California Voter Guide Contained Complete Baloney About Prop. 37, GMO Labeling Initiative

To contact us Click HERE


Nov. 2, 2012

Today leading consumer groups revealed a long list of documented deceptions of the No on 37 Campaign, including blatant misrepresentation of the positions of leading science, professional, academic organizations and government agencies as documented below. This pattern of fraud tells the true story about how far the world's largest pesticide and junk food companies are willing to go to keep American consumers from having a choice about genetically engineered foods. Opponents of Prop 37 have been caught red handed:

Making demonstrably false statements in the official California Voter Guide. From page 57: “Respected scientific and medical organizations have concluded that biotech foods are safe, including: National Academy of Sciences, American Council on Science and Health, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, World Health Organization."

False. The only group on that list that has "concluded that biotech foods are safe" is the American Council on Science and Health, which happens to be a notorious front group for the pesticide industry and climate change deniers.

.....Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics issued a press release alerting voters that their group was misrepresented by the No on 37 campaign in the voter guide. "We are concerned that voters are being misled … Voters need accurate information in order to make an informed choice.” While the Academy's official evidence-based position on GM foods won’t be available until 2013, registered dietitian and Academy spokesperson Jeannie Gazzaniga-Moloo, Ph.D, R.D. says, “The Academy supports consumers right to know what ingredients are in the foods they purchase to feed their families.” She adds, “Those who have specific questions about foods or ingredients should contact food manufacturers directly.”

Source: CARightToKnow.org


Another point of view: Biofortified.org says the Yes on 37 Campaign also was less than truthful.


Jill Richardson, who is a board member of the OCA, published photographs of a No on 37 mailer she received in early October, which used the logo of the U.S. Food And Drug Administration (FDA) when describing the measure. Pictured on the right, it read:

“The US Food and Drug Administration says a labeling policy like Prop 37 would be “inherently misleading.”
US Food and Drug Administration

This implies that the FDA has taken a position on Proposition 37, which it has not, as reported by KPBS.

“The FDA has not made such statements with respect to Prop 37,” wrote FDA spokeswoman Morgan Liscinsky in an email. “We cannot speculate on Prop 37 and have no comments at this time.”

The Yes on 37 campaign seized on this, calling the No on 37 campaign deceptive and guilty of fabricating a quote from the FDA. Mis-using the FDA seal is a legal offense, and the campaign contacted the Department of Justice (DOJ) to lodge a complaint against the No on 37 campaign.

However, as misleading as the use of the seal in the mailer may be, the quote from the FDA about mandatory labeling is genuine. According to KPBS, and the Chicago Tribune, the terms “inherently misleading” came from a statement from the United States FDA in a 2009 report (PDF) to the World Health Organization. From the document,

Inherently Misleading Labelling – Moreover, mandatory method-of-production GM/GE labelling would likely be inherently misleading. A mandatory method-of-production GM/GE labelling regime creates the impression that the labelled food is in some way different from or less safe than a comparable, unlabelled non-GM/GE food (for example, no requirements exist that all food be labelled to indicate the breeding technique used to produce it). As such, mandatory method-of-production GM/GE labelling would be inconsistent with the Codex General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods, which states that foods shall not be described or presented in a manner that is false, misleading or deceptive, or is likely to create an erroneous impression regarding its character in any respect.

A few responses to the above:

The problem with this alleged “FBI investigation” is that there’s such a revolving door with circulation of personnel between the FDA and Big Chem and Big Pharma that looking to the FDA for food safety or testing is a lost cause. Perfect example is Bt-engineered corn. The FDA won’t test it because Bt is a pesticide and falls in the purview of the EPA. EPA says they won’t test it because corn is a food and not their “department.” So the food goes untested—or it’s tested by Monsanto, and the government agencies that are supposed to be protecting the people accept the tests—often rigged—from Big Chem. Can you say “fox guarding the hen-house”?

Karl Haro von Mogel
November 5, 2012 at 5:16 pm · Reply
Hi Flame, I suggest that you take a look at the pages on the EPA, FDA, and heck, USDA websites that talk about their role in regulating GE crops. While problems can arise from the 3-agency system of regulation, and I think it should eventually be a 1-agency system, the responsibilities are not tossed around like that with no one taking a hard look at these crops. Some writers have tried to make it seem that way. Perhaps you could consider that their description of the regulations are wrong?
Um, how did Big Pharma get involved in this?

Flame
November 6, 2012 at 1:15 pm · Reply
Big Pharma is not directly involved with the GMO issue, but there is a revolving door of employees of FDA, politicians (e.g., Rumsfeld, who pushed through approval of aspartame when FDA had previously intended not to approve it), and lobbyists who seem to play “musical jobs” among the agencies and the corporations, so that people working at FDA or EPA at any one time may have previously worked in one of the Big Pharma corporations—and vice versa.
Okay, I’ll look (perhaps with some skepticism) at FDA and EPA (waiting for them to open)—but know that my tenants and I cast our ballots a few hours ago in favor of Yes on 37. Looked at several of your suggested pages (tho my browser doesn’t seem to want to save them), and frankly, I’m not particularly consoled that these agencies are any more trustworthy than before I read the pages.