Sovereignthink

Upholding Individual, State then National Sovereignty against the Enforcement of Global Governence and Tyranny

YES ON 37 Know GMO

with 4 comments


 

Monsanto, Pesticide Companies Spend $5.5 Million More to Defeat Right to Know GMO Labeling Measure; Opposition Funds Total $32 Million

 

http://www.carighttoknow.org/tags/prop_37

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: : Monday, Sept. 17, 2012
CONTACT: Gary Ruskin (415) 944-7350; gary@carighttoknow.org

 

Sacramento, Calif.–  Monsanto just gave an additional $2.89 million to defeat Proposition 37, which would require labeling of genetically engineered foods in California. Monsanto’s total contribution against Proposition 37 now stands at $7.1 million, according to campaign finance disclosure records filed with the California Secretary of State.

 

Other major pesticide companies also just made major additional contributions to defeat Proposition 37, including DuPont ($874,800), Dow AgroSciences ($815,200), Bayer CropScience ($381,600), BASF Plant Science ($357,700) and Syngenta ($178,700).

CaliforniaProposition 37, Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food (2012)

 

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_37,_Mandatory_Labeling_of_Genetically_Engineered_Food_(2012)

 

Proposition 37, a Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food Initiative, is on the November 6, 2012 ballot in California as an initiated state statute.[1],[2]

If Proposition 37 is approved by voters, it will:

  • Require labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if the food is made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways.
  • Prohibit labeling or advertising such food as “natural.”
  • Exempt from this requirement 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.”

James Wheaton, who filed the ballot language for the initiative, refers to it as “The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act.”

 

Prop.37 Blazes Wayfor GMO Labeling

Proposition 37 may make California the first state to label products derived from GMOs.

Janell Baum

Published: Sep 19, 2012

 

http://farmfutures.com/story.aspx/prop-37-blazes-gmo-labeling-17/63374

 

 

Prop. 37: Another example of the perils of the initiative process

September 16, 2012|Michael Hiltzik

There’s scant science and much nonsense in the debate over Propositon 37, would require some food sold in California and produced via genetic engineering to be labeled as such.

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/16/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20120916

 

Love it or hate it, the one thing you can say for sure aboutCalifornia’s ballot initiative process is that it’s the absolute worst way to craft policy dealing with complex scientific issues.

That doesn’t stop advocates on one side or another from constantly trying, with the result that the public’s understanding of the underlying facts plummets faster than you can say, well, “Proposition 37.”

 

The food industry’s big problem with genetically engineered food

By Karin Klein

September 7, 2012, 5:30 a.m.

The No on Proposition 37 campaign emailed Thursday to tout a new study by UC Davis professors. It concludes that the proposition on the November ballot to require the labeling of genetically engineered foods would cost the food industry more than a billion dollars and lead to higher food costs from consumers.

The study doesn’t read like the usual, carefully couched work of academics. It’s a spitfire of a report that boldly starts out, “A Costly Regulation with No Benefits.” That sounds more like No on 37 campaign literature than a university study. But wait. This calls for scrolling back to the title page, where it is revealed that “the work for this project was undertaken with partial funding support from No on 37.”

That doesn’t mean the study is without interest for voters. Its top point appears to be that costs will be high because consumers will avoid foods that have the “genetically engineered” label on them, so farms and food companies will go to great lengths to avoid such foods in their offerings. In other words, the No on 37 campaign is praising a study that concedes that food companies have a problem: They might like genetically engineered foods, but they are very aware that many consumers don’t.

 

 

Who’s Funding Prop 37, Labeling for Genetically Engineered Foods?

 

Prop 37 would require many foods sold in Californiato be specially labeled if they were “made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways,” according to the California’s official ballot summary. Although several foods will be exempt for a variety of reasons, calling some genetically changed products “natural” will not be allowed. For all the details, read our Prop 37 Cheat Sheet.

 

http://www.kcet.org/news/ballotbrief/elections2012/propositions/prop-37-funding-genetically-engineered-food.html

 

 

No On 37

Stop the Deceptive Food Labeling Scheme

Increased Food Costs

Prop. 37 would add another layer of bureaucracy and red tape for food producers and increase food costs.

Unsupported by Science

Respected scientific and medical organizations throughout the world have concluded that biotech foods are safe.

 

Payday for Trial Lawyers

Trial lawyers would line their pockets by filing frivolous lawsuits at the expense of the taxpayer.

 

Special Interest Exemptions

Prop. 37 is full of politically motivated exemptions to its requirements that make no sense.

 

http://www.noprop37.com/

 

http://www.noprop37.com/files/Opposed-to-Prop.-37-Coalition-List-9-18-2012.pdf

 

 

Prop. 37: genetically altered food fight

Campaign 2012 Proposition 37
Stacy Finz
Updated 10:17 a.m., Tuesday, August 21, 2012

With big money pouring in to defeat a November state measure requiring food companies to label genetically modified foods, both sides are gearing up for an airwaves war that is expected to pit farmer against farmer to win votes.

Political insiders say the “no” campaign’s recent influx of money – it is up to $25 million, compared with the proponents’ $2.7 million – shows that it is quickly mobilizing and will probably start buying air time for attack ads as early Labor Day.

So far, Monsanto and DuPont, leading producers of genetically engineered seeds, collectively have kicked in more than $8 million to beat Proposition 37. The food and beverage industry – companies such as PepsiCo and NestléUSA – has contributed $10.6 million, according to an analysis by MapLight, a nonpartisan political money tracker.

 

http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Prop-37-genetically-altered-food-fight-3802436.php#ixzz26wMjORMq

 

 

Prop. 37: WillCaliforniabe first state to label genetically modified food?

Proponents of Prop. 37, which is on the California ballot in November, say consumers have a right to know what kinds of food they are eating. But similar labeling laws have failed in 19 states.

By Daniel B. Wood, Staff writer / August 20, 2012

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/2012/0820/Prop.-37-Will-California-be-first-state-to-label-genetically-modified-food

 

Proposition 37 inCalifornia: A high-stakes food fight

 

By Dana Hull

 

 

dhull@mercurynews.com

Posted:   08/24/2012 01:18:12 PM PDT

 

This one snuck up on everyone,” said Bob Stern, aCaliforniacampaign finance expert. “No one was paying attention, and all of a sudden proponents turned in their signatures. It takes a lot of money to get something on the ballot, but once it’s on the ballot it takes a lot of money to defeat it.”

Stern noted that in 2008,Californiapassed Proposition 2 — which prohibits the close confinement of farm animals like chickens in crates — with 63.5 percent

 

 

of the vote. He sees similarities with Proposition 37, saying both are “feel-good” initiatives.

Spending on Proposition 2 was roughly equal. Supporters spent $10.6 million, opponents $8.9 million.

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_21391702/proposition-37-california-high-stakes-food-fight

 

Advertisements

Written by sovereignthink

2012/09/26 at 7:27 am

4 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Do you mind if I quote a few of your articles as long
    as I provide credit and sources back to your webpage?
    My blog site is in the very same area of interest as yours and my visitors would definitely benefit from a lot of the information you provide
    here. Please let me know if this okay with you. Thanks!

    pity 2014 ips

    2013/07/22 at 12:48 am

  2. Hi there friends, nice article and fastidious arguments commented here, I am really enjoying by these.

  3. I want to to thank you for this good read!! I definitely loved every little
    bit of it. I have you book marked to check out new stuff you post…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: