Not in My Food.org : Know what you're eating
Californians Have A Right to Know What’s in Their Food
You’ve probably seen the ads on TV. Monsanto, DuPont and other business interests are spending $1 million a day to mislead Californians about Proposition 37, which would require labeling of genetically engineered foods (also known as genetically modified organisms or GMOs).
Consumers Union, along with a host of other environmental and consumer organizations, supports Prop 37 because we believe consumers have a right to know if their food is genetically engineered.
Big corporations should not be able to hide what they are doing when they alter food through genetic modification.
Most other major countries require labeling and safety testing of GMOs, including Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Australia, South Korea, China, Russia and Brazil. So should the United States.
Consumers Union has supported labeling of genetically engineered food for more than two decades. Food containing GMOs is fundamentally different from the kinds of foods humans have eaten since we came into existence on this planet.
To create genetically engineered foods, scientists move genetic material between different types of living things in ways that do not occur naturally, which can result in all sorts of problems. Bacterial genes have been moved into corn to make the corn produce a pesticide throughout the plant. Scientists have even moved human genes into rice plants in some experiments and tried to get such plants approved.
Consumers Union believes that all genetically engineered food should be tested and approved before being allowed on the market, to make sure that no new toxins, allergens, nutritional changes or other potential problems have been introduced as a side effect of the genetic modification. However, unlike virtually all other developed countries, no U.S. government agency conducts mandatory safety evaluations of these foods so we don’t know how safe they are to eat. All the more reason you should have the right to choose whether you eat GMO foods if you don’t want to be part of this large experiment.
Regardless of what Proposition 37 opponents say, GMO labeling will not raise food prices–we have already seen that this hasn’t been the case from other countries that currently require labeling
And Prop 37 is not, as the companies claim, poorly drafted and full of inconsistencies. For example, it won’t require labeling of GMOs on restaurant menus, but only because there is no mandatory labeling of any kind about foods on restaurant menus–no requirements for ingredient labeling or additives either.
The bottom line is that you should have the right to know whether the food you buy is genetically modified so you can make your own choice. California voters, we urge you to vote YES on Prop 37 to require labeling of genetically engineered food!
To learn more, check out the Yes on 37 campaign web site, including the new TV ad in support of this critical ballot measure.
It certainly took long enough to get something done regarding GMO’s. Hopefully other states will soon follow suit and force the federal government to take care of it’s citizens as it is appointed to do, not purely take care of big business no matter what the result is on the populace.
Yes, we should know what’s in our food. However, I have big problems with this proposition:
1. There are too many odd exemptions. For instance, why is pet food included, but meat for human consumption exempted? This is one of many examples ( why are beer & wine exempted?).
2. There needs to be a better definition of what “genetically modified” means. We’ve been genetically modifying food since Mendel (& probably before). Is it the method? Is it using genes from other organisms? Are some modifications okay and others bad?
3. This is costly to businesses at a time when the economy is still not great & may result increased costs to consumers too.
We need a better law. This one isn’t it.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_26551.cfm
Here are 37 lies and dirty tricks brought to you by Monsanto and the No on 37 campaign:
#1 Fake Voter Guides – TRICK: It looks like a Democratic Party voter guide, with President Obama’s photo on the front. But inside is an appeal to vote “No on 37.” TRUTH: “The Ballot Guide” is a sham. The California Democratic Party has endorsed Prop 37!
; ;
#2 Illegal Use of the FDA Logo – TRICK: A No on 37 mailer contains the official seal of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration along with what appears to be a quote from the FDA opposing Prop 37. TRUTH: “The FDA has not made such statements with respect to Prop 37,” FDA spokeswoman Morgan Liscinsky told KPBS. “We cannot speculate on Prop 37 and have no comments at this time.”
Source: ‘No On 37′ Campaign Mailers ‘Criminal’
#3 Use of Profits from Organic Brands to Fight your Right to Know – TRICK: Organic and natural brands appear to share your values, promoting family farms, sustainable agriculture and healthy and nutritious food. TRUTH: Many of your favorite organic and natural brands are owned by big food companies donating their profits to the No on 37 campaign, including Kraft, Kellogg, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and General Mills.
Source: Brands Attack Consumers Right to GMO Labeling
#4 Scientists for Hire – TRICK: University of California at Davis professors oppose labeling GMOs because they understand the science of genetic engineering, they know its benefits, and they’re confident that GMOs are safe. TRUTH: UC Davis professors oppose labeling because they are financial beneficiaries of the same pesticide companies that are funding the No on 37 campaign.
Source: “Experts” are Shills for Big Biotech
#5 Scientists as Sock Puppets – TRICK: An anti-Prop 37 op-ed is authored by Kent J. Bradford, a professor of plant sciences at the University of California, Davis, and the director of the Seed Biotechnology Center. TRUTH: The words Bradford uses to describe Prop 37 are taken verbatim from the No on 37 website. The Daily Democrat and The Reporter (Vacaville) published Monsanto’s talking points disguised as legitimate opinion from a university professor of plant biology.
Source: Did Monsanto Write This Op-Ed?
#6 Scientists with Hidden Strings – TRICK: Martina Newell-McGloughlin, D.Sc., is the director of the International Biotechnology Program and an Adjunct Professor of Plant Pathology at the University of California, Davis. When she acts as a proponent for genetic engineering, as she did recently on the Dr. Oz Show, she presents herself as an independent academic scientist. TRUTH: Martina Newell-McGloughlin’s work is funded by the same pesticide company that backs the No on 37 campaign, but the strings that attach her to Monsanto are rarely reported along with her pro-GMO views.
Source: Seeds of Doubt
#7 Lies about the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics – TRICK: The “Argument Against Proposition 37″ in California’s Official Voter Information Guide states that the Academy “has concluded that biotech foods are safe.” TRUTH: That statement is false. “We are concerned that California’s voters are being misled to believe the nation’s largest organization of food and nutrition professionals is against Proposition 37, when in fact, the Academy does not have a position on the issue,” said registered dietitian Ethan A. Bergman, president of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. “Voters need accurate information in order to make an informed choice.”
Source: Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
#8 Lies about Newspaper Endorsements – TRICK: In an anti-Prop-37 TV ad, the San Francisco Examiner is featured prominently as having editorialized against Prop 37. TRUTH: The San Francisco Examiner has endorsed Prop 37.
Source: No on 37 Ad Yanked
#9 Lies about Stanford University Affiliation – TRICK: A No on 37 TV ad features an academic, identified on screen as “Dr. Henry I. Miller M.D., Standford University.” TRUTH: Miller is not a Stanford professor, but rather a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank housed on the Stanford campus.
Source: TV Ad Is Pulled
#10 Lies about Farmer Support – TRICK: No on 37 spokesperson Kathy Fairbanks claims the “entire agricultural community of California” is opposing Prop 37. TRUTH: More than 2,000 farmers, including some GMO farmers, as well as the California Grange, the Central Coast Agricultural Network, the United Farm Workers, California Labor Federation and United Food and Commercial Workers western region all support Prop 37.
Source: No On 37 Lies Again
#11 Fake Yes on 37 Supporters Spreading No on 37 Lies – TRICK: The California Right to Know Facebook page often gets posts from people who “Like” it that begin with a statement of support for Prop 37 but end with lies straight from the No on 37 disinformation handbook. TRUTH: Employees of the pesticide and junk food companies fighting our right to know, including Frito Lay, are trolling our pages. (No on 37 has to hang out on our page because California Right to Know has literally 100,000 more Likes than they do!)
Source: https://www.facebook.com/carighttoknow
#12 Lies about GMOs’ Safety – TRICK: GMO’s are “perfectly safe.” TRUTH: No one’s vouching for the safety of genetically engineered foods. This summer, the American Medical Association passed a new resolution calling for mandatory pre-market safety testing of GMOs. The GMO foods that are currently being consumed in the US not only aren’t labeled, they have never been safety tested by independent parties.
Source: GMOs Should Be Safety Tested Says AMA
#13 Lies about the National Academy of Science – TRICK: The National Academy of Sciences says GMOs are safe and there’s no reason to label them. TRUTH: The NAS study referenced by the Monsanto-Pepsi gang is the 1987 report, Introduction of Recombinant DNA-Engineered Organisms into the Environment. The 1987 NAS report doesn’t address the issue of GMO labels and doesn’t claim to present evidence that GMOs are safe for human consumption. GMO foods didn’t exist in 1987, so they couldn’t have been safety tested then. The NAS only argued that GMOs shouldn’t be treated differently from normal organisms. The fact that government regulators followed the NAS approach and failed to treat GMO foods with any more precaution than normal foods is not evidence that they are safe or shouldn’t be labeled.
Source: Introduction of Recombinant DNA-Engineered Organisms into…
#14 Lies about the World Health Organization – TRICK: The World Health Organization says GMOs are safe and there’s no reason to label them. TRUTH: WHO recognizes “the need to examine the potential negative effects on human health of the consumption of food produced through genetic modification” and that “consumer concerns have triggered a discussion on the desirability of labeling GM foods, allowing an informed choice.”
Source: The World Health Organization
#15 Lies About Pesticides – TRICK: Genetically engineered crops reduce pesticide use. TRUTH: Genetically engineered crops have actually increased pesticide use, especially the use of Monsanto’s herbicide RoundUp. 527 million additional pounds of RoundUp were used on genetically engineered crops between 1996 and 2011.
Source: Modified Crops Increase Herbicide Use
#16 Lies about Disease Resistance – TRICK: Genetically engineered crops are more resistant to disease. TRUTH: Recently, scientists have identified new outbreaks of blight, rust, and other fungal infections in Monsanto’s genetically engineered RoundUp Ready crops.
Source: Dangers of Genetically Engineered Food
#17 Lies about a Ban on GMOs – TRICK: Prop 37 bans genetically engineered foods unless they’re specially re-labeled or remade with higher-cost ingredients. TRUTH: Prop 37 wouldn’t ban anything, it would just let us know what we’re eating and allow us to make an informed choice about GMOs. Prop 37 doesn’t confer any regulatory authority that could be used to ban GMOs under any circumstances.
Source: A Label, Not a Ban
#18 Lies about Zero Tolerance – TRICK: Prop 37 has a zero-tolerance for accidental GMO content in foods that aren’t labeled as containing GMOs. Such a policy would force producers of essentially non-GMO products to use the label “may contain GMOs,” simply out of fear of litigation. TRUTH: Prop 37 exempts foods that do not intentionally contain GMOs.
Source: Incorrect Reports
#19 Lies about Frozen Pizza vs. Delivery Pizza – TRICK: Why would a frozen pizza from the grocery store with genetically engineered ingredients be labeled GMO, while a pizza with the same ingredients delivered from a restaurant wouldn’t? TRUTH: Frozen pizza from the grocery store has an ingredients label on it. Pizza delivered from a restaurant does not. Prop 37 can add GMOs to a label, but it can’t add a label to food that doesn’t already have one.
Source: Opponents Have Holes in their Loopholes
#20 Lies about Fruit Juice vs. Alcohol – TRICK: Why would fruit juice with genetically engineered ingredients be labeled GMO, while alcohol with the same ingredients wouldn’t? TRUTH: Fruit juice has an ingredients label, alcohol doesn’t. Prop 37 is just about adding GMOs to the label, not adding labels to products that don’t already have them.
Source: Opponents Have Holes in their Loopholes
#21 Lies about Soy Milk vs. Cow’s Milk – TRICK: Dairy products, eggs, meat and poultry are all exempt. TRUTH: No, they’re not. All dairy products, eggs, meat, poultry, and fish, for that matter, will be labeled under Prop 37, if and when genetically engineered animals are sold for human consumption.
Source: The Truth About Exemptions
#22 Lies about Dog Food vs. Steak – TRICK: Dog food with beef would be labeled, but beef wouldn’t. TRUTH: Cows haven’t been genetically engineered yet. If and when they are, GMO beef and dairy will be labeled under Prop 37. “Dog food with beef” contains other ingredients (vegetable oils, for instance) that might be genetically engineered and therefore might be labeled.
Source: Vote Yes on Prop 37
#23 Lies About Animals Fed GMOs – TRICK: I’d support Prop 37′s labels on GMO fruits, vegetables, animals and ingredients – if it covered animals raised on genetically engineered feed. TRUTH: The Monsanto-Pepsi gang isn’t opposed to Prop 37 because it doesn’t go far enough. The fact is, no labeling law in the world covers animals raised on genetically engineered feed. Prop 37 is designed to be compatible with the laws of our 61 trading partners who already label genetically engineered food, because most US farmers and food processors are already aware of and complying with those laws abroad.
Source: Opponents Have Holes in their Loopholes
#24 Lies about Special Interest Exemptions – TRICK: Prop 37 is funded by the organic industry and it looks like they’ve exempted themselves from the law. Why would organic be exempt, while producers of conventional food have to label GMOs? TRUTH: Organic food is verified by a USDA accredited certifier to be made without the use of genetic engineering. The organic law is actually much stricter than Prop 37 because it requires third-party certification.
Source: The Truth About Exemptions
#25 Lies about Costs to Consumers – TRICK: GMO labels will result in increased food costs for needy families. An average family’s annual grocery bill would increase by $400. TRUTH: 61 other countries label genetically engineered food and there isn’t a single real-world example of increased food costs. Likewise, food prices didn’t go up in the US when information about allergens – or any other piece of information – was added to labels. What makes the Monsanto-Pepsi gang’s grocery bill trick so dirty is that the $400 figure they cite is actually their estimate of the cost of companies switching from GMO to organic to avoid labels, not the cost of GMO labels themselves.
Source: Anti-Prop 37 Ad Misleads
#26 Lies about Costs to Farmers and Processors – TRICK: UC Davis Professors of agricultural economics released a report that showed Proposition 37 would increase costs for California farmers and food processors by $1.2 billion. TRUTH: The No campaign paid the authors of this study, Julian Alston and Daniel Sumner, at least $30,000. The study assumes that farmers and food producers will respond to Proposition 37 by switching from genetically engineering to organic to avoid the labeling. The authors don’t devote much attention to the possibility that producers will respond to the labeling mandate by simply relabeling.
Source: Perils of the Initiative Process
#27 Lies about Costs to Taxpayers – TRICK: Prop. 37 “would cost California taxpayers millions for more bureaucracy and red tape.” TRUTH: This nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office’s estimates the annual cost of enforcement as “a few hundred thousand dollars to $1 million.”
Source: The Truth About Cost
#28 Lies about “Natural” Claims – TRICK: Based on an analysis by Peggy Lemaux, part of the Monsanto-Pepsi gang, NPR’s Eliza Barclay wrote an article claiming Prop 37 would stop producers of any processed food from using the term “natural.” TRUTH: Only processed food containing GMOs will be blocked from carrying “natural” claims under Prop 37. The Center for Environmental Health pointed this out to Barclay and she corrected her report.
Source: GMO Food Labeling Lies
#29 Lies about Prop 65 – TRICK: Prop 37 is just like Prop 65. TRUTH: Proposition 65 granted private attorneys a share of fines and penalties exacted from violators, making it more of a bounty system. Proposition 37 doesn’t do that. Private attorneys can sue only to obtain injunctions, not penalties.
Source: Perils of the Initiative Process
#30 Lies about Damages – TRICK: The independent, nonpartisan Legislative Analyst says that Proposition 37 would allow trial lawyers “to sue without needing to demonstrate that any specific damage occurred as a result of the alleged violation.” TRUTH: Say you buy a box of cereal whose main ingredient is corn. It’s not labeled GMO, but you get it tested and find that it has levels of GMO above what could result from unintentional contamination. You bring a lawsuit under Prop 37. You might be right that the processor intentionally used genetically engineered ingredients without labeling them, but what’s your “damage”? If you suffered no harm, there aren’t any damages that can be recognized under the law, except maybe what you paid for the cereal. If Prop 37 required a demonstration of damages before a violation of the law could be rectified, GMO labels couldn’t be enforced. The advantage to this system is that the only incentive to sue will be to enforce the law, not to win money damages.
Source: The Truth About Lawsuits
#31 Lies about Trial Lawyers – TRICK: Prop 37 was written by trial lawyers for trial lawyers. TRUTH: The California Right to Know campaign began with the efforts of Pamm Larry, a former midwife, farmer and longtime Chico resident. In 2011, Pamm started organizing mothers and volunteers across the state toward a 2012 ballot drive with only one goal in mind: to let California consumers know if the food they are eating is genetically engineered. With the help of thousands of volunteers, the Right to Know campaign gathered nearly one million signatures from California voters within a 10 week period.
Source: The Truth About Lawsuits
#32 Lies about Grocers – TRICK: Prop 37 is “a nightmare scenario for grocers” and retailers because they have to obtain and keep “reams of paperwork.” TRUTH: Retailers would only have to label the few raw commodities (sweet corn, papaya, squash) that are genetically engineered – if they were buying them directly from farmers, as opposed to a packer who would have responsibility for labeling. They can either stick a simple label on the bin or, if they wish, they can ask their farmer supplier for a sworn statement that the crop is not genetically engineered.
Source: The Truth About Lawsuits
#33 Lies about Lawsuits – TRICK: Prop 37 will lead to a bonanza of lawsuits. TRUTH: Lawsuits are expressly forbidden unless the potential defendant is given a chance to put the labels on. If the defendant labels the product, no lawsuit. Second, the law protects anyone for whom a claimed violation was not intentional or resulted from an error.
Source: The Truth About Lawsuits
#34 Lies about Lawsuits Against Farmers – TRICK: Farmers will get sued. TRUTH: If they’re selling direct to customers, farmers need to label their genetically engineered produce. If they’re selling into the supply chain, all farmers have to do is provide sworn statements as to whether or not their crops are genetically engineered (if the crops are typically GMO). Genetically engineered seeds are patented, they can only be used under contract and must be purchased each year, so farmers definitely know whether they’re growing GMOs. Monsanto’s the only one suing farmers.
Source: The Truth About Lawsuits
#35 Lies about a Corporate Agenda – TRICK: In California, there is nothing on the ballot that doesn’t serve some corporate agenda. TRUTH: Look at the list of donors for and against Prop 37. Will you stand with the natural health advocates and organic consumers, farmers and retailers who support your right to know, or the biggest pesticide and junk food companies in the world who want to hide the GMOs you’re eating?
Source: Prop 37 Funders
#36 Lies about Foreign Corporations – TRICK: Foods imported from foreign countries are exempt if sellers simply declare that their products are “GE-free.” TRUTH: There are no special provisions related to imported food.
Source: Read the Initiative
#37 Lies about Consumer Choice – TRICK: Mandatory GMO labels are unnecessary because food that is certified organic or non-GMO verified is labeled for consumers who choose to avoid GMOs. TRUTH: Only a small fraction of the public is aware of GMOs in their food. In fact 74% of the public is ignorant of the fact that they’re already eating GMOs. It isn’t fair to keep consumers in the dark. We deserve the right to know what we’re eating! California, vote Yes on 37!
Source: Public Sentiment About GM Food
I would like to be updated on this issue. And I sure will vote yes on prop 37. Thanks for the info.
Anyone who feels that GMO food should not be labeled, has not read the reports. Long term negative effects (sick, dying) are already showing up in those farm animal lucky to have a diet of GMO. You really want you or your children to have that diet??
Cost very little to label.
If GE (genetically engineered) as the Prop. 37 refers to GMO food was so healthy, why not label as GE or GMO? Is there something that the manufacturer does not wish the buyer to know? Why are the foodmakers, foodmarkets spending such enormous monies to defeat Prop. 37?
I can tell you that when the peanut-butter I purchased and consumed for years suddenly began to concern me because of it’s difference in consistency when I removed it from the refrigerator, (I use the oil-separated kind), I contacted the brand/maker, explained my observation over the past year and asked if GMO peanuts were now being used. The answer was affirmative and I responded why screw-up a fine product – you just lost a loyal customer. Seems most brand/makers are on the bandwagon.
What – no guts to label your product and let the citizen/consumer have a choice as to buy or not buy?
Not sure where the “prop 37 will cost you $400 a year in additional grocery bills” argument came from. Food companies routinely spend money to relabel their products every 6-12 months; prop 37 gives them 18 months to do so and requires no additional expenditure.
“Prop 37 is inconsistent, with too many exemptions?” Again, not so fast. Right now we have nothing, and will continue to have nothing if 37 is defeated, to defend ourselves against some pretty unscrupulous characters who have their profits- not our health- at heart. Prop 37 begins to give us tools to address this problem.
Most store tomatoes are GOM’s to make them turn red all at the same time for quick picking and shipping for maximum profit and the seeds are infertile to insure future sales. They have lost their flavor because it wasn’t a requirement so it was overlooked in the development of the gene modification. So far only Heirloom tomatoes have have been spared this nightmare modification, if you can find them!
Which is the argument for no law. I voted for it despite it’s imperfections. We’re way behind the curve on this issue.
Jan: 1) The “exemptions” seem to be the same foods that are currently exempted from labeling. When you buy a package of meat at the bitcher section of the grocery store, there isn’t nutrition labeling like canned foods have (plus, they aren’t any GMO meats — yet!). I just checked a bottle of wine from my pantry and it doesn’t carry nutrition labeling, either.
2) Hybridizing plants is not genetic modification, it crossing two strains of the same species. GMO’s are where you are placing the genes of one type of life form into another, completely different life form. For example, the BT corn has has a bacteria that it a pesticide placed inside the corn’s DNA. Now every cell of the corn plant contains pesticide which should kill some of the bugs that eat the corn plants. HOWEVER, when YOU eat that corn, YOU are also eating pesticide in every bite you take. SOME doctors blame this BT corn for all kinds of health problems that have increased since the corn came to market. Monsanto says the corn is safe but hasn’t done long-term testing on it. They say that’s the responsibility of the FDA. The FDA says it is the responsibility of Monsanto to do any testing.
3) This may end up costing Monsanto money, as I suspect as people educate themselves they will choose non-GMO foods. If shopping habits change, farmers will respond by growing what people want! But food prices in other countries that have implemented labeling have not seen food price increases as a result. I’m worried about the costs of NOT labeling GMOs. What are the costs of not labeling GMOs if they do cause some of the health problems the study in France says they do?
You may not feel the law if perfect, but you and I have a right to know what is in the food we feed ourselves and our families. Monsanto and the other GMO companies are spending $1 million dollars a DAY in their campaign to keep us in the dark. Do you trust them? I don’t
It’s really disgusting. I agree with this decision and think it should pass, but in the long run nothing beats a vegetable garden and your own raised beef if you can do that. I also question just how organic, organic food really is.