 seems to be bothered at all by this kind of dishonesty in the campaign. If Monsanto or some other corporation was doing the same kind of thing (and they are), I'm sure all of you would not hesitate to point out how they cannot be trusted. So why do you turn a blind eye to dishonesty and deception in a campaign whose goals you support? To me, that is the most disturbing thing.” That is so judgmental. You don’t know me. I am not turning a blind eye to dishonesty and deception. I choose not to focus on the negative because I see a positive side. I don’t often post but I think it is important for Prop 37 to pass.

---

Ruth, I'm sorry that you're feeling judged, but it was not my intention to judge or condemn anyone. I think if you read what I said carefully, you'll see that I did not judge you or anyone else. I did not call anyone bad or evil or condemn them for what they said in this thread. What I did do was state what I was observing (that no one in this thread that supports Prop 37 had said a single word to address the deception in the campaign, which was one of the main points of my original article), and express how it made me feel (disturbed). I also asked for clarification as to why this was the case. I even allowed for the possibility that I could be wrong by saying that nobody "seems to be bothered at all." I did not say it was a fact that no one was bothered. Perhaps I could have said, "why are you seemingly turning a blind eye" instead of "why are you turning a blind eye", and that would have been more accurate, but it seems like a minor distinction given the rest of my wording. From my perspective, it definitely did appear that people were turning a blind eye to this aspect of the situation. When I write an article focused heavily on the issue of deception in the campaign, and I receive many comments but none that address that particular issue, what am I supposed to think? Is it unacceptable for me to express my observations and my feelings about my observations because someone might take it the wrong way and feel judged? I am very glad to hear that you are bothered by the dishonesty. But how was I supposed to know that you (and possibly others) felt that way if you didn't say so?

Quote:

---

Ultimately, what I am concerned about is the children we are leaving this world to. Many have been eating these GMOs all their life and we’re just finding out what the long term effects are. They don’t even buy their own food. We need to educate ourselves first and then find a way to educate their parents. And, I really want my vote to show Monsanto there is something more valuable than money. I see a No vote on Prop 37 as a gift to Monsanto.

Ruth

---

I agree with you here, except for the last point. I don't see voting No as giving anything to Monsanto. If I disagree with something, I vote No. But you're entitled to your opinion. I do very much agree with the rest of your paragraph. As a young person myself, I ate GMOs for nearly half of my life. And I had some serious health problems that were pretty disturbing for a young person to have. I can't say that those health issues were all the result of GMOs, because there are tons of other problems with the way most industrialized countries eat (and the way I ate). But I do think they were a factor. We definitely need to do what we can to help educate parents about GMOs and other toxins in our food, as well as proper nutrition for growing children, which is in many ways the opposite of what the government tells us to eat.

believing that deception and dishonesty are never good is a trait of perfectionism, especially when the definition of this is less than full and complete information sharing. thanks for the info on trans-fat. you are right, i did not know all that you shared. i would still argue that this is a success for the example i shared, girl scout cookies. still not good for you, but perhaps slightly less deadly?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by DynamicBalance:

Hello Waccos,

This has certainly been an interesting discussion

---

Aloha Laurel,

Passing a law in CA is NEVER perfect what with the climate we live in today... There will always be a "loophole" found whichwill not support every detail necessary to make it completely effective..... BUT it IS a START and that is why I am voting "YES" on Prop 37!!

Sincerely,

William Cote

It seems to me that a poorly written, half-assed compromise is worse in the long run than no law at all. And the argument of perfectionism doesn't hold water. Without trying to be "perfect", we should still make some concerted effort to at least "get it right". Prop 37 fails miserably on most counts. I'll vote No.

Whole Foods Hidden Camera GMO Sting - Organic Spies - CENSORED by YouTube

This video around 17 mins...is an undercover sting in wholefood stores...it test the knowledge of staff in regards to GMO content within the store...it was banned/removed from youtube on the 2nd oct 2012... it is mp4 format...it is important because of prop 37 in california...wholefoods has not contributed to the campaign to push prop 37...WHY? this is a little insight...enjoy

https://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=4...5A116C0A3469E3

Whole Foods confirms it knowingly sells products containing Monsanto's genetically modified corn: Don't ask, don't tell!

https://www.naturalnews.com/037413_W...santo_GMO.html

I am voting Yes on Prop 37.

It is unfortunate that you cannot see the big picture and now important it is to everyone's health that Prop 37 passes. This bill is the start of what will hopefully be a market in America which is actually open and free and in which all products that contain GMOs are labeled. To explain the very complex ins and outs of the proposition to most people who have no idea what an GMO even is nor have even heard of Monsanto would be overwhelming to say the least. I have been volunteering and talking to many people on the streets of LA and about 70% of people I talk to have never heard of either.

I find it really quite alarming, disturbing and sad that you have been so misinformed and you are spewing hatred towards this proposition. I hope you reconsider your opinions and think about the immense ramifications of your actions.

I am voting yes on the proposition, however I have sick feeling it is way too little way too late. Like shutting the barn door after the horse is out. Between the round-up resistant stuff that lacks nutrition and the stuff that manufactures pesticides that may then cause your gut to manufacture pesticides and the introduced genes that cause the body not to recognize or treat as toxins the modified food...all of which I imagine has cross pollinated every real food out there by now, it seems too late. Never mind the less than well animals consuming GMO feed who are then consumed by humans...........and the fact that no one can with certainty delineate unaffected foods......sorry to be pessimistic..we are sunk. IMHO. So this is how we use our own technology to do ourselves in.....

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by SusanShelley:

I am voting Yes on Prop 37.

It is unfortunate that you cannot see the big picture and now important it is to everyone's health that Prop 37 passes. This bill is the start of what will hopefully be a market in America which is actually open and free and in which all products that contain GMOs are labeled. To explain the very complex ins and outs of the proposition to most people who have no idea what an GMO even is nor have even heard of Monsanto would be overwhelming to say the least. I have been volunteering and talking to many people on the streets of LA and about 70% of people I talk to have never heard of either.

I find it really quite alarming, disturbing and sad that you have been so misinformed and you are spewing hatred towards this proposition. I hope you reconsider your opinions and think about the immense ramifications of your actions.

---

GMO Ticking Time Bomb

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAL_AMdMXqY Part-1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx4Dud0othY Part-2
The first in an upcoming series of mini-documentary videos about GMOs, this Gary Null production delves into the reality of GMO health risks. Gary Null calls it a "GMO ticking time bomb."
This video reveals some of the health problems caused by GMOs, including infertility, accelerated aging, organ damage, immune malfunction and more.
Uploaded by NaturalNews.com with permission from Gary Null.
Senior Executive Producer, Writer, Director: Gary Null
Executive Producer / Co-Director: Richard Polonetsky
Producers: Paola Bossola, Richard Gale
Editors: Patrick Thompson, Richie Williamson
Camera Operators: L.A. Jones, Tarun Mathur, Greg Russ, Valerie Van Cleve, Richie Williamson
Special Thanks to: Dr. Joel Bakan, Dr. Shiv Chopra, GMO Free Zone, Institute for Responsible Technology, International Center for Technology Assessment, Lens Eye (India), Dr. Don Lotter, Mercola.com, Natural Solutions Foundation, Navdanya (India). Dr. Arpad Pusztai, T. Colin Campbell Foundation
Support YES on California Proposition 37 for Labeling GMOs
www.CARightToKnow.org
www.LabelGMOs.org
Learn More About the Science and Risks of GMO
www.ResponsibleTechnology.org
How to Avoid GMO Foods and Products
www.NonGMOShoppingGuide.com

Thank you so much for posting these videos. I've watched them, posted them on my Facebook and Twitter
pages and emailed the links to everyone I know. We must continue to get the word out about the dangers of GMO's in our foods......

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by datars:

GMO Ticking Time Bomb

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAL_AMdMXqY Part-1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx4Dud0othY Part-2
The first in an upcoming series of mini-documentary videos about GMOs, this Gary Null production delves into the reality of GMO health risks. Gary Null calls it a "GMO ticking time bomb."
This video reveals some of the health problems caused by GMOs, including infertility, accelerated aging, organ damage, immune malfunction and more.
Uploaded by NaturalNews.com with permission from Gary Null.
Senior Executive Producer, Writer, Director: Gary Null
Executive Producer / Co-Director: Richard Polonetsky
Producers: Paola Bossola, Richard Gale
Editors: Patrick Thompson, Richie Williamson
Camera Operators: L.A. Jones, Tarun Mathur, Greg Russ, Valerie Van Cleve, Richie Williamson
Special Thanks to: Dr. Joel Bakan, Dr. Shiv Chopra, GMO Free Zone, Institute for Responsible Technology, International Center for Technology Assessment, Lens Eye (India), Dr. Don Lotter, Mercola.com, Natural Solutions Foundation, Navdanya (India). Dr. Arpad Pusztai, T. Colin Campbell Foundation
Support YES on California Proposition 37 for Labeling GMOs
www.CARightToKnow.org
www.LabelGMOs.org
Learn More About the Science and Risks of GMO
www.ResponsibleTechnology.org
How to Avoid GMO Foods and Products
www.NonGMOShoppingGuide.com

---

Good to hear Berta; I burn DVD's all the time and hand them out, just too the get the word out about all subject, that the mainstream media refuses to get out.

-Chuck

I am also voting yes, but I still have concern that we are even allowing GMO to happen. Is it that hard to fight Monsanto? It seems like the measure to read, "Genetically Engineered Foods, legal or not legal".

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by SusanShelley:

I am voting Yes on Prop 37.

It is unfortunate that you cannot see the big picture and now important it is to everyone's health that Prop 37 passes. This bill is the start of what will hopefully be a market in America which is actually open and free and in which all products that contain GMOs are labeled. To explain the very complex ins and outs of the proposition to most people who have no idea what an GMO even is nor have even heard of Monsanto would be overwhelming to say the least. I have been volunteering and talking to many people on the streets of LA and about 70% of people I talk to have never heard of either.

I find it really quite alarming, disturbing and sad that you have been so misinformed and you are spewing hatred towards this proposition. I hope you reconsider your opinions and think about the immense ramifications of your actions.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by datars:

Whole Foods confirms it knowingly sells products containing Monsanto's genetically modified corn: Don't ask, don't tell!

https://www.naturalnews.com/037413_W...santo_GMO.html

---

What is sad is how far apart most citizens are from how our food is manufactured, and especially, how it is processed, and what it is processed with. I am no scientist, nor a nutritionist. Because of a disease, I have chosen to study diet and nutrition from books written by doctors with degrees in neurology, biochemestry, and nutrition. There is so much evidence that what we eat plays a primary role in the enormous chronic health diseases that only citizens in the United States suffer from - primarily - because we rely on processed foods.

Because we have to take classes, versus getting a degree...to really see and understand what has happened to our food supply in the past several decades...it is a challenge to get education as a lay person. I am absolutely convinced...as I know many others in our health conscious area...that only by mandating "transparancy" more and more in food packaging, will the average person start learning exactly what it is they are putting in their body, and start being able to make wiser choices.

We absolutely HAVE to start requiring the food we buy be labeled...and I hope this is only a first step. I also hope that someday we will have legislation similarly for what is in the household products we buy...from shampoo to mascara to laundry detergent - because they all have major impacts on our health and on the natural environment - I think we all kind of got at this point that the American lifestyle has had huge negative consequences.

Please vote YES on proposition 37 so everyone can take their own personal steps towards getting healthy. Knowledge is power.

what is sad is that the life forms on this planet are being poisoned and all we can come up with are demands that some of the poison be criminally-minimally labelled. could this fall under the heading: "normalizing the unthinkable"? we are being poisoned!!

to me this is what is terribly sad - not how far apart we are from food manufacture, but how far apart we are from our minds.

p

at the center of your being you have the answer; you know who you are and you know what you want. – Lao Tsu

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by traindays:

What is sad is how far apart most citizens are from how our food is manufactured, and especially, how it is processed, and what it is processed with. I am no scientist, nor a nutritionist. Because of a disease, I have chosen to study diet and nutrition from books written by doctors with degrees in neurology, biochemestry, and nutrition. There is so much evidence that what we eat plays a primary role in the enormous chronic health diseases that only citizens in the United States suffer from - primarily - because we rely on processed foods.

Because we have to take classes, versus getting a degree...to really see and understand what has happened to our food supply in the past several decades...it is a challenge to get education as a lay person. I am absolutely convinced...as I know many others in our health conscious area...that only by mandating "transparancy" more and more in food packaging, will the average person start learning exactly what it is they are putting in their body, and start being able to make wiser choices.

We absolutely HAVE to start requiring the food we buy be labeled...and I hope this is only a first step. I also hope that someday we will have legislation similarly for what is in the household products we buy...from shampoo to mascara to laundry detergent - because they all have major impacts on our health and on the natural environment - I think we all kind of got at this point that the American lifestyle has had huge negative consequences.

Please vote YES on proposition 37 so everyone can take their own personal steps towards getting healthy. Knowledge is power.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by pnicholson:

what is sad is that the life forms on this planet are being poisoned and all we can come up with are demands that some of the poison be criminally-minimally labelled. could this fall under the heading: "normalizing the unthinkable"? we are being poisoned!!

---

Yes. Thank you. While I agree with Ross that "the perfect is the enemy of the good enough", this prop doesn't come close to good enough. It may be minimal now, but in the future, it will be touted as a HUGE compromise and concession, and will be pointed to and used to avoid going any further. Normalizing the unthinkable is an apt description of the political process in general. And the majoritymob falls for it like clockwork. Truly wondrous and amazing...

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by pnicholson:

to me this is what is terribly sad - not how far apart we are from food manufacture, but how far apart we are from our minds.

---

Yes.

"The major problems in the world are the result of the difference between how nature works and the way people think." - Gregory Bateson

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." - H. L. Mencken

thanks, handy. i agree with ross also - to a point - that the perfect is the enemy of the good. when it is time to act we must act, not wait for a perfect plan. but there is also the ruse of corporate/govt causing distractions and faux solutions, which are neither perfect nor good but work to keep us from addressing the important truths. we are spinning our wheels when we fail to see clearly what is before us. a great deal of time, energy, and money are being expended on something that should not exist.

by design.

i am not joking when i state that the un is backing both sides of this conflict. monsanto is un and carighttoknow, oca, fooddemocracynow!, institute for responsible technology - the 'leaders' of this movement to label, are un. this is not a grass roots movement. we are being invited to waste our time on labeling genocide by these controlled opposition orgs. it takes little effort to do some research on this. do we not wonder why these orgs are not initiating a movement to bangmos?

i think it is wise to not only shop locally, but to flow power locally. grass roots. not un-spawned multi-national, tax-free-foundation-funded, fronts for genocide.

when the lies are exposed, the truth is laid bare, and our choices are made, we cannot be stopped. everything is consciousness and there are seven billion of us. a resounding no to tyranny.

to freedom and prosperity.

cheers,
p

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by handy:

Yes. Thank you. While I agree with Ross that "the perfect is the enemy of the good enough", this prop doesn't come close to good enough. It may be minimal now, but in the future, it will be touted as a HUGE compromise and concession, and will be pointed to and used to avoid going any further. Normalizing the unthinkable is an apt description of the political process in general. And the majoritymob falls for it like clockwork. Truly wondrous and amazing...



Yes.

"The major problems in the world are the result of the difference between how nature works and the way people think." - Gregory Bateson

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." - H. L. Mencken

---

gmo tech is revolutionary powerful. we dance with the devil (metaphorically), on this one. will it help our food relationship with the earth? all i know is that every bit of truth and transparency will help in the long run. 37 will probably win, and many fought and lost long and hard to get it on the ballot. if you vote against it, you are a bigger fool than i, and i am a fool, born 4/1/59. i am willing to make mistakes, and fall on my face for all to laugh. for 37 the way of wisdom is yes. if you choose to vote no you are more than a fool.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by handy:

Yes. Thank you. While I agree with Ross that "the perfect is the enemy of the good enough", this prop doesn't come close to good enough. It may be minimal now, but in the future, it will be touted as a HUGE compromise and concession, and will be pointed to and used to avoid going any further. Normalizing the unthinkable is an apt description of the political process in general. And the majoritymob falls for it like clockwork. Truly wondrous and amazing...



Yes.

"The major problems in the world are the result of the difference between how nature works and the way people think." - Gregory Bateson

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." - H. L. Mencken

---

Whole Foods Claim, "Nothing Artificial Ever" Proven False in Special Report
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp0fWiyX7Xw

Alex Jones YouTube Channel
https://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel

Take a look at this mural, painted on the side of one of Whole Foods' Austin locations: It brags, 'Nothing Artificial Ever,' but the admitted GMO ingredients sold on store shelves could never be considered to be anything but man-made freaks of nature.
With GMO foods more prevalent and more unpopular than ever, even "organic"-oriented grocery chains have been scrambling to spin the sad truth that genetically-modified ingredients have saturated the market and infiltrated virtually all food brands.
Such is the case with Whole Foods, leader in the organic products market, who've made billions advertising their stores as all 'natural,' wholesome and containing 'nothing artificial ever,' all while admittedly selling GMOs inside the store.

Post
https://www.infowars.com/whole-foods...tising-scandal

Lauren, I am extremely insulted by you calling the Prop 37 proponents deceptive and dishonest. Are you serious? Deceptive for working tirelessly so that ALL of us can make a more informed decision while grocery shopping? Hmmm? Perhaps you have gotten us confused w/ the No on 37 campaign. Did you not hear that they have had their first t.v. ad taken down for mis-representation? Yep, it's true. Here is the link. Now who is deceptive again?https://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-anti-proposition-37-ad-pulled-20121004,0,1204815.story
The exemptions of Prop 37 have never been a secret. We have known about them since far before the initiative language was even complete. Where have you been? Obviously not working tirelessly volunteering like I have been. The text of the initiative has been available online since last Nov. (2011) It was on labelgmos.org and now is on carighttoknow.org. You could of easily found it by doing a simple google search. What did you expect? For someone to call you up and personally spoon feed you the exemptions? I thought your were an expert in research. You could have fooled me! For those interested they can find it under Get the Facts. Find tab at right of screen that says 'read the initiative'. https://www.carighttoknow.org/read_the_initiative
In addition to the above, apparently you are not aware of California Constitution Article 2, section 8 (d): An initiative measure embracing more than one subject may not be submitted to the ele
ctors or have any effect.
That is why meat & others are exempted. Link here. https://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/ind...tion#Section_8 No need to explain more. Again, you could of easily done some research and found that out yourself but instead find this great need to spread lies and mis information on this site. Shame on you.

I seriously ask you, what is the alternative? No labeling? Would it be better if the label was just blank or said ' none of your business' ? That seems to be your feeling...that labels are deceptive. You really need to re think that a bit more.
Just know that you are fighting the wrong people. You are fighting mothers, fathers, grandparents, small business owners and small farmers that are working very hard for our Right to Know. What part of that don't you get? So, what you are saying is that you side w/ Monsanto & crew...(yep)...because you find this great need to nit-pick Prop 37's exemptions. You go ahead and make your choice but know that you must live with who you are at the end of the day. And that is not looking so pretty.


After looking at your site, my guess is that you probably advocate eating organic foods to your clients. Is that the case? Because if so, you should be actively working to get rid of that label, too, because it's "deceiving." Why? Because after 2019, USDA certified organics will potentially contain more allowable GMOs than this law will. Up to 5% can be GMO and still be called USDA Certified organic. That would mean every organic farmer is a liar if they don't advertise that? I've never seen one do so, never seen one label or alert anywhere. I guess you should be going after them, too, and trying to get rid of that whole labeling system to not be a hypocrite.
Pnichloson- Carighttoknow is not a UN NGO. It's a California Recipient Committee and will dissolve after the election. Please. Not everyone wants to kill you.
Lauren- Because I get the big picture of this being one small beginning step in a Herculean, long term effort, your words here and your egoic need to "right" on what is a non issue are really abhorrent to me. If it wasn't so sad, I'd consider it humorous how you live in such a small world and don't get the big picture. Seriously...the campaign folks are trying to lie to you? Seriously? They think people are stupid? Really? Do you know anything about politics? Do you have any idea of how to reach folks in the Valley who all they do is watch TV all day and eat GMOs they have never dreamed existed?
I see tons of references here to Genetic Roulette. Do you honestly think that Jeffrey Smith and all those folks in that movie would sign off on and work so hard on this campaign if it wasn't an extremely good idea, even if you don't understand it in this moment? Your need to push against this topic is a wonder for me.
Go ahead, make a stink. Be "right." Know that you are being more of a spokesperson for Monsanto than anyone they pay.
How does that feel?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by pnicholson:

thanks, handy. i agree with ross also - to a point - that the perfect is the enemy of the good. when it is time to act we must act, not wait for a perfect plan. but there is also the ruse of corporate/govt causing distractions and faux solutions, which are neither perfect nor good but work to keep us from addressing the important truths. we are spinning our wheels when we fail to see clearly what is before us. a great deal of time, energy, and money are being expended on something that should not exist.

by design.

i am not joking when i state that the un is backing both sides of this conflict. monsanto is un and carighttoknow, oca, fooddemocracynow!, institute for responsible technology - the 'leaders' of this movement to label, are un. this is not a grass roots movement. we are being invited to waste our time on labeling genocide by these controlled opposition orgs. it takes little effort to do some research on this. do we not wonder why these orgs are not initiating a movement to bangmos?

i think it is wise to not only shop locally, but to flow power locally. grass roots. not un-spawned multi-national, tax-free-foundation-funded, fronts for genocide.

when the lies are exposed, the truth is laid bare, and our choices are made, we cannot be stopped. everything is consciousness and there are seven billion of us. a resounding no to tyranny.

to freedom and prosperity.

cheers,
p

---

OK, I admit I am not educated about this. I read the blip re the flyer that got passed around to residences regarding Prop 37. So the issue I am seeing here...is those who vote no are saying that HOW the gmo's get labeled is inaccurate or misleading information? I really do not understand.

If we vote no...does that mean a better vote will come along that gives full disclosure? Can, will...that be done?

I'm just trying to have an open mind and get more information.

I assumed...that with the labeling re prop 37...that that was a precedent to enable future, increased disclosure/labeling of crap in our foods. Is this a erroneous assumption. (yes, I understand the first three letters in the word)

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by datars:

Whole Foods Claim, "Nothing Artificial Ever" Proven False in Special Report
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp0fWiyX7Xw

Alex Jones YouTube Channel
https://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel

Take a look at this mural, painted on the side of one of Whole Foods' Austin locations: It brags, 'Nothing Artificial Ever,' but the admitted GMO ingredients sold on store shelves could never be considered to be anything but man-made freaks of nature.
With GMO foods more prevalent and more unpopular than ever, even "organic"-oriented grocery chains have been scrambling to spin the sad truth that genetically-modified ingredients have saturated the market and infiltrated virtually all food brands.
Such is the case with Whole Foods, leader in the organic products market, who've made billions advertising their stores as all 'natural,' wholesome and containing 'nothing artificial ever,' all while admittedly selling GMOs inside the store.

Post
https://www.infowars.com/whole-foods...tising-scandal

---

With all due respect...and I do occasionally shop at Whole Foods so I am not dising them (sp?)...but surely by now we know that WF is not the queen of whole foods. Go into any supermarket, practically, and look at the ingredients and do some research. After being on my 'special diet' there is not much I can get anywhere...outside of raw, organic fruits and veggies, nuts and seeds, animal products grass fed - not fed hormones, etc., same with eggs and dairy I ferment to make edible for myself.

My opinion, is somehow we, as individual citizens, have to educate ourselves about what is in food. Stores are not going to do it for us...and I don't think we can rely on them to educate us. Thats why I am into increased discloser by the actual companies selling the food...I think they need to be accountable for what they are selling...

(Thank God for the organic labeling, free-trade, whether eggs are free range, fed stimulants or hormones, places that have a classification system for how their animals have been treated, how they have been fed...etc)

Monsanto found guilty of chemical poisoning in landmark case
Here
https://www.naturalnews.com/037465_M...ourt_case.html

Volunteer for Yes on Prop 37
https://www.carighttoknow.org/volunteer

Laurel, I read your opinion piece on Prop 37 as well as your subsequent responses to people who challenged you. While it is apparent your heart is in the right place, I was disappointed to see you using your position as an NTP to add weight to your unfounded accusations about the nature of Prop 37 and its proponents. It is always disappointing to me when I encounter otherwise intelligent and articulate people within the natural health community who can't see the forest for the trees. The big picture has obviously been lost, and you are using your articulate intelligence to try to sway others towards your hairsplitting, negative point of view.

You may not think you are giving your vote away to Monsanto et al, but that is what a No vote from you and every voter swayed by your attacks on Prop 37 means. Have you examined the funding for and against Prop 37? Last time I looked, the Biotech/ Industrial Food crowd had raised $34 million to try to deny Californians the right to know whether they are eating GMOs. The Yes on 37 crowd has raised $4 million.

This is not some corporate front making a sham of labeling. Prop 37 is a true grassroots effort. Volunteers gathered 250,000 of the nearly one million signatures submitted to get the initiative on the ballot. OCA, IRT and the Right to Know committee are not and have never been corporate-sponsored. Look at the funding, look at the endorsers. https://www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements Do you really think that Jeffrey Smith, the Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund, Robyn O'Brien and all the rest of our food heroes are either too stupid to know they are being deceived or are in on this alleged deceit themselves? Do you really think that the volunteers who have committed thousands of hours to this campaign are likewise stupid or deceptive? I'm here to tell you, you don't hold the patent on intelligence and discernment. We knew about the exemptions, and many of us, myself included, did tell people about them.

You claim repeatedly that the Yes on 37 crowd is deceptive because the exemptions were not laid out for you to examine before you donated. In fact, the initiative has been available in full online for nearly a year now. At any time since November 2011, it could be read on labelgmos.org, and now it is on the carighttoknow website https://www.carighttoknow.org/read_the_initiative

Yes, there are exemptions. As GardenQueen stated, California Constitution Article 2, section 8 (d) explicitly says: An initiative measure embracing more than one subject may not be submitted to the electors or have any effect. In plain English this means that for an initiative to be legal, it can only be about one issue. That is why the focus is on food sold in grocery stores, the foods people most often eat. Alcohol is not considered to be in the same legal category as food, nor are vitamins. That is why they are exempt. Meat and from animals fed or injected with GMOs is considered a second-generation product as they are not themselves directly genetically engineered. The same goes for milk. That is why they are exempt. However, if GMO salmon (or any other animal) is for sale, it would be labeled as such.

Now Laurel, I have to quote you here "I understand where the Prop 37 writers were coming from on this issue, but personally I would have handled it a LOT differently if it was up to me. By far, my biggest beef with Prop 37 is the way the campaign was conducted."Where have you been? We could have used your considerable energy and commitment to spread the word. You could have shared the exemptions with everyone you spoke with. Remember, most on the ground communication has been by volunteers. You could have been part of the process, part of the solution, instead of pointing fingers and throwing stones and trying to tear down all that we have poured our hearts and souls into.


It seems to me that with your angry diatribe you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. Prop 37 doesn't ban GMOs and there are loopholes that you actually had to look up yourself, so you choose to vote NO? What is the alternative? Do you really think that not having GMOs labeled will make people more invested in self-education to avoid GMOs? Without labels, most people don't even know that GMOs exist. I spent time canvassing in a WinCo parking lot, talking to people with carts full of GMOs. Most of them had never heard of a GMO, and once they understood that they were lab-made they wanted labels.

I find it interesting that you advocate voting against Prop 37 and instead tell people that avoiding GMOs is a matter of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Can you really stand by that statement when you think of the millions of people who have never heard of GMOs? In contrast, I believe the responsibility for identifying GMO products rests with the corporations that produce them, the farmers who grow them, and the companies that manufacture food with them, NOT with the people who unwittingly eat them. That said, I am a label reader and I always tell people to read the fine print. But of course, most people don't.

You claim that it is easy for the informed consumer to avoid GMOs, but that entails eating a whole foods diet devoid of processed foods, or eating 100% organic. As a fellow traditional nutritionist ala Weston A Price, I agree that would be ideal for people's health. However, as a realist I understand that we have to meet people where they are for information to be accessible to them. For the millions of people shopping at WinCo and Safeway, eating this way is at present an unachievable goal. A big part of my personal motivation for being a volunteer with Label GMOs is to democratize access to non-GMO foods, to make them accessible to those who simply can't buy organic foods and who don't know what the 8 commercial GM crops are. Is 5% GMO better than 100% GMO? In my book, yes.

Is it perfect? No. Is it everything I would like to see? Not by a long shot. Is it a good first step? Absolutely. Will it need strengthening in the future? Yes! We are so far behind the rest of the world on this issue, and the Agrichemical companies are so entrenched here, that compromises had to be made in order for this to stand up in court. Eighteen state-level legislative attempts have been made to label GMOs, and they all failed. To date, this is our best chance to pass a GMO labeling law in the US. In a perfect world, Prop 37 would label GMOs everywhere they show up, from animal feed to restaurants. However, writing such a broad initiative would doom it to failure, and allow the silent corruption of the food supply to continue beneath the level of most people's awareness. This is not about the ideal, it is about the real.

I encourage all who are reading this to VOTE YES ON 37 and then continue to educate others about GMOs. This is just the first step.

Some examples of next steps: Are you a parent? Work to get GMOs out of your children's school cafeteria. Do you eat out a lot? Ask restaurant owners to source non-GMO products. Are you a teacher? Show your students Genetic Roulette. Pass out non-GMO shopping guides. Teach people to read labels. Are you a farmer? Commit to growing non-GMO crops, talk to your neighboring farmers, form a no GMO coalition, educate your customers.

Laurel, for you I have a special challenge: Instead of using your intellect to try to tear down and discredit Prop 37, get involved. Once it passes, work to strengthen it. Perhaps you could start a campaign to ban the planting of GMOs in your county. Contact the organizers of the successful ban on GMO planting in Mendocino County. Network. Write your own county measure. Awareness about GMOs is higher now than it has ever been, due in large part to Prop 37 campaigners. Ride the wave and join the fight. If this just isn't your cup of tea, please, stop complaining about how the work of others doesn't match up to how you imagine you would do it.

Very Sincerely,
Rosa Rashall, Certified Nutrition Educator

GMO Film Series Presents Scientist Under Attack

Wednesday, October 10 6:30 PM
$5.00 USD
Humanist Hall in Oakland

Potluck begins at 6:30pm and the film begins at 7:30pm.

Árpád Pusztai and Ignacio Chapela have two things in common. They are distinguished scientists and their careers are in ruins. Both scientists choose to look at the phenomenon of genetic engineering. Both made important discoveries. Both of them are suffereing the fate of those who criticise the powerful vested interests that now dominate big business and scientifuic research. Statements made by scientist themselves prove that 95% of the research in the area of genetic engineering is paid by the industry. Only 5% of the research is independent. The big danger for engineering is paid by the industry. Only 5% of the research is independent. The big danger for freedom of scince and our democracy is evident.
Can the public/we all still trust in our scientists?

Humanist Hall
390 27th St
Oakland, CA 94612
(Between Telegraph and Broadway)

Host: Carter Allen
Email: [email protected]

Well, I asked what I thought were good questions in a previous post, however there are no answers...yet.

I get there are loopholes in the prop 37. While that is unfortunate, I do not see the disclosures that WILL get labeled, if prop 37 passes, as a failure. I see them as a start. It is too bad it takes such huge effort to even get this much labeled...but that is a fact...that is our legal process...and that is the best we have to work with now. And a big thank you to those posters who put so much effort, time and energy into making disclosure possible - I really appreciate your work greatly.

I look at it like this. Our legal process is slow. I have seen that firsthand, and it is a fact of our times. We cannot change that...at least not anytime soon. And, I get the piece where the whole ballot would not succeed if there was insistance on meat being included...some legal situations...you have to stick to one issue (I also don't get why meat has to be separated out, but its some legal thing)

I do not see in our future a better start for disclosure of gmo's in our food. If anyone can convince me that a better measure can feasibly get passed in the next two years, then I might change my mind.

Obviously there are people willing to take the time, money and energy to campaign for these things. I am going to vote yes, and appreciate that there will be people in the future who will take the next step to get even fuller disclosure on our ballot. It is a gift.

traindays - your question was answered. it appears that you did not like the answer.

here it is. the opposition to labeling and the creator of life-insulting substances is monsanto et al. monsanto is the un. those who are leading the labeling initiative are carighttoknow, fooddemocracynow!, oca and institute for responsible technology. all of which are un. the un was founded, at first as the league of nations, for one purpose - to institute one world dictatorship which reasonably requires a forced huge reduction in population and easy control over all humans who survive. genetically-modified humans.

these movements, such as label gmos, are not grass roots. that is very important. it is not so much that i don't believe gmo foods should be labeled as it is i do not accept that gmos should exist. we are being led here - just as with the occupy movement, which was funded by the ever-egregious george soros(un). the energy by which we are being led is anti-life, anti-freedom, anti- ability to think and act coherently. and that is the un and all of its tens of thousands of ngos.

the program under which this all takes place is called Agenda 21. under agenda 21 there will be no organic foods, no matter what the ngos state to the contrary, no vitamins. it will all be gmo. except for the elite. there will be no private property. so when you hear about 'saving our agricultural land' from ngos, you will know that it actually means un land grabs that will grow, if anything, nothing but gmos. there will be no private ownership under agenda 21. please understand that. not land, or home, or children, or private vehicles. the un owns all the water on the planet, including rainwater. surely you are familiar with that, as least peripherally.

if it is un, it is bad. if i were going to attempt to take control over an entire planet i would control through whatever means i could, food, water, land, money. imf, who, world bank, codex alimentarius, opec, chambers of commerce, sierra club, nrdc, etc are un ngos. does that give you pause yet?

if you don't believe it, so be it. it will not take 100% awareness. just over half. the person who said here that oca or whatever was not foundation-funded was straight-out lying. that a gigantic, multi-national, all-powerful, foreign organization controls our water, vitamins, food, and is superceding our constitution in favor of the un charter, and literally all aspects of life on this planet, exists at all should be enough to set sane and intelligent humans into action to stop it. but not so.

it is not our legal process, traindays, it is our indoctrination that is doing us in. i would stand behind a grass roots movement that is aimed at stopping or labeling gmos. but i will not stand with the united nations. my honor is more important than my immediate life.

"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day. But a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly proves a deliberate systematic plan of reducing us to slavery." Thomas Jefferson

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by traindays:

Well, I asked what I thought were good questions in a previous post, however there are no answers...yet.

I get there are loopholes in the prop 37. While that is unfortunate, I do not see the disclosures that WILL get labeled, if prop 37 passes, as a failure. I see them as a start. It is too bad it takes such huge effort to even get this much labeled...but that is a fact...that is our legal process...and that is the best we have to work with now. And a big thank you to those posters who put so much effort, time and energy into making disclosure possible - I really appreciate your work greatly.

I look at it like this. Our legal process is slow. I have seen that firsthand, and it is a fact of our times. We cannot change that...at least not anytime soon. And, I get the piece where the whole ballot would not succeed if there was insistance on meat being included...some legal situations...you have to stick to one issue (I also don't get why meat has to be separated out, but its some legal thing)

I do not see in our future a better start for disclosure of gmo's in our food. If anyone can convince me that a better measure can feasibly get passed in the next two years, then I might change my mind.

Obviously there are people willing to take the time, money and energy to campaign for these things. I am going to vote yes, and appreciate that there will be people in the future who will take the next step to get even fuller disclosure on our ballot. It is a gift.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by pnicholson:

traindays - your question was answered. it appears that you did not like the answer.

here it is. the opposition to labeling and the creator of life-insulting substances is monsanto et al. monsanto is the un. those who are leading the labeling initiative are carighttoknow, fooddemocracynow!, oca and institute for responsible technology. all of which are un. the un was founded, at first as the league of nations, for one purpose - to institute one world dictatorship which reasonably requires a forced huge reduction in population and easy control over all humans who survive. genetically-modified humans.

these movements, such as label gmos, are not grass roots. that is very important. it is not so much that i don't believe gmo foods should be labeled as it is i do not accept that gmos should exist. we are being led here - just as with the occupy movement, which was funded by the ever-egregious george soros(un). the energy by which we are being led is anti-life, anti-freedom, anti- ability to think and act coherently. and that is the un and all of its tens of thousands of ngos.

the program under which this all takes place is called Agenda 21. under agenda 21 there will be no organic foods, no matter what the ngos state to the contrary, no vitamins. it will all be gmo. except for the elite. there will be no private property. so when you hear about 'saving our agricultural land' from ngos, you will know that it actually means un land grabs that will grow, if anything, nothing but gmos. there will be no private ownership under agenda 21. please understand that. not land, or home, or children, or private vehicles. the un owns all the water on the planet, including rainwater. surely you are familiar with that, as least peripherally.

if it is un, it is bad. if i were going to attempt to take control over an entire planet i would control through whatever means i could, food, water, land, money. imf, who, world bank, codex alimentarius, opec, chambers of commerce, sierra club, nrdc, etc are un ngos. does that give you pause yet?

if you don't believe it, so be it. it will not take 100% awareness. just over half. the person who said here that oca or whatever was not foundation-funded was straight-out lying. that a gigantic, multi-national, all-powerful, foreign organization controls our water, vitamins, food, and is superceding our constitution in favor of the un charter, and literally all aspects of life on this planet, exists at all should be enough to set sane and intelligent humans into action to stop it. but not so.

it is not our legal process, traindays, it is our indoctrination that is doing us in. i would stand behind a grass roots movement that is aimed at stopping or labeling gmos. but i will not stand with the united nations. my honor is more important than my immediate life.

"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day. But a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly proves a deliberate systematic plan of reducing us to slavery." Thomas Jefferson

---

OK, thanks for specifically responding to me! I see your point of view. Its an immense point of view...might take me a few days to form an intelligent response.

I guess my thinking, right now is...OK...this is what we are working with. What is a better solution? Because I am simply not seeing one, within the framework our country works in right now. I feel a bit more optimistic, knowing the system we are working with here...in that a start to disclosure will help pave the way for further disclosure. Its a fight. Perhaps it comes from thinking we will not be rid of these oppressive elements...(I really like the T. Jefferson quote), we have to work with them. What are other options?

you are welcome, traindays. i am honored to have the opportunity to respond to you.

it may seem like an immense point of view, but it is a simple, direct point of view. it is what is. once you reach that understanding a release of sorts happens. perhaps you have experienced that. you know where you stand and you know what you want, but you also know what you don't want. we are living in a culture of double-speak and propaganda. state-sponsored propaganda. it is easy to get turned around and around.

disclosure does beget disclosure. i agree with you there. i am disclosing. i hope you will do the same.

'we have to work with them'. no. we don't. i don't work with them. them is about one million humans. we are six billion humans. they are painfully aware of that.

please know that the tyrannists on this plane have gathered under the aegis of the united nations. the un was founded and is funded by those who would take away not only freedom, but life and mind. the un has created an uber enormous web of entanglements of controlled opposition that are called ngos. no matter how altruistic these ngos wax, they are in existence only to serve one world government.

where do you want to go? what kind of life appeals to you? wherever that is, simply do not flow power to that which is anathema to your fondest dreams.

before you sign a petition, check to see who originated it. in the agenda 21 vision quest hoaxes, just the fact that you are attending is considered full agreement to the agenda. be circumspect. we cannot evolve if we are not free. evolution cannot be mandated or controlled.

we are truly at a crossroads. control over all aspects of life from what you eat, to where you live or, indeed, if you live, to what you think, versus freedom to experience life and attain happiness as a sovereign human being is what is at stake here. global governance demands the complete control and dependence of every life form on government. and it is not representative government. it is to be unelected boards. no recourse.

do not flow power to the un. buy locally or buy organic. do not vote if all the candidates are criminals(as is the case right now). do not pay taxes. through taxes we are funding our own demise and that of millions in third world countries. get rid of your tv. do not use pharmaceuticals. use natural medicines. drive only when you have to. take your children out of the indoctrinating public school system. take your money out of the big banks - put it in a credit union. use cash. grow whatever food you can. do not fund the corporations. think locally, act locally. there are many ways to defeat the tyranny. share your knowledge - knowledge is power. it truly is. we are not doomed. not at all. live consciously.

there is always a solution. and that solution is us.

with much love,
p

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by traindays:

OK, thanks for specifically responding to me! I see your point of view. Its an immense point of view...might take me a few days to form an intelligent response.

I guess my thinking, right now is...OK...this is what we are working with. What is a better solution? Because I am simply not seeing one, within the framework our country works in right now. I feel a bit more optimistic, knowing the system we are working with here...in that a start to disclosure will help pave the way for further disclosure. Its a fight. Perhaps it comes from thinking we will not be rid of these oppressive elements...(I really like the T. Jefferson quote), we have to work with them. What are other options?

---

`
Finally! The Truth Revealed!!!

Agenda 21 is gonna kill us all!!!

Only half kidding. For those not hip to the "discussion" are you in for a treat! A treat that is, if you're an intellectual masochist.

Worth knowing about.

The Conspirosphere is vast, powerful and mulitvariegated. It's almost a full time job just to keep up with developments!

Make sure to start with Post #1, or you'll miss the exciting narrative contained there/herein...

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...418#post152418


`

Agenda 21 Is very real and it need to be stop.

Behind the Green Mask - Rosa Koire (Agenda 21)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDtCb45Lqt0

SOUNDS LIKE SCIENCE FICTION...OR SOME CONSPIRACY THEORY...BUT IT ISN'T.
Have you wondered where these terms 'sustainability' and 'smart growth' and 'high density urban mixed use development' came from?
Doesn't it seem like about 10 years ago you'd never heard of them and now everything seems to include these concepts? Is that just a coincidence? That every town and county and state and nation in the world would be changing their land use/planning codes and government policies to align themselves with...what?
Click here for more:

https://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/index.html

Who are we?
We are engaged in educating ourselves, our peers, and our country about UN Agenda 21, ICLEI, Sustainable Development, Smart Growth, Form-Based Zoning, Green Energy Mandates, Carbon Offsets, Cap and Trade, Redevelopment and other programs that restrict our land rights and civil rights.
This vitally important information transcends party lines and illuminates much of what we have witnessed over the past two decades.
This is not a left or right issue. It's an American issue.

The information on these sites will help you to identify what is happening in your town and to stop it.
https://www.PostSustainabilityInstitute.org
https://www.DemocratsAgainstUNAgenda21.com
https://www.SantaRosaNeighborhoodCoalition.com

Need a DVD, submit a request at:
https://teapartymedia.net/listen_liv...k_request_.htm

We the People Radio interview:
https://teapartymedia.net/20111218

Book Behind The Green Mask here
https://www.infowarsshop.com/Behind-...-21_p_585.html

Yes Agenda 21 is real. I am a fan of Rosa Koire's, and have noticed the insidious jargon and policies that are indicators of Agenda 21 being implemented in my home county as well as nationally. I do not intend to vote for either of the corporate puppets being held up for us to choose from. Long before I ever knew about Agenda 21 I attended a meeting where the Delphi technique was used. I was the only one in the room who walked out at the end of the day angry, knowing we had been scammed. When I encountered Rosa's work years later, I finally knew exactly HOW we had been scammed.

That said, Label GMOs, IRT and OCA are most emphatically NOT an Agenda 21 scam. Are you kidding PNicholson? Your lack of critical thinking and your broad sweeping statements lumping everyone who is trying to make a difference in with the UN NGO's working to bring on the New World Order is simplistic, inaccurate and defeatist. Beware of believing everything that goes through your head!

Agenda 21 is all about "smart development" and getting people into the cities and out of the country. It is about putting corporate overlords in charge of everything needed for survival. It is about getting small farmers off the farm, and forbidding front yard veggie gardens. It is about letting Monsanto pollute all the seed so we don't have a choice. It is about poisoning the air and water so we need expensive interventions to conceive, to be healthy, to grow our own healthy food.

HOW COULD A LABELING LAW THAT PUTS KNOWLEDGE IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE BE A UN AGENDA 21 SCHEME? If people avoid GMOs because of the label, this will benefit their health. If they are healthier, they are less vulnerable to Agenda 21 strategies. If people's avoidance of GMOs shifts the market away from GMOs in any measurable way, it will represent a stumbling block in the Agenda 21 program. A massively shrinking market share for GM products has been the result of labeling everywhere it has been implemented. Why would it be any different here in CA?

I have no objection to going down the rabbit hole and looking with open eyes at what is actually happening. However, you seem to have mixed up a potent brew of a little information plus a load of assumptions that has you dizzy with your own sense of "superior knowledge". Have you bothered to actually confirm any of your accusations about Label GMOs and the other food safety groups you demonize as being UN funded, or do you just "know" them to be true? I challenge you to back up your claims with actual data.

Traindays, to answer your question: Prop 37 is the only chance we are likely to have to get GMOs labeled in California. If it succeeds here, other states will follow. The naysayers on this thread are not offering another initiative to label GMOs, they are simply stating that Prop 37 isn't good enough. As I said before, this is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If we want transparency in labeling, this is where it starts. Vote YES ON 37!

I appreciate your investigation; but I'd hope you'd vote yes and then work for better laws to rid, or restrict, and label all GMO use.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by DynamicBalance:

Why I'm voting "NO" on Prop 37

by Laurel Blair, NTP

To those who are familiar with my nutritional philosophy, it may come as a surprise to hear that I plan to vote against California Prop 37, an upcoming ballot initiative to label genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the food supply.

Before I get accused of being a shill for Monsanto,

---

this is important information. cost benefit agricultural policy turns the world into a large lab experiment. bad primates will be punished. if the smart primates organize resistance by demanding information then the experiments are simply changed. human evolution is actually quite rapid.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by datars:

GMO Film Series Presents Scientist Under Attack

Wednesday, October 10 6:30 PM
$5.00 USD
Humanist Hall in Oakland

Potluck begins at 6:30pm and the film begins at 7:30pm.

Árpád Pusztai and Ignacio Chapela have two things in common. They are distinguished scientists and their careers are in ruins. Both scientists choose to look at the phenomenon of genetic engineering. Both made important discoveries. Both of them are suffereing the fate of those who criticise the powerful vested interests that now dominate big business and scientifuic research. Statements made by scientist themselves prove that 95% of the research in the area of genetic engineering is paid by the industry. Only 5% of the research is independent. The big danger for engineering is paid by the industry. Only 5% of the research is independent. The big danger for freedom of scince and our democracy is evident.
Can the public/we all still trust in our scientists?

Humanist Hall
390 27th St
Oakland, CA 94612
(Between Telegraph and Broadway)

Host: Carter Allen
Email: [email protected]

---

New Prop 37 ad
Right to Know: Vote Yes on Prop 37
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB1xHFwSYIg

Click here to help us get this ad on the air: https://fwwat.ch/Right2KnowTVAD

To learn more about Prop 37 and Food & Water Watch's campaign to make GE Labeling the Law, visit www.foodandwaterwatch.org/yeson37.

"What makes you think you have the right to know?" asks Danny DeVito in a witty, ironic public service announcement by the political action committee sponsored by consumer advocacy group Food & Water Watch in support of Proposition 37. California's ballot initiative to label genetically engineered foods. A diverse, all-star cast joins DeVito in the "Right to Know" PSA, including Bill Maher, Dave Matthews, Jillian Michaels, Emily Deschanel, John Cho, Glenn Howerton, Kaitlin Olson, KaDee Strickland and Kristin Bauer van Straten.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:

this is important information. cost benefit agricultural policy turns the world into a large lab experiment. bad primates will be punished. if the smart primates organize resistance by demanding information then the experiments are simply changed. human evolution is actually quite rapid.

---

U R a funny advanced primate Rossman.

We are the paradigm shifters we've been waiting for.
Get set for Warp Speed Evolving. All hope is not lost - hurray! :waccosun:

Just Label It - the GMO labeling song by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEVw5Jl4c2g

HealthRanger YouTube Channel
https://www.youtube.com/user/thehealthranger

Love that commercial & this one too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB1xHFwSYIg

No on 37 ad pulled: https://www.carighttoknow.org/no_on_..._source=prop37

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by datars:

Just Label It - the GMO labeling song by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEVw5Jl4c2g

HealthRanger YouTube Channel
https://www.youtube.com/user/thehealthranger

---

thank you for your thoughtful and eloquent post, rosa.

guy

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Rosa R:

Laurel, I read your opinion piece on Prop 37 as well as your subsequent responses to people who challenged you. While it is apparent your heart is in the right place, I was disappointed to see you using your position as an NTP to add weight to your unfounded accusations about the nature of Prop 37 and its proponents. It is always disappointing to me when I encounter otherwise intelligent and articulate people within the natural health community who can't see the forest for the trees. The big picture has obviously been lost, and you are using your articulate intelligence to try to sway others towards your hairsplitting, negative point of view.

You may not think you are giving your vote away to Monsanto et al, but that is what a No vote from you and every voter swayed by your attacks on Prop 37 means. Have you examined the funding for and against Prop 37? Last time I looked, the Biotech/ Industrial Food crowd had raised $34 million to try to deny Californians the right to know whether they are eating GMOs. The Yes on 37 crowd has raised $4 million.

This is not some corporate front making a sham of labeling. Prop 37 is a true grassroots effort. Volunteers gathered 250,000 of the nearly one million signatures submitted to get the initiative on the ballot. OCA, IRT and the Right to Know committee are not and have never been corporate-sponsored. Look at the funding, look at the endorsers. https://www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements Do you really think that Jeffrey Smith, the Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund, Robyn O'Brien and all the rest of our food heroes are either too stupid to know they are being deceived or are in on this alleged deceit themselves? Do you really think that the volunteers who have committed thousands of hours to this campaign are likewise stupid or deceptive? I'm here to tell you, you don't hold the patent on intelligence and discernment. We knew about the exemptions, and many of us, myself included, did tell people about them.

You claim repeatedly that the Yes on 37 crowd is deceptive because the exemptions were not laid out for you to examine before you donated. In fact, the initiative has been available in full online for nearly a year now. At any time since November 2011, it could be read on labelgmos.org, and now it is on the carighttoknow website https://www.carighttoknow.org/read_the_initiative

Yes, there are exemptions. As GardenQueen stated, California Constitution Article 2, section 8 (d) explicitly says: An initiative measure embracing more than one subject may not be submitted to the electors or have any effect. In plain English this means that for an initiative to be legal, it can only be about one issue. That is why the focus is on food sold in grocery stores, the foods people most often eat. Alcohol is not considered to be in the same legal category as food, nor are vitamins. That is why they are exempt. Meat and from animals fed or injected with GMOs is considered a second-generation product as they are not themselves directly genetically engineered. The same goes for milk. That is why they are exempt. However, if GMO salmon (or any other animal) is for sale, it would be labeled as such.

Now Laurel, I have to quote you here "I understand where the Prop 37 writers were coming from on this issue, but personally I would have handled it a LOT differently if it was up to me. By far, my biggest beef with Prop 37 is the way the campaign was conducted."Where have you been? We could have used your considerable energy and commitment to spread the word. You could have shared the exemptions with everyone you spoke with. Remember, most on the ground communication has been by volunteers. You could have been part of the process, part of the solution, instead of pointing fingers and throwing stones and trying to tear down all that we have poured our hearts and souls into.


It seems to me that with your angry diatribe you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. Prop 37 doesn't ban GMOs and there are loopholes that you actually had to look up yourself, so you choose to vote NO? What is the alternative? Do you really think that not having GMOs labeled will make people more invested in self-education to avoid GMOs? Without labels, most people don't even know that GMOs exist. I spent time canvassing in a WinCo parking lot, talking to people with carts full of GMOs. Most of them had never heard of a GMO, and once they understood that they were lab-made they wanted labels.

I find it interesting that you advocate voting against Prop 37 and instead tell people that avoiding GMOs is a matter of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Can you really stand by that statement when you think of the millions of people who have never heard of GMOs? In contrast, I believe the responsibility for identifying GMO products rests with the corporations that produce them, the farmers who grow them, and the companies that manufacture food with them, NOT with the people who unwittingly eat them. That said, I am a label reader and I always tell people to read the fine print. But of course, most people don't.

You claim that it is easy for the informed consumer to avoid GMOs, but that entails eating a whole foods diet devoid of processed foods, or eating 100% organic. As a fellow traditional nutritionist ala Weston A Price, I agree that would be ideal for people's health. However, as a realist I understand that we have to meet people where they are for information to be accessible to them. For the millions of people shopping at WinCo and Safeway, eating this way is at present an unachievable goal. A big part of my personal motivation for being a volunteer with Label GMOs is to democratize access to non-GMO foods, to make them accessible to those who simply can't buy organic foods and who don't know what the 8 commercial GM crops are. Is 5% GMO better than 100% GMO? In my book, yes.

Is it perfect? No. Is it everything I would like to see? Not by a long shot. Is it a good first step? Absolutely. Will it need strengthening in the future? Yes! We are so far behind the rest of the world on this issue, and the Agrichemical companies are so entrenched here, that compromises had to be made in order for this to stand up in court. Eighteen state-level legislative attempts have been made to label GMOs, and they all failed. To date, this is our best chance to pass a GMO labeling law in the US. In a perfect world, Prop 37 would label GMOs everywhere they show up, from animal feed to restaurants. However, writing such a broad initiative would doom it to failure, and allow the silent corruption of the food supply to continue beneath the level of most people's awareness. This is not about the ideal, it is about the real.

I encourage all who are reading this to VOTE YES ON 37 and then continue to educate others about GMOs. This is just the first step.

Some examples of next steps: Are you a parent? Work to get GMOs out of your children's school cafeteria. Do you eat out a lot? Ask restaurant owners to source non-GMO products. Are you a teacher? Show your students Genetic Roulette. Pass out non-GMO shopping guides. Teach people to read labels. Are you a farmer? Commit to growing non-GMO crops, talk to your neighboring farmers, form a no GMO coalition, educate your customers.

Laurel, for you I have a special challenge: Instead of using your intellect to try to tear down and discredit Prop 37, get involved. Once it passes, work to strengthen it. Perhaps you could start a campaign to ban the planting of GMOs in your county. Contact the organizers of the successful ban on GMO planting in Mendocino County. Network. Write your own county measure. Awareness about GMOs is higher now than it has ever been, due in large part to Prop 37 campaigners. Ride the wave and join the fight. If this just isn't your cup of tea, please, stop complaining about how the work of others doesn't match up to how you imagine you would do it.

Very Sincerely,
Rosa Rashall, Certified Nutrition Educator

---

Traindays - I think that meat is not included because the animals are not genetically modified. They eat GMOs and we are getting the GMOs second hand. That is another issue. I think you may find this article by Michael Pollan informative. https://www.organicconsumers.org/art...icle_26403.cfm Ruth

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by traindays:

Well, I asked what I thought were good questions in a previous post, however there are no answers...yet.

I get there are loopholes in the prop 37. While that is unfortunate, I do not see the disclosures that WILL get labeled, if prop 37 passes, as a failure. I see them as a start. It is too bad it takes such huge effort to even get this much labeled...but that is a fact...that is our legal process...and that is the best we have to work with now. And a big thank you to those posters who put so much effort, time and energy into making disclosure possible - I really appreciate your work greatly.

I look at it like this. Our legal process is slow. I have seen that firsthand, and it is a fact of our times. We cannot change that...at least not anytime soon. And, I get the piece where the whole ballot would not succeed if there was insistence on meat being included...some legal situations...you have to stick to one issue (I also don't get why meat has to be separated out, but its some legal thing)

I do not see in our future a better start for disclosure of gmo's in our food. If anyone can convince me that a better measure can feasibly get passed in the next two years, then I might change my mind.

Obviously there are people willing to take the time, money and energy to campaign for these things. I am going to vote yes, and appreciate that there will be people in the future who will take the next step to get even fuller disclosure on our ballot. It is a gift.

---

hi rosa. sorry for the time lag. i am not able to come here every day. i am also sorry if i offended you, or others. it was not intentional.

i have some links for you here. sometimes the connections are easy to untangle and sometimes not. by design. i can demonstrate big corp funding for some orgs and the orgs for whom i finally gave up, fooddemocracynow! and carighttoknow (slowfood & slowmoney) are splinter groups from the larger orgs, though there is some info on 'slow' orgs. they are funded by the larger groups. given enough time i could do it. but i do not care to. i am tired of coming up with links and connections. if you are not content with what i offer, do it yourself.

you say you know what agenda 21 is. it is this but not that. but to most people it is about really good and important issues like climate change control and sustainable development and saving the earth, being green. who could argue with that? it can't possibly be deceptive about something like labeling gmos. well, how could it possibly be deceptive about something as important as living sustainably and saving the earth? i do not think we have the time to pick and choose. as i stated - if it is un it is bad. i have been researching the un and ngos, climate change, rockefeller and other tax-free foundations and their connections to population reduction through, for one, gmos, for about seven years now. i know what the un is about. i know who the founders and funders are, because it is easy enough to determine. but that is what i say. i am willing to agree to disagree.

since you are up on agenda 21 nomenclature some of the wording on the websites might be more meaningful to you than, perhaps, it would be to others. the first link is the most important. i believe it supercedes all the others in significance and importance. at any rate, i hope you find them interesting and informative. thanks again for your patience. and just fyi and re gmos: i spend a great deal of time researching possible cures for type 1 diabetes. my little dog is diabetic - i suspect from vaccines. a month or so ago i discovered that the life-saving human insulin, the only kind available in this country since the natural insulins have been discontinued, i am giving him twice a day is gmo. though it states it right on the bottle, i somehow missed it for two years. his body is rejecting it - no surprise there. i am fighting to save his life. while i believe anything can be cured naturally, type 1 diabetics at this time rely on insulin to keep them alive (thought i fully intend to find alternatives). that the insulin they are offered is gmo is beyond evil. clever if you are a sociopath, but....

here we go.

much love,
p

https://www.globalresearch.ca/doomsday-seed-vault-in-the-arctic/

don't be culled by the UN's green agenda

https://ymlp.com/zYKsgk

every 'endorser' here is connectable to the united nations except for the democratic party (?), mercola, though i am working on that, and whole foods which i have connected to the un but not as an outright ngo. under "consumer" every org is un.

https://www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements

food day: sponsored by monsanto
https://www.organicconsumers.org/art...icle_24507.cfm

food freedom betrayal
https://farmwars.info/?p=5032

founding members of slowmoney(un). organic valley's george siemon was mentioned in the link above. please check out
the credentials and associations (un) of these entrepeneurs etc.
https://slowmoney.org/founding-members

tulsans for sustainable freedom: the ngo scam
(lots of interesting info here)
https://tulsansforsustainablefreedom.com/L12.html

socialism, taxes & castro: mission rio+day 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9iZ...eature=related

US Agents of Subversion Deride Russian NGO Bill
https://globalpoliticalawakening.blo...e-russian.html

gives an idea of the scope of power/enforcement that un has usurped. never before has it been laid out so openly, here & elsewhere, the intention of a group of sociopaths who wish to rule the world and more shocking - the fact that they intend to absolutely control every facet of our lives and the lives of animals and plants.
https://www.un-documents.net/csdngo/es2ngo.htm

just for fun
https://www.blacklistednews.com/UN_Sustainability_Summit_Exposed%3A_Big_Business,_Dictators,_and_NGOs/20467/0/38/38/Y/M.html


linking endorsers to united nations:

california nurses association
https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/ref...best-local-ngo

california labor federation
https://productstewardship.us/displa...articlenbr=235

united farm workers of america
https://www.bamco.com/sustainable-fo...rker-inventory
https://fairtradeusa.org/fair_trade_for_all

california council of churches
https://www.unodc.org/ngo/list.jsp#C

consumer federation of america
https://stopgamblingonhunger.com/endorsements/

public citizen
https://www.iisd.org/tkn/about/resources.asp

food democracy now!
https://action.fooddemocracynow.org/...stamping_GMOs/


american public health association
https://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy...lt.htm?id=1375

i hope i did not leave anything out.

it is my understanding that agenda 21 is all inclusive.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Rosa R:

Yes Agenda 21 is real. I am a fan of Rosa Koire's, and have noticed the insidious jargon and policies that are indicators of Agenda 21 being implemented in my home county as well as nationally. I do not intend to vote for either of the corporate puppets being held up for us to choose from. Long before I ever knew about Agenda 21 I attended a meeting where the Delphi technique was used. I was the only one in the room who walked out at the end of the day angry, knowing we had been scammed. When I encountered Rosa's work years later, I finally knew exactly HOW we had been scammed.

That said, Label GMOs, IRT and OCA are most emphatically NOT an Agenda 21 scam. Are you kidding PNicholson? Your lack of critical thinking and your broad sweeping statements lumping everyone who is trying to make a difference in with the UN NGO's working to bring on the New World Order is simplistic, inaccurate and defeatist. Beware of believing everything that goes through your head!

Agenda 21 is all about "smart development" and getting people into the cities and out of the country. It is about putting corporate overlords in charge of everything needed for survival. It is about getting small farmers off the farm, and forbidding front yard veggie gardens. It is about letting Monsanto pollute all the seed so we don't have a choice. It is about poisoning the air and water so we need expensive interventions to conceive, to be healthy, to grow our own healthy food.

HOW COULD A LABELING LAW THAT PUTS KNOWLEDGE IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE BE A UN AGENDA 21 SCHEME? If people avoid GMOs because of the label, this will benefit their health. If they are healthier, they are less vulnerable to Agenda 21 strategies. If people's avoidance of GMOs shifts the market away from GMOs in any measurable way, it will represent a stumbling block in the Agenda 21 program. A massively shrinking market share for GM products has been the result of labeling everywhere it has been implemented. Why would it be any different here in CA?

I have no objection to going down the rabbit hole and looking with open eyes at what is actually happening. However, you seem to have mixed up a potent brew of a little information plus a load of assumptions that has you dizzy with your own sense of "superior knowledge". Have you bothered to actually confirm any of your accusations about Label GMOs and the other food safety groups you demonize as being UN funded, or do you just "know" them to be true? I challenge you to back up your claims with actual data.

Traindays, to answer your question: Prop 37 is the only chance we are likely to have to get GMOs labeled in California. If it succeeds here, other states will follow. The naysayers on this thread are not offering another initiative to label GMOs, they are simply stating that Prop 37 isn't good enough. As I said before, this is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If we want transparency in labeling, this is where it starts. Vote YES ON 37!

---

`
Just want to emphasize that Post #52 in this thread is the best explanation for why Prop 37 is written the way it is. Rosa R. gives the exact reasons why, legally and procedurally. That's the post I refer others to when sharing this discussion outside of Waccovia.

I do not agree with Rosa about the dangers of "Agenda 21" but I'm in synch with her explanation for why there are "loopholes" in this proposed legislation. Please read or reread it carefully. She covers a lot of ground with her economical use of words.


`

I agree, Handy ~ Steer clear of Canola. If one thoroughly researches the ill-health effects of cooking with / eating canola, it's darn scary.

Canola is genetically engineered, grown with organic practices or not. I'm voting YES! on Prop 37 labeling of GMO / GE ingredients in our foods.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by handy:

Haven't yet decided how I'll vote on this one.
Regarding Canola, be aware that it is made from Rapeseed oil. The name Canola comes from the chemist who discovered the way to use petrochemical solvents to reduce the toxic erucic acid content. Whether it is GE or not, I steer clear of it.

---

Kudos Mad Miles.

Ditto here. I agree that Prop 37 is not perfect legislation. But considering that if Prop 37 looses it is a defeat for labeling of our foods and a win for Mighty Monsanto. Therefore, I must, in my best conscience, cast my vote for prop 37. Though a nice explanation Laurel, I am going to side with Europe's need to know and my need to know. And well even if not perfect, it is a start. And at least it will get some people thinking about this subject who were oblivious before. And they are out there. Not everyone is from west county. Ferngirl

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:

So the Proposition isn't perfect. What is? It's a start.

If passed, we'll know more than we did before. And the gaps provide new opportunities for public education by informed activists.

If it fails, it will be seen as a defeat for the anti-GMO movement. Weighing the pros and cons, I'm voting for it. And I encourage others to do so as well.

I knew about the problems in it before today, by the way.

This set of concerns reminds me of the Prop. 19 debate two years ago. Similar instance of the, "The Perfect, being The Enemy of The Good."

Pick your fights. Know which side you're on.

Who benefits? Who suffers? Why?

Then decide.

---

Hey! Everyone,

Laurel isn't the only person dismayed with Prop 37's exceptions. Spoke with at least 3 farmers at the Original Santa Rosa Farmers Market last Saturday, plus a good friend, who also are considering OR have decided on a NO vote. (Though I'm still talking with them, hoping to influence their understanding and support...think I've won one person over.)

Prop37 was written with GREAT CARE and CONSIDERATION to make its passage likely. Here is an excellent info graphic that explains the LabelGMOs exceptions. Take a look. Please share it with anyone else who may be undecided or hesitant or confused by the TV barrage of misinformation by LabelGMOs opponents.

IMO this isn't just a Political issue. This is a matter of survival. Please look at this 1 minute video and if you want more detail, the second one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDdn...Y&feature=plcp (Which generation? my children or my grandchildren?) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nHCw36wIhs And I like this one by a GMO farmer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WOB...layer_embedded They say it better than I can. With this pre-prop 37 info and the recent research from France on the long term effects of GMOs, they should be banned.

message from a friend ...

Aloha Waccovians,

In answer to your question Laurel, re: the trans fat (trick)...yes, I am definitely aware and only because I took a medical nutrition class at the JC, years ago. I appreciate your time-spent writing about this, as you are moving. Mahalo for your dedication toward food safety & nutrition and for sparking more needed discussions on Wacco, both pro & con.

Thank you gardenqueen for working overtime with your volunteer efforts to bring more awareness to our still slumbering public, many of whom still know nothing much about what we are all exposed to and eating. I'm happy to know our once-trusted Whole (Deception) Foods and other brand name food companies are being flushed out as Prop 37 brings more deception to light, demanding more truth. Thank you for the links & important facts.

Prop 37 is not an exercise in honesty, Laurel. It's a hard fought necessarily strategic campaign to create public awareness and help ensure that our political process in these concerns is still intact; we're in for the long haul whether this wins 'or not'. It will only take much longer for the groups who write the ballot measures opposing GMO's, to complete all the subsequent work that needs to be done. If it doesn't win, then the road we'll need to travel to help salvage what's left of our environment & children's health won't be the scenic route. I don't want to think about what the 'or not' could possibly spawn.

Personally, it would be a great relief to know that talking about GMO foods in the ways we have on Wacco, is only the beginning of many more thought-provoking talks that move us toward generating more focused political activism to eventually address the larger danger at the roots.

Yes, Paul I agree whole-heartedly; we need to ban GMO's altogether. The public should not be forced to eat disgusting scientific experiments passed off as 'edibles' or 'foods'. But how are we to rise to the occasion of banning GMO's when the majority of our populace has no idea what GMO is, nor what it implies in terms of health when, especially our children eat this biotoxic mess? In fact, the "M" in GMO standing for "modified", helps to conceal from public knowledge--that the science of Genetic Engineering includes the crossing of the species barrier. It's NOT a simple modification; it has never been what anyone considers to be food. I find that eating human and animal DNA in engineered plants is disgusting, as most of us probably do.

And...I've inadvertently eaten a lot of it, without buying GMO products. By living in GMO contaminated environments, I became extremely ill. I had to learn very quickly how to make myself well. It took 3 frightening years to reclaim my health, and from what knowledge I gained, I now am able to help others in identifying illnesses related to "GMO saturation" (a term I've coined). Living in such GMO polluted environments takes its toll before one really knows what's happening.

I appreciate the voices of those who've volunteered hours of their time and energy to help us understand all the more complex details involved in the authoring of Prop 37. Thank you for saving us the hours of research, and thank you for your passionate work.

If any of us lack a spirit of determination to help pass 37, it will be to the greater detriment of the whole. The sad and shocking truth of the matter is that there are still far too many people who are not aware of GMO products, what they are, and the threat they pose to our collective health. If Prop 37 were only to serve in making the greater American public more aware, then that is where we need to begin. We will still need to create more ballot measures that address individual laws to govern more particular food safety needs, i.e., all the issues that Prop 37 does not and can not cover. There is an urgent need to keep GMO/GE practices and toxins out of our foods, food mills, backyards, supermarkets, restaurants, school lunch programs, federal food programs, etc., etc., etc. But we can't even get close to addressing where this all stems from if people don't know it exists or worse yet, that we've been eating science experiments for quite some time now!

If Sonoma County is legally allowed to engage in GMO agriculture, then we may be left scrambling to help protect ourselves after too much damage has been done to our natural environment. Life in GMO environments leaves one with no options to protect from exposure and inadvertently "eating it" by way of the pollen, no matter how much organic food we grow, purchase or eat. Locally grown "organic" crops and carefully made organic food "choices" by reading labels will simply not be a luxury afforded to those of us living in Sonoma County.

This may come as a surprise for most of us who have never lived in the vicinity of GMO open-air field test plots, but the growers are not legally obligated to inform the public about what types of GMO test plots are being grown, nor where they are planted. When people and animals are exposed to the pollens of such crops, there are very different physiological/biological reactions in the body, than those that occur with more well-known allergies.

Labeling GMO foods is a major attempt in only Raising Awareness of the General Public. Labeling is not a "simple first step". It is our very First Opportunity to Collectively Speak Up and A CRITICAL FIRST STEP in standing up for the quality of life we want to protect locally in Sonoma County, California, nationally and globally; it's about protecting the quality of our children's lives by letting the GMO industry LIE out of the bag. This action could possibly lead to more activism brought about by many more concerned U.S. citizens; we need the collective power of vast numbers of people to stop the growing of GMO crops in the first place!

Without our critical first step in actually being able to open our mouths via Prop 37, in a belated yet roaring refusal to Monsanto, et al., we are pretty well screwed. I feel outraged by the fact that Monsanto wants all of us to REMAIN SILENT. They cannot be challenged in the media. They persecute and then prosecute the small farmer and ethical scientists who've spoken up--to the ruination of their lives. They take our power from us while demanding our silence, insisting we continue to pay with everything precious we've got--quality of life in the health of humans, soil, air, lands, water, medicinal plants, food crops, animals, insects...the foundation of our remaining freedoms--choices.

I had the experience of attending a Monsanto sponsored conference at the U. of Hawaii. Before we were seated, I was informed we would not be allowed to ask questions or to make comments as members of the audience. It felt like a gag-order that Monsanto had put on us, and sent a creepy feeling through me, and the more I thought about it, my anger started to grow. At that point, I raised my voice to object in conversation with my friend. The louder I became, the more nervous Monsanto's moderator became, to the chagrin of my friends. As I continued objecting loudly to their message of "sit down, and remain silent" before it began, my outrage mounted. It was unthinkable that none of us would be able to ask questions of the panelists who represented Monsanto, the genetic engineers and organic growers. Because my loud mouth persisted, Monsanto Woman grabbed a handful of small note cards, quickly stepped up to the mic and explained that they thought it might be better if each of us could be given a card; we would be allowed to write a maximum of 3 questions each on the card. In order to qualify for an answer, we had to write the name of the panelist to whom we wanted to field our question, before the talks began. Not all questions would be read out loud--they would be randomly picked (and obviously not chosen if too controversial, I might add).

My questions of course, were not chosen; they were to Monsanto: "Do you think it's important to shelter the food corn from the pollen of pharmaceutical corn, as pharmaceutical corn contains STD's, part of the AIDS virus & blood thinners?" To The GMO Engineer: As it refers to human DNA in food crops: "What part of whose ancestor are we EATING and WHY? Does the crossing of the species barrier imply that humans may begin contracting diseases that were only known to occur in animals, and vice-versa?"

I discovered AFTER I settled on the Big Island, that Hawaii had the largest number of GMO open-air field test plots in the U.S. Until then, I had no idea what GMO fields were about, nor had it ever occurred to me that I would live in a GMO contaminated environment and that I would be sacrificing the gift I was born with--unusually strong health.

I had run away from Alexander Valley, Healdsburg where I lived for over 20 years, partly to escape the more invasive vineyard practices there--the threat of applying a nerve gas to our private lands without our knowledge and without our consent if an outbreak of the Glassy-winged sharpshooter insect was found in our surrounding vineyards. I was told by the So. Co. Board of Supervisors that I could vacate my property if I found out my organic garden, well water, children and self had been affected by the nerve gas. They told us that "the little person is in the way" of the vineyard industry--meaning the property owner.

I hadn't any idea what it would cost to live in such a toxic GMO environment in Hawaii. Who knew? It was news to me; no one I knew had any knowledge about it. Even now, not nearly enough people are speaking up about the perils of living in locally contaminated GMO ag environments. How will we manage as a community if we want to ban GMO crops locally? What will happen if 37 doesn't pass, and people still aren't aware of GMO foods, because they never read it on a "food" label, like so many other people are able to do in other countries? How do we gain support to rally against Monsanto, Dow Chemical, Syngenta, et al.? These corporations were my neighbors in Hawaii. They are the employers of the many Hawaiian locals who prefer working in agriculture to slaving in the hotel industry on the other tourist-centered islands. There is little tourism on Molokai, where I lived.

On Molokai, the wind carries the pollen (and there is considerable pollen in corn). The pollen contains and carries all the genetic markers, herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, bacterium, including E. coli, viruses, mycotoxins, blood thinners, STD's, and part of the AIDS virus, etc., on the wind. All of this biotoxin lodges into the mucus membranes of eyes, nose & mouth in humans and animals. It very quickly enters the bloodstream and settles in the intestinal tract. One does not have to buy GMO foods and eat them in order to be poisoned! When the body absorbs invisible GMO pollens on the air through eyes, nose & mouth, serving portions aren't possible to calculate. One does not chew, intentionally swallow or drink it--except maybe in the water. Many of us in the small community who attended a permaculture weekend workshop at an organic farm, began comparing health stories to find that we had been feeling like we had been eating loads of poison and were sharing the same symptom pictures and were sick for the first time in really odd ways. I had lost my ability to eat and do anything productive. Even though I could feel hunger and wanted to eat, I also felt sick to my stomach. It would occur in waves and I couldn't keep food down; so I lived for months on fermented poi until I finally left the island of Molokai where I lived for 9 months.

I now have a little knowledge helpful to others who suffer from digestive tract disorders, former medical patients who have been through the "medical mill" and can't be helped. Some symptoms are inclusive of dehydration from bowel incontinence, vitamin/mineral deficiencies, bone loss, weight loss, and Morgellons Syndrome. Most of my clients are facing financial ruin from doctor visits, lab tests and loss of employment--all stemming from what I recognize as GMO saturation. The thing is, my work with clients begins by teaching people to reclaim their health by informing them of the existence of GMO products first. Because of Prop 37, there is a plethora of scientifically backed information from leading experts in the field that has recently made it easier for me to educate my clients. I highly recommend seeing the interview of Dr. Don M. Huber, by Food Democracy Now! I consider it to be the very best information for understanding what we may be facing in terms of diseases and deficiencies that could soon affect larger numbers of animals and humans and cause more devastating environmental degradation, especially if Obama turns a deaf ear on Dr. Huber's plea to withhold planting more GMO crops & alfalfa.

At the University of Hawaii Monsanto conference I spoke of previously, we met the scientist who inserted E. coli into papaya DNA. His explanation for using it as a marker was because "E. coli is a naturally occurring substance; why not?" The room went silent for a moment, as we held our breath waiting for a panel member to respond. (Are you remembering here that we were told not to speak?) Well........these were some very tense, long moments until the organic farmer who had enough courage to finally speak was able to respond. He began in a guarded tone, by agreeing that E. coli is in fact a "naturally occurring substance" and that it is "naturally" found in only one place in the body. His body lurched forward a little towards the table after he spoke. There was nothing left to say. The energy in the room said it all. No other panelist dared speak to that.

Mr. brilliant GMO scientist had gone through all the trouble of preparing a huge bowl of chunky E. coli papaya for us to eat as a tasty mid-morning snack. Yum! It looked plenty juicy to me, but I don't recall anyone rushing over to serve up a big plate of E. coli with papaya. At least one other person from our Wacco community was in attendance that day! Do you remember?

I learned that what had once been organic papaya seed on the Big Island tested positive for GMO contamination. So much for going "local" and organic farming. How many of us take papaya enzymes for digestive purposes? Have you read your labels today? I won't eat papaya from anywhere in the world.

Thanks to research done by Food Democracy Now!, I have updated my knowledge of facts that are important to me: The American public is eating GMO foods, which are grown on 165 million acres across our nation. Worldwide, at last count, there were 365 million acres of GMO seed crops (Roundup Ready). We are a world-class leader. Does anyone know how many GMO acres are planted in Sonoma County?

This may sound trivial here, but where else can we find cross contamination of nasty GMO corn pollen? Well, having lived inside this hot mess of intensely toxic ecosystem, I can be absolutely positive that there is pollen residue on the outside of GMO packaging, especially on GMO corn products and corn starch, which sits right up against organic corn products and corn starch on the shelves at Whole Foods in Coddingtown. I brought this to the attention of an employee, who was not a cashier. I was asked to help support the community and employees of Whole Foods, by writing to upper management and corporate offices about my concerns. So there are at least 2 Whole (Deception) Foods employees who felt concerned enough to ask me to please support them in their positions. Whole Foods employees also struggle personally to inform the public more honestly about Whole Foods policies & practices, in regard to our 'right to know' as consumers and supporters of this food chain. You can pitch in too to help support the employees, if you shop there.

This is a first time wake-up call--TO VOTE, and I hope it won't be our last. If we think we may always have a right to vote about anything in regard to Monsanto/GMO/Genetic Engineering--I would think again.
California needs to voice some solidarity on this one. Labeling has been taken to the Supreme Court and failed miserably; I know better than to take an opportunity to vote for GMO labeling for granted.

Perhaps because GMO industry is generated from within our own country, on a global note, we are unfortunately and very sadly lagging behind the progress of other nations! Fewer people around the world eat the frightening stuff we eat. Many governments and their populations aren't remaining silent and stuffing this revolting, invisible filth down their gullets. To vote NO on Prop 37 is a vote that keeps us all "Eating in the Dark" (you can read the book by Kathleen Hart). We continue paying the very high price of our own loss of health and life within our devastated ecosystems--not because WE don't know in our Wacco community--but because so many others simply do not yet know or don't know enough to take it seriously. Can we please take a little time to help put other folks on the same page?

As the whole world looks to America to see what's really happened to our health, our children and environment, the way we vote is sending a big message about, at least, our dignity! Are we going to take what looks like a small step now, however incomplete or inadequate that may seem to some, or...can we see the bigger picture and prepare to take more meaningful steps forward as a nation, beginning in our own community? Are we to sit by becoming more cynical and complaining about the few organizations, which work so hard on behalf of the People, and not do our small part to say Yes? Can we bring the invisible, which can easily be denied--into print? Can we use Prop 37 as a stepping-stone to get to the root of our GMO travesty? I know we're capable of thinking beyond the illusion of "safety" we believe we have by simply "reading labels".

There are those who will think: If GMO foods are so harmful, why don't they put a label on it? I want to ask you how you would feel if your children ate the GMO plants growing in the fields, not knowing they're eating a mouthful of biotoxins. Kids in Hawaii do run through the fields, grabbing corn off the stalks which unknown to them may be Pharmaceutical corn. It's outright dangerous. Corn and other agricultural crops have always been edible, not drugs, chemicals and sources of human and animal diseases.

A Yes Vote on 37 that forces the GE industry and Monsanto to become visible is not an every day opportunity. It all depends where you happen to live, who you are, and what you're doing...that we are allowed to speak up to Monsanto and be heard--unless you're buying into their products.

Prop 37 is an intense, short match of 'hardball' that, at least, challenges Monsanto and former government officials within their "revolving door" Corporate Poison Foods Industry to square off with the presence of a greater number of us now, to see whose information will ultimately stand as the more publicly credible--us, or the big "M"?

Any little thing GMO industry is required to do on our behalf because we signed it into law, means we are still able to exercise some small amount of political power that our government has outright stolen from us. This is a test.

In closing, I also want to express my deepest appreciation and regard for the integrity and ethics of Dr. Don M. Huber. I hope that his life work in plant pathology is not destroyed by our government, along with his reputation and livelihood, as has been the case for so many others before him. I pray the Obama Administration will find the dignity to respect and value his dedicated work; his warnings and his respect-worthy care for the well being of human, animal and environmental health.

Mahalo,
phyllis bala
doctor of indigenous medicine

Scientist that discovered GMO health hazards immediately fired, team dismantled
https://www.naturalnews.com/037665_G...an_damage.html

Free 'Seeds of Freedom' Screening and Prop 37 Discussion (Richmond 10/24, Menlo Park 10/27 & Berkeley 11/2)

https://madmimi.com/images/256684482...427/beacon.gif

https://d1wh43egtz3cgo.cloudfront.ne...%20graphic.gif Nutiva Presents... SEEDS OF FREEDOM Free Screenings and Yes on Prop 37 CA Right To Know Discussion Wednesday, October 24 - Richmond Saturday, October 27 - Menlo Park Friday, November 2 - Berkeley In the spirit of the health and well-being of all Americans, Nutiva is presenting free public screenings of the film “Seeds of Freedom,” a 30-minute film, produced by the Gaia Foundation and African Biodiversity Network, about the affect of GMO seeds on global farming in support of the November 6, 2012 PROP 37 RIGHT TO KNOW. Following each screening are panel discussions about the integrity of our food system, featuring speakers supporting the Campaign to Support ‘THE RIGHT TO KNOW’ and YES on CA PROP 37. Seeds of Freedom, narrated by Jeremy Irons, charts the story of seed from its place at the heart of traditional, diversity-rich farming systems across the world, to its transformation into a powerful commodity, used to monopolize the global food system. Community and sponsoring partners include LabelGMO.org, Institute for Responsible Technology, Bioneers, Earth Island Institute, Food Shift, The Gaia Foundation, African Biodiversity Network, Richmond Grows, Women’s Earth Alliance and Wiser Earth. Admission is FREE (Space is limited. Registration in advance suggested.) For more information & free registration, please visit www.Nutiva.com/films. Screening Dates, Venues and Speakers: Date: Wednesday, October 24 Time: 6:00pm Location: East Bay Center for the Performing Arts Address: 339 11th Street, Richmond Free Registration: www.Nutiva.com/films Discussion with: - John Roulac, CEO, Nutiva, Inc. - Pamm Larry, Initial Instigator and Northern California Director, LabelGMOs.org - Claire Cummings, Environmental Lawyer, Author Date: Saturday, October 27 Time: 7:00pm Location: Trinity Church Address: 330 Ravenswood Avenue, Menlo Park Free Registration: www.Nutiva.com/films Discussion with: - John Roulac, CEO, Nutiva, Inc. - Pamm Larry, Initial Instigator and Northern California Director, LabelGMOs.org Date: Friday, November 2 Time: 7:00pm Location: The David Brower Center Address: 2150 Allston Way, Berkeley Free Registration: www.Nutiva.com/films Discussion with: - John Roulac, CEO, Nutiva, Inc. - Gary Ruskin, Campaign Director, Prop 37 - Grant Lundberg, CEO, Lundberg Foods https://d1wh43egtz3cgo.cloudfront.ne...R%20(jpeg).jpg

I am not sure why or how this happened, but more than one of my friends heard I was against proposition 37.

Let me be very clear; I am strongly against all genetically modified foods. Even if Prop. 37 has some flaws in it; I stand in complete support of the labeling of all GMO products.

In fact, I worked for GE Free Sonoma County to get a 10 year moratorium against GE crops grown here on the ballot; which was sadly defeated. Due in part to false advertising by the opposition in misquoting a public official.

If I could find the funding, I'd lead the way for a GE Free California!

If only the public officials here supported our organic agriculture, with the same vigor and funding they do for the wine grape growers; we'd be a lot healthier and better prepared for transition towards self reliance.

:waccosun: A Sante!,
(To health)

Colleen Fernald

Sebastopol's Constitutional Candidate
For Peace Through Justice
Organic + Bio Dynamic Food & Water Security

www.campaignforpeace.org

Vote "YES" on 37... Puts us on the right livelihood road. Corollary: The SF Giants won the National League Pennant. Now, in the World Series to win that too. Without a Pennant, no Series... :wink2: :thumbsup:

Laurel,
I just read the first few paragraphs of your blog here - due to time factor - but what you say about prop 37:

does not apply to restaurants and food bars, or that meat, milk, and eggs from animals fed or injected with GMOs will not be labeled. And do we really trust the processed food industry to tell us the truth about their products? These kinds of exemptions are in direct ethical conflict with the points outlined in Prop 37’s own Findings and Declarations. If the dangers of GMOs are so great that the people have a right to know which foods contain them, they should have a right to know in ALL cases, not just a select few.


backers KNOW all this - the reason being, if you know any of the history of the issue is that the big ag. companies already take issue with it but it is a START in the right direction. If we tried to ban GMOs like in the past, it would never fly - this is STEP 1. We are in a process. It is an education of the public and it is calling great attention to the issue. While it is not perfect, it is a start.

I urge you to do more research and talk to people at carighttoknow.org before you cast your vote! or check out democracynow.org October 24 - go 9 minutes into the show.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by DynamicBalance:

Why I'm voting "NO" on Prop 37

by Laurel Blair, NTP

To those who are familiar with my nutritional philosophy, it may come as a surprise to hear that I plan to vote against California Prop 37, an upcoming ballot initiative to label genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the food supply.

Before I get accused of being a shill for Monsanto, let me assure you that I am about as anti-GMO as they come. I am generally not in favor of banning things that I personally disagree with (like trans fats, for example), but when it comes to GMOs, I make an exception. I would support an outright ban on GMOs because they represent such an overwhelming threat to the environment and human health, not to mention the contamination of non-GMO and organic crops.

Proponents of Prop 37 call it “Right to Know”, and the focus of their campaign is that consumers should have the right to know if their food contains ingredients produced through genetic engineering. They point to the fact that 50 other countries have GMO labeling laws in place. Prop 37 would require that products with genetically modified (GM) ingredients be conspicuously labeled “Genetically Engineered” on the front of the package or, in the case of products that are not packaged, on a label on the shelf or bin where the product is sold. It would further declare products to be misbranded if they are labeled “natural” yet contain GM ingredients.

In the past few months I have heard a lot about Prop 37, how great it is, and how everyone should vote for it, but not one word about the exemptions it contains. I have to assume that most of its supporters simply have not read the text of the measure. Under Prop 37, animal products from animals fed diets containing GMOs or injected with GM drugs would be exempt from the labeling requirement. GM enzymes or processing aids would also be exempt, as would all alcoholic beverages. Incredibly, all restaurant food, medical food, and other food intended for immediate human consumption would be exempt from the labeling requirement. And all food would be exempt if a sworn statement is provided stating that the food has not been intentionally or knowingly contaminated with GMOs.

I highly doubt that many who plan to vote in favor of Prop 37 are aware that their "right to know" does not apply to restaurants and food bars, or that meat, milk, and eggs from animals fed or injected with GMOs will not be labeled. And do we really trust the processed food industry to tell us the truth about their products? These kinds of exemptions are in direct ethical conflict with the points outlined in Prop 37’s own Findings and Declarations. If the dangers of GMOs are so great that the people have a right to know which foods contain them, they should have a right to know in ALL cases, not just a select few.

I first began researching Prop 37 after my husband expressed his concern that GMO labeling would end up just like trans fat labeling. Man made trans fats are supposed to be labeled in the Nutrition Facts panel on a food label, but a loophole allows food processors to list the amount as zero grams if it contains less than .5 grams of trans fat per serving. They simply make the serving sizes smaller, and suddenly they are allowed to slap a label of “Trans Fat Free” on the front of their package! Additionally, another loophole makes mono- and di-glycerides exempt from the labeling requirement, even though they contain varying amounts of trans fatty acids. Often they are listed several times on an ingredient list, so the true amount of trans fat present in a product labeled "Trans Fat Free" could be significantly more than .5 grams.

Seeing as there is no safe level of artificial trans fat in the diet, it is difficult to see how such a rule could be justifiable, except perhaps to those who have a vested interest in continuing to put these unsafe fats in our food. This kind of government mandated deception is reprehensible and will undoubtedly harm the health of millions of people, who are being led to believe that the foods they buy are free of trans fats. Today, even with the labeling law in place, the only way to know for sure if your food contains trans fats is to read the ingredient list.

My husband worried that eventually some loophole would be found or legislated that would render GMO labeling similarly deceptive. He felt that whenever we create new regulations, there is a high likelihood that those regulations will be corrupted and used against us. The first thing I did after he mentioned his concern was to read the text of the proposition. And, lo and behold, the loophole was already there! One of the exemptions states:

“Until July 1, 2019, any processed food that would be subject to section 110809 solely because it includes one or more genetically engineered ingredients, provided that: (i) no single such ingredient accounts for more than one-half of one percent of the total weight of such processed food; and (ii) the processed food does not contain more than ten such ingredients. ”

Essentially, Prop 37 allows foods to be exempt from the so-called mandatory labeling and still contain up to 5% GMO ingredients by total weight! A product could have 10 different GM ingredients and still not require a label! This absurd loophole would be in place for five years, giving Monsanto & Friends plenty of time to quietly make it permanent or find another way to deceive consumers into buying their products.

Perhaps the most disturbing thing is that the Organic Consumer's Association and other organizations that collected money and signatures to get Prop 37 on the ballot did not inform anyone of the true nature of the measure. People were told they were donating to "label GMOs" because "it's our right to know!" To then write tons of loopholes and allow 5% GMO content in unlabeled products is nothing short of a betrayal of consumer trust. The whole thing was a deception from the get go. And when questioned about the deceptiveness of their campaign, the OCA and CARightToKnow have replied that labeling all GMOs is too extreme and would never pass! Seeing as the vast majority of Prop 37 supporters believe that is precisely what the measure would do, the doublespeak coming from the Prop 37 campaign is unbelievable.

Some people might feel that Prop 37 is “a step in the right direction.” But when are we going to stop using that phrase to justify all kinds of terrible policies? How could a measure that would give consumers a false belief that they are avoiding GMOs possibly be construed as being a step in the right direction? The deception inherent in Prop 37 makes it totally unethical in my book. Two wrongs NEVER make a right. As bad as GMOs are, we are never going to get out of this mess with legislation that deceives and confuses consumers.

I feel that this is not an issue of “right to know“ but rather one of personal responsibility. No one but yourself is stopping you from knowing what is in your food. Right now if a person is concerned about GMOs, they do a little research to find out what ingredients contain them, then they read labels to avoid those ingredients. But if Prop 37 passes, it is doubtless that many people will think, “Oh, the government labels GMOs, so I am safe because I don’t buy the things with that label. I am keeping myself and the environment healthy and keeping my hard-earned dollars out of Monsanto’s pockets.” Those same people could be eating restaurant or food bar food that's loaded with GMOs, as well as buying chicken that was fed almost entirely on GM grains, milk from cows injected with GM growth hormones (and also fed GM grains), breakfast cereal that contains up to 10 different GM ingredients, and vitamins produced with GMOs!

How many times are we going to let politicians and corporations corrupt and distort well intended regulations to use them against us before we get wise to their game? We need to realize we cannot and should not rely on the government to tell us the truth about anything, especially when the government and big business are BFFs. We need to stop giving our power away and decide that we‘re going to own it ourselves! If the 90%+ of people who support GMO labeling were to educate themselves and completely boycott all GM products and ingredients, that would represent a major financial blow to Monsanto, as well as huge wins for human and animal health, the environment, and personal responsibility.


How to Avoid GMOs in the Food Supply

1. There areeight GM foods available in the United States: corn, soybean, canola, cottonseed, sugar beets, Hawaiian papaya, zucchini, and yellow squash. Always choose organic versions of these foods.

2. GM Alfalfa is also grown and fed to livestock, along with GM corn and soybeans. GM drugs and growth hormones may be given to non-organic livestock. Always choose organic animal products, or buy from local farmers and verify that they do not give their animals any GM feed or injections.

3. If “sugar” is listed as an ingredient, it is very likely that some of that sugar is from GM sugar beets. Choose “pure cane sugar“ instead. Or better yet, use unrefined sweeteners that are rich in minerals like Sucanat, Rapadura, or palm sugar.

4. Check out this list of additives and ingredients that could potentially be GM:

https://www.nongmoshoppingguide.com/...gredients.html

Most of these ingredients are harmful for reasons other than their potential GMO content and should be avoided anyway.

5. Vitamins and supplements are often produced either from GMO ingredients or with the use of GMO organisms. Some of the most common are on the ingredient list under point 4 above. This is a huge part of the reason why I recommend getting nutrients from foods, or from supplements that are really foods, like fermented cod liver oil.

6. While not technically part of the food supply, body care products are another hidden source of GM ingredients. Many substances pass through the skin easily, so it’s probably wise to avoid putting GMOs on your scalp or skin Many shampoos and conditioners contain plant proteins, so check to make sure these are organic.

---

TRANSGENTIC ENGINEERING

Modifying organisms is a way of modifying the world. The scientific, business andpolitical communities are organized to cross engineer that which is natural also knownas genetically modify. There are six companies on the planet involved in geneticengineering and 90% are controlled by Monsanto. Currently all soy is GM and isincluded in almost all processed foods including baby and dog food. The gamble is ifnatural creation such as humans, animals, insects, soil and plants will be able to adaptor simply perish? The news has recently reported the latest victims of the GM squad;coffee and cow’s milk. Instead of processing coffee beans after harvesting todecaffeinate them, they are genetically modifying the beans to be decaffeinated from thestart. Children allergic to cow’s milk have been growing in numbers they have cloned acow (without a tail) to make GM milk without the allergens in it. Why the push to produceGM foods? We are told the GM crops with built-in pesticides will obliterate starvationfrom the planet. Scientists have exposed that to be false.

CAN DNA CHANGE YOUR MOOD?

Research from Canada published in the journal of Biological Psychiatry found thatproteins can modify DNA and affect your mood. The Canadian study wanted to find outwhy depressed individuals commit suicide and found that protein chemicals in the braincan modify mood called epigenomic regulation.

https://psychcentral.com/news/2008/0...-dna/2678.html

What do you suppose will happen to humans who consume lettuce spiced with spiderDNA? We are told the lettuce will provide more vitamin C with spider DNA in it. Tomatois spliced with fish genes to make them more resistant to cold and won’t freeze. Withfood modification changing nutrition and protein we have to ask what kind of impact willthat have on the 40,0000 genes in each human cell? Chemical modification in the brainor other areas of the body may be difficult or impossible to reverse. The Alliance forNatural Health reports that genetically engineered food becomes part of the bacteria inthe human digestive tract. So, if Monsanto is altering seeds for crops to grow producingtheir own insecticides and pesticides; then these organisms will become part of thehuman gut and produce these chemicals continuously. Even after stopping theconsumption of GM foods, these proteins are already deposited. This was based on alimited human study using GM soy

https://www.anh-usa.org/genetically-engineered-foodalters-our-digestive-systems/

OUR POOR PLANTS

The Institute for Responsible Technology reports that the genetic engineering processcauses “massive collateral damage” throughout the plant’s DNA. Think about what thescientists are doing. They are taking God’s copyright and modifying it to take possession.Not a good idea to steel from God. The process of modifying genes will delete orpermanently turn off or on proteins creating hundreds of changes. Inserting a foreigngene can damage or rearrange proteins and trigger allergies or promote diseases suchas cancer. Remember the recent two-year French study feeding rats Monsanto’s cornand they grew massive cancerous tumors and died young

https://truthout.org/news/item/11639-french-study-finds-tumors-and-organ-damage-in-rats-fedmonsanto-corn . The problem having GM genes living and reproducing inside our gut isit can create more antibiotic-resistant diseases. The Bt toxins in GM foods making thempesticide factories can make us pesticide factories as well and penetrate ourbloodstream (93%) and also the unborn babies (80%). Don’t forget the Canadian study Ijust mentioned because there is great concern in the scientific community that GM foodswill alter our human DNA and brain chemicals causing more people to become

34

schizophrenic or have various mood disorders. There is also the concern that the GMfoods will exacerbate this problem in people already diagnosed with emotional disorders.There is also the concern that GM foods will promote leaky gut syndrome making ussusceptible to various diseases.

MORE ALLERGIES

Allergies are on the rise in the US and spiked by 50% with the introduction of GM soy inthe UK. Nothing was done. In 1989 Japan had an outbreak of eosinophilia-myalgiasyndrome which was traced to a Japanese company which produced a tryptophansupplement using their genetically engineered bacteria. You need to steer clear of GMbacteria, especially in the new generation of yogurt. Your herbal products have stricterpurity standards than the genetically engineered products. One of the first scientists tospeak out against genetic engineering is the late George Wald.

“Recombinant DNA technology (genetic engineering) faces our society withproblems unprecedented, not only in the history of science, but of life on theEarth. Now whole new proteins will be transposed overnight into wholly newassociations, with consequences no one can foretell, either for the host organismor their neighbors. For going ahead in this direction may not only be unwise butdangerous. Potentially, it could breed new animal and plant diseases, newsources of cancer and novel epidemics.” George Wald, Nobel Laureate inMedicine or Physiology 1967SCIENTISTS SPEAK OUT

Some scientists have been sounding the alarm and paying the price. Biochemist ArpadPusztai worked in the field of genetic engineering at Scotland’s Rowett ResearchInstitute. He worked on the GM potato pumped full of Bt toxin. He and his teamdiscovered that what they were told about the expected outcome was in direct conflict totheir results. The GM potato caused severe health damage in lab rats. They released theinformation to the news networks and paid the unemployment price for betraying theirindustry and government-backed sponsors. Some of the changes Pusztai noted in thelab animals were; shrinking kidneys, changes in liver, spleen and malignant tissues,hemorrhages in kidneys and intestine. Brain function was also altered affecting memoryand learning. Researchers in Egypt also corroborated Pusztai’s findings involving GMsoy, corn, wheat and canola

https://www.naturalnews.com/037665_G...an_damage.html

.

WHERE THIS LEADS

The GM food industry is designed solely to establish a new food source in order tocontrol the masses through food. The intent is to phase out the organic food sourcemaking it as illegal as marijuana. You see precursors of this with certain townshipsacross American implementing laws outlawing organic gardening. These laws arecommunicated as to protect the public from salmonella. The Chemtrail phenomenon hasbeen said to control the weather. If that can be accomplished; control the rain to fall onlyon areas with compliant with GM crops or make the rain suitable only for GM crops andtoxic to organic, then you could control masses of people through food and water. I willbe interviewing environmental safety and health expert Therese Aigner on Herb TalkSaturday 10/27/12 at 7 am on GCN about this topic. If you miss the live broadcast,

check the archives later for this show.

Dear Friends and waccobb members, Many of you know that I have been a big supporter of Yes on Proposition 37 – the effort to require the labeling of genetically engineered food. Right now the No on 37 Campaign is blanketing the airwaves with lies and distortions. These ads are designed to confuse you and steer you away from the fact that you have the right to know what’s in your food. It’s important that you understand who the “No on 37” actually is. The two largest contributors to the No on 37 Campaign – multinational agrichemical corporations Monsanto ($8.1 million) and Dupont ($4.9 million) – are the same corporations that told us Agent Orange and DDT were safe. You can find out more about Monsanto by watching this. Then there are the junk food companies helping to bankroll the opposition such as Cocoa Cola, Pepsi, Nestle and Kellogs. There are in fact zero donations from actual people to the No side– they are all contributions coming from multi-billion dollar corporations. Proposition 37 was co-written by manufacturers, distributors, food safety lawyers, consumer groups, and farmers. It was put before grocers and independent certifying groups before filing. It is written to protect businesses and to pass legal scrutiny. The Proposition covers food on supermarket shelves. No cost to consumers: Adding a few words to labels costs nothing. Labeling didn’t raise costs in 61 other countries and won’t raise costs here. Read the Truth about Cost. Exemptions are common sense: Prop 37 exempts products that have no ingredient labels, such as restaurant food and alcohol. But it will cover meat from genetically engineered animals. The opposition is trying to confuse voters about exemptions. Read the Truth about Exemptions We have thousands of endorsers such as the California Nurses Association, United Farm Workers, California Council of Churches, the Sierra Club and thousands of other endorsers you can see here. Sixty-one countries around the world - representing more than 40% of the planet's population - already require GMO labeling, including all of Europe, Japan, India and China. The right to know what is in my food and your food is not just important enough for me to vote for Prop 37 but it's why I've dedicated my time to this campaign. Voting YES on Prop 37 will help ensure that Californians can make informed decisions about the foods we eat and feed our children. Please vote YES and encourage others to do the same. For more information, please visit carighttoknow.org If you would like to sign up for a phone banking shift, please visit carighttoknow.org/phone_bank

Visit LabelGMOs at: https://labelgmos.ning.com/?xg_source=msg_mes_network