Did Monsanto Trick California Voters?
- View SourceDo you really believe the pesticide and junk food companies would spend
$46 MILLION trying to save you money? (is the Pope Catholic?)
I note, if you have enough money you can lie like crazy and break the law
and cite US Government and University backing, but if the organic industry
had said the FDA backed them there would be fins, organic farmlands would
have pesticides in them, and jail time would have resulted.
AlterNet  / By Ocean Robbins 
Did Monsanto Trick California Voters?
November 8, 2012
California could have been the first state in the nation to mandate the
labeling of genetically engineered foods. We would have joined more than
60 countries  where consumers have the right to know if their food has
been genetically modified. But the prospect of Proposition 37 terrified
the junk food and pesticide companies that want to keep us in the dark
about what we eat.
The "No on 37" campaign spent $46 million  burying the state's voters
in an avalanche of misleading ads and outright falsehoods. Their efforts
defeated the proposition, 53 percent to 47 percent.
But Monsanto and their peeps didn't just spend $46 million promoting their
opinion. They also lied and got away with it. Check out these examples:
1) They illegally included the FDA logo in a "No on 37" mailing to state
residents, and made up a quote from the FDA, which the FDA refuted .
The FDA did not and cannot express an opinion on ballot initiatives.
2) They used the Stanford logo  in TV ads and mailers, when the
University also did not take a stand on the issue. And they said  that
Henry I. Miller, their hired gun, is a professor at Stanford when in
reality, he works for the Hoover Institution -- which rents office space
on the campus.
3) They paid a PR firm with expertise in fighting recycling legislation
(on behalf of the soda pop industry) to generate a misleading  "study
" that was designed to show the proposition raising food prices by
hundreds of dollars per state resident per year. This despite independent
economic analysis  concluding that it would not raise prices in any
meaningful way, and that in Europe, mandated labeling was not linked
to an increase in food prices. (Do you really believe the pesticide
and junk food companies would spend $46 million trying to save you money?)
4) They said there have never been any documented ill-effects from GMO
consumption. But many allege that 37 direct human deaths  and 1,500
disabilities linked to a toxic batch of the supplement Tryptophan were
caused by a genetically engineered strain of bacteria used in production.
And there are numerous reports of livestock that have died  as a
result of grazing on GMO cotton. There could be far more widespread
ill-effects, but without labeling, it's nearly impossible to find out
5) They said Prop 37 was full of exemptions for special interests. But in
reality, the exemptions  were modeled after those adopted throughout
the European Union and every other country that calls for labeling. For
instance, livestock that are fed GMO grains don't have to be labeled
genetically engineered unless the animal, itself, is genetically
engineered. That's not a special interest exemption -- it's basic science.
What's Next For The Food Movement?
In the last decade, the movement for healthy, sustainable food has been
growing exponentially , with consumption of organic foods growing from
$8 billion  in 2000 to $31 billion  in 2011. We've seen an equally
dramatic rise in the number of farmer's markets and CSAs. Still, it's a
big jump to move from 4 percent market share, to changing national food
policy. Tobacco was found to be harmful to health in 1950, and it took
nearly half a century to meaningfully change laws.
The food movement is growing fast, but as a political force, it's still in
its infancy. Big agribusiness still controls the purse strings in
Congress, and runs the show at the FDA. At least for now.
An ABC News poll  found that 93 percent of Americans want to know if
their food is genetically engineered. Even after a narrow loss against a
heavily financed and deeply entrenched food industry, the rapidly growing
food movement may be just getting started.
"The arc of history is long," Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. told us, "but it
bends towards justice." As we've seen time and time again, when enough
people demand it, eventually, change does come.
See more stories tagged with:
Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/food/did-monsanto-trick-california-voters