Prop 37: Vote YES to Label GMO Food & FIGHT THE LIES & SPREAD THE WORD!

So the November 6 Election is less than three weeks away, and as you may have heard, tens of millions of dollars in biotech funded, deceptive ads are taking their toll on the public. Support for the measure has dropped to 48%, vs. 40% against, and the corporate barrage of misleading ads is still growing. They have the money, but we have the people—at least if we can reach them, through citizens like you!

I am starting this new thread because I do not want Wacco's focus on this incredibly important issue to hinge on a negative declaration about this measure (that earlier post about voting no on Prop 37). A vast majority of people in our community, and a large majority of people who understand what this issue is about, want the basic right to know when the food we are buying contains genetically modified ingredients.

For anyone still on the fence or wondering about this particular bill and whether it is a good one, author Michael Pollan wrote an excellent piece in the NYTimes Magazine recently here. As for the potential health impact of eating and feeding our families GMO food, Jeffrey Smith's film Genetic Roulette (trailer here) raises enough red flags to make me REALLY WANT MY RIGHT TO KNOW.

So what can YOU do to"be the change" you want to see and counter the onslaught of propaganda that is mis-educating our fellow Californians?

My small local company Progressive Source Communications recently created www.KnowGMO.org, to provide a tool for citizens to be the change we want to see by replacing these deceptive corporate TV ads with authentic people-powered media.

 Please check out the site; dozens of your neighbors have created videos speaking out on this issue. We welcome YOUR video as well; just grab your webcam and make a video, send it to YouTube and enter the info here, and presto, you get your own web page to share with your social network. You can also like us on Facebook here, and get notices of the best info and videos from all over that we'll be sharing.

Here is a video I made describing our project, and here is what your page would look like. Check it out--and please spread our pages or any of the other links about this you like. It is going to be a close election, and Prop 37is the front line in the battle against some of the largest, most insidious companies on earth for our health, and our planet.
:heart: :waccosun:

In case this hasn't already been posted:

Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 05:44 PM PDT Pesticide Industry-Backed Opponents of Prop 37 Caught in Possible Criminal Act


https://www.dailykos.com/blog/uid:545502


Here's an excerpt:

Yesterday, the Yes on 37 campaign sent letters to the U.S. Department of Justice requesting a criminal investigation of the No on 37 campaign for possible fraudulent misuse of the official seal of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
The No on 37 campaign affixed the FDA's seal to one of the campaign's mailers.Section 506 of the U.S. Criminal Code states: "Whoever...knowingly uses, affixes, or impresses any such fraudulently made, forged, counterfeited, mutilated, or altered seal or facsimile thereof to or upon any certificate, instrument, commission, document, or paper of any description...shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."
The letter also provides evidence that the No on 37 campaign falsely attributed a direct quote to the FDA in the campaign mailer. Alongside the FDA seal, the mailer includes this text in quotes. "The US Food and Drug Administration says a labeling policy like Prop 37 would be 'inherently misleading." The quote is entirely fabricated. The FDA did not make this statement and does not take a position on Prop 37.

So then what about the exceptions to what does not need to be labeled? I agree that people have a right to know things but it needs to be fair across the board. This proposition is very poorly written.

example: Exempts foods that are: certified organic; unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material; made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves; processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients; administered for treatment of medical conditions; sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant; or alcoholic beverages.

So they do not need to label a product if the animal its self is not genetically engineered but the food it was eating was. My favorite is "Processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients." I have searched and can not find a number that defines "Small Amounts." Please...some one fill me in.

Again, I agree with this proposition's intentions but it needs to be rewritten properly.

The proposition is not poorly written. When you're presenting a bill, there are very specific rules that have to be followed to the letter in order to get it on the ballot. For example, it must be proposing one thing, not many. The "No on 37" campaign says that the bill is unfair because meat from animals fed genetically engineered corn doesn't have to be labeled. If the bill didn't exepmt the meat, it would be proposing two things. 1) Food that is GMO has a label, and 2) meat from animals that eat it needs a label. The bill only applies to food that itself is genetically modified. The single-subject law applies to alcohol as well.

Another "problem" some have with the bill is that food in grocery stores needs to be labeled, but not food from restaurants. Think about this - if you were making your own pizza at home and you went to the store for the ingredients, would the tomato sauce have a label on it with the nutrition facts? Yes. When you order Round Table delivery, does the box have the nutrition facts and ingredients list? No.

A really great article to check out that touches on all of this: https://www.alternet.org/food/debunk...-about-prop-37

I'm volunteering for KnowGMO.org, because I think it's really great how they're empowering people to speak up about this issue and actively be a part of the change they want to see created. Here's a great video from the site.

https://knowgmo.org/videos/elizabeth-singing-frogs-farm-sebastopol/

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Aaron Elrod:

So then what about the exceptions to what does not need to be labeled? I agree that people have a right to know things but it needs to be fair across the board. This proposition is very poorly written.

example: Exempts foods that are: certified organic; unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material; made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves; processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients; administered for treatment of medical conditions; sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant; or alcoholic beverages.

So they do not need to label a product if the animal its self is not genetically engineered but the food it was eating was. My favorite is "Processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients." I have searched and can not find a number that defines "Small Amounts." Please...some one fill me in.

Again, I agree with this proposition's intentions but it needs to be rewritten properly.

---

>>>So then what about the exceptions to what does not need to be labeled? ... This proposition is very poorly written.

Can anyone seriously believe that a more rigid labeling requirement would stand a chance in hell if this one is defeated? Or that miraculously by defeating labeling we're going to rev up the mass citizenry to ban all GMO products, thus emptying the shelves at Safeway?

What hasn't been addressed in this immediate discussion is what's prominent in the anti-labeling commercials: that labeling will add $400/yr to families' average food budget. I have no idea what that claim is based on, since it doesn't cost anything to add a half-dozen words to current content labeling. But that's what's going to defeat it, if anything does, and this quibble about "imperfection" is utterly beside the point.

Learn from the anti-abortion folks: if you can't ban it, nibble away at the edges.

Do what's doable. Vote yes.

Cheers—
Conrad

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye:

>>>So then what about the exceptions to what does not need to be labeled? ... This proposition is very poorly written.

Can anyone seriously believe that a more rigid labeling requirement would stand a chance in hell if this one is defeated? Or that miraculously by defeating labeling we're going to rev up the mass citizenry to ban all GMO products, thus emptying the shelves at Safeway?

What hasn't been addressed in this immediate discussion is what's prominent in the anti-labeling commercials: that labeling will add $400/yr to families' average food budget. I have no idea what that claim is based on, since it doesn't cost anything to add a half-dozen words to current content labeling. But that's what's going to defeat it, if anything does, and this quibble about "imperfection" is utterly beside the point.

Learn from the anti-abortion folks: if you can't ban it, nibble away at the edges.

Do what's doable. Vote yes.

Cheers—
Conrad

---

Yeah, the anti forces object to this proposition because it is "poorly written" and "not comprehensive". So, if it was more comprehensive and there were no exemptions Monsanto would be OK with that? Folks, if you're buying the poorly written argument, Monsanto must think their millions are well spent.

I say the ballot initiative system is, plain and simple, a tool for special interests to get their way and all the while spending millions to bamboozle, bully, and bullshit the voting public into giving them what they want, often at the expense of other public sector programs. Remember when lotto was supposed to fix the schools. What a joke!

Conrad, I agree with you. Vote YES on PROP 37. I don't think the proposition is written poorly. I'm sure the exact wording was laboriously worked on. To legally include "the exceptions" would have required several propositions and eliminated any possibility of passing this important first step. I've read that the $400 calculated by the opposition was if the GMOs were replaced by organic ingredients. It doesn't have anything to do with the true cost of labeling. Studies in some of the other 50+ countries that require labeling show that it costs less than two-tenths of one percent. That would be less than one cent on a $5.00 item. For example, in other countries with labeling laws. Pepsi no longer uses GMO high fructose corn syrup in their soda and Kelloggs no longer uses GMO corn in their cornflakes and other cereals. They know many people won't buy them if labeled. If you look at Dr. Huber's work, about a pathogen that is new to science, you will understand why that is good for all humanity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=-nHCw36wIhs Ruth

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye:

>>>So then what about the exceptions to what does not need to be labeled? ... This proposition is very poorly written.

Can anyone seriously believe that a more rigid labeling requirement would stand a chance in hell if this one is defeated? Or that miraculously by defeating labeling we're going to rev up the mass citizenry to ban all GMO products, thus emptying the shelves at Safeway?

What hasn't been addressed in this immediate discussion is what's prominent in the anti-labeling commercials: that labeling will add $400/yr to families' average food budget. I have no idea what that claim is based on, since it doesn't cost anything to add a half-dozen words to current content labeling. But that's what's going to defeat it, if anything does, and this quibble about "imperfection" is utterly beside the point.

Learn from the anti-abortion folks: if you can't ban it, nibble away at the edges.

Do what's doable. Vote yes.

Cheers—
Conrad

---

the $400 claim is mostly based on the assumption that makers of common food, corn flakes for example, will choose to produce their product with non gmo sources to avoid the label. this means they will have higher ingredient costs and will pass the cost along. so corn flake eaters will have a higher grocery bill.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye:

>>>So then what about the exceptions to what does not need to be labeled? ... This proposition is very poorly written.

Can anyone seriously believe that a more rigid labeling requirement would stand a chance in hell if this one is defeated? Or that miraculously by defeating labeling we're going to rev up the mass citizenry to ban all GMO products, thus emptying the shelves at Safeway?

What hasn't been addressed in this immediate discussion is what's prominent in the anti-labeling commercials: that labeling will add $400/yr to families' average food budget. I have no idea what that claim is based on, since it doesn't cost anything to add a half-dozen words to current content labeling. But that's what's going to defeat it, if anything does, and this quibble about "imperfection" is utterly beside the point.

Learn from the anti-abortion folks: if you can't ban it, nibble away at the edges.

Do what's doable. Vote yes.

Cheers—
Conrad

---

are you sure about kellogg? i was just trying to confirm your info on their website and saw nothing. as a contributor to the no on 37 campaign i assume they are just playing all sides safe like any profit efficient corporate entity. the good thing about 37 is it will preserve a market for conventional non gmo growers. a small victory in a war for the fate of our earth...

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by ruthnew:

Conrad, I agree with you. Vote YES on PROP 37. I don't think the proposition is written poorly. I'm sure the exact wording was laboriously worked on. To legally include "the exceptions" would have required several propositions and eliminated any possibility of passing this important first step. I've read that the $400 calculated by the opposition was if the GMOs were replaced by organic ingredients. It doesn't have anything to do with the true cost of labeling. Studies in some of the other 50+ countries that require labeling show that it costs less than two-tenths of one percent. That would be less than one cent on a $5.00 item. For example, in other countries with labeling laws. Pepsi no longer uses GMO high fructose corn syrup in their soda and Kelloggs no longer uses GMO corn in their cornflakes and other cereals. They know many people won't buy them if labeled. If you look at Dr. Huber's work, about a pathogen that is new to science, you will understand why that is good for all humanity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=-nHCw36wIhs Ruth

---

Hi Conrad and Everyone,

I totally support Prop. 37. It is absolutely a step in the right direction

Regarding the claim that families would pay $400 per year more for food, that could be true IF the family had been buying a lot of GMO food, such as corn cereal, chips, etc. AND the family, upon seeing the GMO labels, decided to switch over to organic foods. The cost of making that switch could be hundreds of dollars per year, since organic foods tend to cost more than chemically grown foods.

The point, obviously, is that each person should have the CHOICE to buy GMO or non-GMO foods. The key to having a choice is to have accurate labeling.

Regarding the issue of small amounts of GMO ingredients being permitted, that makes sense for foods such as chocolate that contain very small amounts, typically less than 1 percent, of soy lecithin. Ideally we would want 100 percent of the ingredients to be non-gmo, but in practice it is hard to find non-gmo soy lecithin. (I've tried, and it is hard to find and much more expensive, usually imported from other countries.)

Speaking of chocolate and other sweets, did you know that many of them are now made with GMO sugar from sugar beets? Our government, in its infinite wisdom, decided there is no need to label sugar from beets differently from sugar from sugar cane. So if you see the word "sugar" on a label, it is likely gmo sugar, as cane sugar is more expensive than beet sugar. This is another reason to support prop. 37.

In time, as GMO's are required to be labeled everywhere, farmers will stop growing so much of them and we will have an easier time sourcing non-gmo lecithin and other ingredients.

Can we all agree that the customer's right to know is the most important issue here?

For health,
Michael

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:

are you sure about kellogg? i was just trying to confirm your info on their website and saw nothing. as a contributor to the no on 37 campaign i assume they are just playing all sides safe like any profit efficient corporate entity. the good thing about 37 is it will preserve a market for conventional non gmo growers. a small victory in a war for the fate of our earth...

---

I have seen that statement several times. I just did a search to look for a good source. One person who wrote to Kellogg's and asked if their Corn Flakes used GMO corn got this reply:

Thu., Jul 30, 2009
Thank you for contacting us about our products and the use of biotechnology ingredients. As a consumer you can be assured that we would never do anything to compromise the trust you have placed in us to provide healthy, nutritious and safe food.

Biotechnology is not unique to us or other food manufacturers in the United States, with biotechnology-produced ingredients having been grown in the U.S. for the past decade. In fact, articles published by leading universities estimate that between 60% and 70% of multi-ingredient foods in the United States may have been made with biotechnology crops. Even organic ingredients cannot be guaranteed to be biotechnology-free due to cross-pollination. Like most other food makers in the nation, we buy the ingredients for our foods on the open market and it is likely that these ingredients could have biotech content in the same proportion that it occurs in the national supply.

Being a global organization, our focus has always been on meeting the needs of our consumers worldwide and being responsive to a variety of consumer preferences. Our decisions on whether or not to use biotech ingredients are made on a market-by-market basis and depend on a variety of factors specific to each market.

We are committed to protecting and promoting consumer confidence in our products, as was our founder, W. K. Kellogg. He had his name placed on every product as his personal assurance of quality. We would never do anything to compromise this 100-year legacy of consumer trust and loyalty.

Thank you for giving us an opportunity to respond.

Kellogg’s Products containing GMOs: Rice Krispies // Corn Flakes // Frosted Flakes // Special K // Apple Jacks // All Bran // Pops // Crispix // Froot Loops // Mini Wheats // Raisin Bran // Pop Tarts // Eggo Waffles // Morning Star Veggie Burgers // Morning Star Vegan Veggie Burgers // Morning Star Chik’n Nuggets // Morning Star Veggie Sausage // Keebler Chips Deluxe // Famous Amos Cookies // Carr’s Table Water Crackers

And here is a link that gives the info I think you are looking for: https://www.progress.org/gene45.htm Kellogg's has given $790,000 to the No on Prop 37 campaign.

see who is funding the ads against prop 37

https://organicconsumersfund.org/lab...37-funders.cfm

The roster of whicjh companies are against this proposition is like an unveiling of the corporate villains on our grocery shelves! So Pepsi owns Naked Juice (!), a brand I have bought many times. But after seeing Pepsi shell out more than a million bucks to block our right to know that their high fructose corn syrup comes from GMO (it clearly does, like 90% of corn in USA) , I will switch to a local brand or drink coconut water (better for me anyway).

As a consumer, I have a really long memory.The corporate deceivers who spend their tax deductible money on this lobbying campaign against our most basic consumer right to know, and the ecology of our planet, will sit in my "Boycott the Bastards Hall of Shame" for me from this day on!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by ruthnew:

I have seen that statement several times. I just did a search to look for a good source. One person who wrote to Kellogg's and asked if their Corn Flakes used GMO corn got this reply:

Thu., Jul 30, 2009
Thank you for contacting us about our products and the use of biotechnology ingredients. As a consumer you can be assured that we would never do anything to compromise the trust you have placed in us to provide healthy, nutritious and safe food.

Biotechnology is not unique to us or other food manufacturers in the United States, with biotechnology-produced ingredients having been grown in the U.S. for the past decade. In fact, articles published by leading universities estimate that between 60% and 70% of multi-ingredient foods in the United States may have been made with biotechnology crops. Even organic ingredients cannot be guaranteed to be biotechnology-free due to cross-pollination. Like most other food makers in the nation, we buy the ingredients for our foods on the open market and it is likely that these ingredients could have biotech content in the same proportion that it occurs in the national supply.

Being a global organization, our focus has always been on meeting the needs of our consumers worldwide and being responsive to a variety of consumer preferences. Our decisions on whether or not to use biotech ingredients are made on a market-by-market basis and depend on a variety of factors specific to each market.

We are committed to protecting and promoting consumer confidence in our products, as was our founder, W. K. Kellogg. He had his name placed on every product as his personal assurance of quality. We would never do anything to compromise this 100-year legacy of consumer trust and loyalty.

Thank you for giving us an opportunity to respond.

Kellogg’s Products containing GMOs: Rice Krispies // Corn Flakes // Frosted Flakes // Special K // Apple Jacks // All Bran // Pops // Crispix // Froot Loops // Mini Wheats // Raisin Bran // Pop Tarts // Eggo Waffles // Morning Star Veggie Burgers // Morning Star Vegan Veggie Burgers // Morning Star Chik’n Nuggets // Morning Star Veggie Sausage // Keebler Chips Deluxe // Famous Amos Cookies // Carr’s Table Water Crackers

And here is a link that gives the info I think you are looking for: https://www.progress.org/gene45.htm Kellogg's has given $790,000 to the No on Prop 37 campaign.

---

I have already gone on record in this forum as being in favor of Prop 37, and have pointed to the corporate money being used in the campaign against. In the interest of fairness, however, I should point out that the forces in favor of Prop 37 are largely funded by the organic food producers. There is big money here, and if the organic food producers can increase their market share they stand to reap billions. So, sorry if I tend to discount the pious platitudes about this issue being about health, it's really about money.

I wonder how Luther Burbank would vote on this issue, were he alive?

Thanks for ferreting this out!

Kellogg's and the other 'No on GMO labeling' corporations, obviously feel they have NO responsibility to the consumers buying their products and keeping their companies viable. I'm going to re-post to Facebook alerting my friends & those who are parents.

Quote:

---

Thu., Jul 30, 2009
Thank you for contacting us about our products and the use of biotechnology ingredients. As a consumer you can be assured that we would never do anything to compromise the trust you have placed in us to provide healthy, nutritious and safe food. [Yeah, sure...]

...Being a global organization, our focus has always been on meeting the needs of our consumers worldwide and being responsive to a variety of consumer preferences. Our decisions on whether or not to use biotech ingredients are made on a market-by-market basis and depend on a variety of factors specific to each market.

We are committed to protecting and promoting consumer confidence in our products, as was our founder, W. K. Kellogg. He had his name placed on every product as his personal assurance of quality. We would never do anything to compromise this 100-year legacy of consumer trust and loyalty. [Hmmmm...]

Thank you for giving us an opportunity to respond.

Kellogg’s Products containing GMOs: Rice Krispies // Corn Flakes // Frosted Flakes // Special K // Apple Jacks // All Bran // Pops // Crispix // Froot Loops // Mini Wheats // Raisin Bran // Pop Tarts // Eggo Waffles // Morning Star Veggie Burgers // Morning Star Vegan Veggie Burgers // Morning Star Chik’n Nuggets // Morning Star Veggie Sausage // Keebler Chips Deluxe // Famous Amos Cookies // Carr’s Table Water Crackers

https://www.progress.org/gene45.htm Kellogg's has given $790,000 to the No on Prop 37 campaign.

---

Sure, there's BIG money involved....especially on the NO side. Takes LOTS of money to move through our political channels since the bulk of our legislators and conventional food manufacturers are lacking in responsibility towards the consumer-voters and won't protect us, our children, and the environment without us pressuring them.

BUT...I disagree passionately that Yes on Prop37 is "about money" for those of us grassroots volunteers on the ground, doing education and outreach. The bulk of us are women (mothers, grandmothers, aunts). The rest of us, including our men, are cooks, gardeners, farmers, writers, environmentalists, nature lovers, folks who believe in democratic processes, people power activists, etc.

We understand the health and environmental dangers of not stopping GE / GMO food production NOW through labeling and consumer boycotts. We're looking to the future to rebuild the health of our soil, reduce pesticides in the air, water, and food stream, to regain our health and preserve a healthy way of life for those who follow us. As Pamm Larry told us a year ago, if we don't turn the tide in the USA and Canada NOW, in 5 years it will be too late.

So please, JOIN your local Yes! on Prop 37 LabelGMOs team. Volunteer your time and help us educate voters to make the best choice on this crucial issue. If you've read about Luther Burbank's work and philosophy as I have (way back in the '70s), there's no question he would be an outstanding advocate of Yes! on Prop 37.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by jbox:

I have already gone on record in this forum as being in favor of Prop 37, and have pointed to the corporate money being used in the campaign against. In the interest of fairness, however, I should point out that the forces in favor of Prop 37 are largely funded by the organic food producers. There is big money here, and if the organic food producers can increase their market share they stand to reap billions. So, sorry if I tend to discount the pious platitudes about this issue being about health, it's really about money.

I wonder how Luther Burbank would vote on this issue, were he alive?

---

It is clear that when we have informed choice; it's easier to "move our money"; which is why the prop 37 opponents are pouring so much $ into it.

Hostess is laying off workers 'cause so many parents are waking up to the dangers of the ingredients in their products. Labeling will shift profits from many food industries to others filling the void by being non-GMO.

When it is not clear what percentage of a product is GMO-free, as below; it must be considered as a risk to health.

It's a crime that the public must go through the initiative process just to get GMO's labeled. I say it's past time for a class action suit against the federal regulating bodies on: health, agriculture and the environment.

We've seen how well the state and federal regulators oversee public utilities. It's time we get a firewall up between the regulators and the industries they oversee; along with the politicians who tie the regulators hands in order to weaken and prohibit protections for the public, which impact those profiting from the industries.

You are what you eat, so, reduce your risk. I aim for no more than 10% GMO's in my daily diet. I spend even more time now reading labels of everything going in or on my body. The pro-Prop 37 effort is a success no matter what, because of all the attention going to the dangers of genetically modified foods, which food manufacturers use them, which do not, and which are not sure.

:waccosun: Wouldn't it be great to have a health insurance company which gave discounts to smart eaters, just like they do for good drivers?

Colleen Fernald

City Council Candidate
For a GE-Free Sebastopol!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by ruthnew:

I have seen that statement several times. I just did a search to look for a good source. One person who wrote to Kellogg's and asked if their Corn Flakes used GMO corn got this reply:

Thu., Jul 30, 2009
Thank you for contacting us about our products and the use of biotechnology ingredients. As a consumer you can be assured that we would never do anything to compromise the trust you have placed in us to provide healthy, nutritious and safe food...


...And here is a link that gives the info I think you are looking for: https://www.progress.org/gene45.htm Kellogg's has given $790,000 to the No on Prop 37 campaign.

---

actually, if someone is involved in producing and selling organic food, their bottom line interest is to preserve organic as the only non gmo source. so if an organic food producer is supporting 37, then they are not doing it for money. this explains why whole foods is awol.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by jbox:

I have already gone on record in this forum as being in favor of Prop 37, and have pointed to the corporate money being used in the campaign against. In the interest of fairness, however, I should point out that the forces in favor of Prop 37 are largely funded by the organic food producers. There is big money here, and if the organic food producers can increase their market share they stand to reap billions. So, sorry if I tend to discount the pious platitudes about this issue being about health, it's really about money.

I wonder how Luther Burbank would vote on this issue, were he alive?

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:

actually, if someone is involved in producing and selling organic food, their bottom line interest is to preserve organic as the only non gmo source. so if an organic food producer is supporting 37, then they are not doing it for money. this explains why whole foods is awol.

---

It took me a few readings of rossmen's comment above to understand what he is saying, so let me rephrase that in case it is not clear to anybody else:

Currently, the only way to know if something is non-GMO is if is labeled as Organic. So if someone is concerned about GMOs, they'll look for orgranics. If Prop 37 passes and and non-organics can be reliably labeled as non-GMO, then this provides a lower priced option non-GMO option that competes with organics.

There's also an organization that certifies products as non-GMO. They seem to be pretty diligent in their process, and it includes non-organic products. Whole (?) Foods claims to not sell products that contain GMOs, but I wouldn't trust that unless the product is certified as non-GMO (and says so on the label).

CSummer

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

It took me a few readings of rossmen's comment above to understand what he is saying, so let me rephrase that in case it is not clear to anybody else:

Currently, the only way to know if something is non-GMO is if is labeled as Organic. So if someone is concerned about GMOs, they'll look for orgranics. If Prop 37 passes and and non-organics can be reliably labeled as non-GMO, then this provides a lower priced option non-GMO option that competes with organics.

---

Update: BEWARE the corporate shills in disguise! Received this mailer in Sebastopol this afternoon. Mouthpieces for the world’s most nefarious pesticide and junk food corporations are now masquerading as “Greens”. They will stop at nothing to keep us in the dark about what's in our food - do not be deceived! Vote for our right to label and KnowGMO.org.

thanks barry, i enjoy a reflection which is the same as what i am meaning. additionally i raised the point that logic runs counter to organic producers being supporters of 37 "only for the money."

whole foods make no claim to be gmo free. their corporate spin is that they source for non gmo products. this has been misinterpreted by some of their employees so they answer the customer question, "do you sell gmo products?" with a no.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

It took me a few readings of rossmen's comment above to understand what he is saying, so let me rephrase that in case it is not clear to anybody else:

Currently, the only way to know if something is non-GMO is if is labeled as Organic. So if someone is concerned about GMOs, they'll look for orgranics. If Prop 37 passes and and non-organics can be reliably labeled as non-GMO, then this provides a lower priced option non-GMO option that competes with organics.

---

If You Only Have A Few Minutes: Join the Non-GMO Click and Send Revolutionary Army!

There is so much great content about GMO out there that needs to be shared while we still have time.
Go to this page educate others by posting the videos, articles etc. you most want people to see. Be the change you want to see with people-powered media - counter the deceptive corporate ads and get this bill passed!

Does this slate card reveal that Obama and Feinstein are against labeling GMO foods?

I know not long ago Obama put a former Monsanto exec in a top spot at the FDA.

I cannot trust either of them to support and defend the Constitution; how could I trust them with food security?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jenny:

Update: BEWARE the corporate shills in disguise! Received this mailer in Sebastopol this afternoon. Mouthpieces for the world’s most nefarious pesticide and junk food corporations are now masquerading as “Greens”. They will stop at nothing to keep us in the dark about what's in our food - do not be deceived! Vote for our right to label and KnowGMO.org.

---

And now, a word from Monsanto "Scientists"!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyKG...ature=youtu.be

From Wikipedia:
"In 1981 Michael Taylor went into private practice at a law firm, who represented the biotechnology company Monsanto, where he established and led the firm's food and drug law practice. On July 17, 1991, Michael Taylor left the law firm, returning to the FDA to fill the newly created post of Deputy Commissioner for Policy. During that time, he signed the Federal Register notice stating that milk from cows treated with BGH did not have to be labeled as such. Between 1994 and 1996 he moved to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), where he was Administrator of the Food Safety & Inspection Service. Between 1996 and 2000, after briefly returning to the law firm, he then returned to Monsanto to become Vice President for Public Policy.


In 1999, a lawsuit and GAO report revealed considerable disagreement within the FDA concerning decisions about biotechnology products made during Taylor's tenure there. In June of 2000 he joined the think tank Resources for the Future in the position of Senior Fellow and Director of RFF’s Center for Risk Management, where he published two documents on U.S. aid for African agriculture, both of which were funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. During this time he was also a Director at Resolve, a nonprofit environmental and public health mediation and dispute resolution organization, and was an adjunct professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center. In 2007 he became a Research Professor of Health Policy at the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services.

On July 7, 2009, Taylor once again returned to government as Senior Advisor to the FDA Commissioner. And on January 13, 2010, he was appointed to another newly created post at the FDA, this time as Deputy Commissioner for Foods. Taylor is featured in the documentaries The Future of Food and The World According to Monsanto as a pertinent example of revolving door since he is a lawyer who has spent the last few decades moving between Monsanto and the FDA and USDA."

One of Obama's campaign promise in 2008 was to label GMOs. I wonder why things came down the way they did. Michelle Obama focused on healthy home organic gardens. The chemical corporations put pressure on her to promote conventional gardening. She changed her focus to physical fitness.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Peace Voyager:

Does this slate card reveal that Obama and Feinstein are against labeling GMO foods?

I know not long ago Obama put a former Monsanto exec in a top spot at the FDA.

I cannot trust either of them to support and defend the Constitution; how could I trust them with food security?

---

This just means that, as reported recently in the PD, the FOR PROFIT company that sent this out SOLD their "support" to he higher bidder, which of course was the Monsanto-financed No on Prop 37. It does not mean that Obama and Feinstein take a position here. NOT taking a position seems to be their game plan, so that they might continue, like most politicians in both parties, to take the big bucks from the big pesticide and agra and junk food businesses.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Peace Voyager:

Does this slate card reveal that Obama and Feinstein are against labeling GMO foods?

I know not long ago Obama put a former Monsanto exec in a top spot at the FDA.

I cannot trust either of them to support and defend the Constitution; how could I trust them with food security?

---

This video really hits it. If you have yet to share with your California friends and family why we should vote Yes for Prop 37 , send them this one, the video Monsanto does NOt want you to see because it says the magic words: GM food is likely to be DANGEROUS TO OUR HEALTH!
https://knowgmo.org/videos/monsanto-...-you-watching/

Monsanto and the other big corporations are spending a million dollars a DAY now to make sure that Prop 37 doesn't pass, and their disgusting, deceptive ads have done an excellent job at confusing the public. [They've even gone as far as to violate federal law , misrepresenting the FDA.] What I think is the most damaging part of their propaganda campaign is the lie that this bill is going to cost consumers an average of $400 in groceries a year. I can't believe how many times a day now someone says to me "Yeah, it sounds like a good idea, but it's going to cost me so much money". NO it's not, and we can prove it! And now with only a few days to go (I hate to report this but) sadly, the newest polls show that the initiative is failing, fast.

The video that Jonathan last posted is definitely my favorite for waking people up to this nonsense, but here's another good one that people seem to respond to - it's got Bill Maher, Danny DeVito, The Always Sunny cast, and a bunch of other celebrities. It's sort of a tongue-in-cheek way satirization of the issue, and its actually really funny. Please share these videos with all of your friends and family, especially those who plan to vote no, or don't really care (as those are most likely to get the wool pulled over their eyes by these monster corps).

Good luck everybody! Let's get this thing passed already! :wink:

Peace Voyager, Maybe Obama and Feinstein are not personally against labeling. Maybe they are deceived by and/or controlled by Monsanto on this issue. Here is part of an article I read today by a world renowned scientist that might interest you.

Now, one of the world’s most renowned scientists and environmental activists, Vandana Shiva, is speaking out on behalf of proposition 37.

Shiva: Well I think the labeling question is totally separate from the scientific debate of safety. A label is just a fundamental democratic issue. It’s about the freedom of citizens’ right to know and choose. A certain amount of salt is not harmful for us, but we still put it on the label. Calcium is not harmful for us; we still put it on the label. Just for people to make decisions on the basis of information. There are of course huge scientific issues related to the GMOs and tragically it is corporations like Monsanto who are pushing anti-science, non-science on the public. I have lived long enough with this issue to know what they’ve done across the world. I was on the first expert group set up by the United Nations to frame the bio-safety protocol and I saw how in the United Nations they tried to mislead,but there was always far more information about the risks, so we have a UN Cartagena Protocol. The United Nations which is countries across the world wouldn't have a protocol on bio-safety if safety had been proven. Now unfortunately the United States is not a signatory and therefore it is constantly denying its citizens the rights that citizens elsewhere have.

Earlier this year, CODEX Alimentarius which is the highest body on food safety, said every country has a right to label. This was after a twenty year tussle where the United States had tried to block the right to label as a global right, because then they could have used labeling to sue countries which they did with Europe. On the Science question, what is the science of genetic engineering? It is really not a science; it’s a technology of shooting a gene that doesn't belong to a plant through two means. One is a gene gun and one is an agro bacterium, a plant cancer. You don’t know where it’s landing; you don’t have the science of prediction. You don’t know what it is doing. You don’t know if it is getting absorbed, that was why you add anti-biotic resistance markers. You know the plant is not expressing it so you add super virulent viruses too…pumping up the expression. They’re called promoters. So, you have a bundle of toxic risky genes. All of the real science tells us there is a phenomena called horizontal gene transfer in nature, when vertical is where your genes are taken from your parents, it’s offspring to offspring. Horizontal is when it moves across species. We know the bacteria in our food hybridize with the bacteria in our gut. We know the viruses in our food hybridize with the viruses in our gut. We know, in spite of them saying the BT toxin doesn't last, new studies in Canada show it has been found in the blood of pregnant women and in the fetuses they've given birth to.

A new study in France, a two year feeding study shows high levels of mammalian, of cancer in mammals. A similar study had similar results, in Russia in the Academy of Sciences. These are independent scientists with absolutely no involvement in any business industry interest. They are what we call public scientists. UK government asked Arpad Putzai,one of the most eminent scientists to do a study on GM foods, way back around 98’ and he did it. He was actually a promoter of genetic engineering, but when he did the study, he found the results; the rats he had fed had shrunken brains, enlarged pancreas and a collapse of immunity. He went to his director and said if this has happened with three months of feeding rats, what will happen to a lifetime of feeding human beings, we should inform the public. They did, went all over BBC immediately, this is what we've been told, a call from Monsanto to Clinton, to Tony Blair to get rid of the top scientist who had left Hungary for freedom. And he said I had more freedom in Communist Soviet Union, in Hungary then in the freedom in corporate ruled England. That freedom is what the US is losing and US citizens are losing as corporations take over our science, our decision making, our food systems and our seed. So Proposition 37 is not an insignificant proposition. It is in a way a reflection of the larger debate in this election. Will money run it or will the people’s democratic votes run it? Will democracy in America be of the people, by the people, for the people or is it going to be reduced to of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations? In which case,you have corporate rule and corporate rule means corporate dictatorship and corporate dictatorship as Mussolini said is Fascism. The convergence of political power with economic power is a very dangerous moment, but also a moment that pushes us to create new levels of an aspiration, an action for freedom

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Peace Voyager:

Does this slate card reveal that Obama and Feinstein are against labeling GMO foods?

I know not long ago Obama put a former Monsanto exec in a top spot at the FDA.

I cannot trust either of them to support and defend the Constitution; how could I trust them with food security?

---