Important -Proposition 37 - Deception and Lies

Contributed by Feline Butcher

Hi Everyone,

It is time for a rebuttal and please feel free to share this info!

I know we have been really harping on Prop 37, but I really appreciate your support and understanding about how vitally important this initiative is. Monsanto and DuPont are pouring millions into counter ads and promotion in these vital few days before the elections to intentionally confuse and deceive voters.

I know that all of you reading this are firmly behind our efforts and are prepared to protect your right to know what ingredients are in the food you and your family eat, but we need your help and support to reach out to those other people you know who may be on the fence on this issue. Because there has been so much counter propaganda thrown about, it can be difficult to have a reasonable and logical discussion with people who are basing their thinking on false information and skewed logic. That is why I want to provide you with some information that highlights many of the arguments that the GMO industry is promoting and our specific responses so that you can understand the issue well enough to spread the message confidently.

Let's get right to it.

Increased Food Prices and Raised Taxes.

Many ads and corporate mouth-pieces are claiming that because Prop 37 will add new, and potentially burdensome regulations to an already complex industry, that these regulations will have unintended consequences that will cause massive food price increases. Some of the factors they list include: increased food production costs, the inability to import many cheap sources of food from out of state, increased legal costs arising from frivolous lawsuits, etc.

These types of statements are part of a marketing technique known as FUD, which is an acronym that stands for Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. If you want to persuade somebody not to do something, you must create these emotions. The way to defeat FUD, is to employ the truth. In regards to increased food prices, the truth is that food prices are not going to increase as a result of this measure. They may increase due to increased fuel costs, droughts in the mid-west, and other phenomenon, but the costs associated with food retailers verifying with their suppliers whether their ingredients contain GMO sources or not, and altering their packaging accordingly will not affect food prices. The real fear with this measure is being felt by food producers because their biggest concern is that if customers see a package that has "contains GMO ingredients" printed on it, they might not choose their product. This would cost THEM money, but not you.

Affecting Farmers and Cost Jobs

Opponents claim that this proposition would mean that farmers in California would be at a disadvantage with farmers in other states because they would not be able to sell competitive goods and that this would put farmers and agricultural workers out of business. The truth is that nothing in this proposition prohibits a farmer from producing or selling GMO crops. It does not prohibit them from exporting them out of the state or out of the country. In fact it doesn't prevent farmers from doing anything that they already do. It only requires that RETAILERS and PACKAGED FOODS label their products which contain GMO ingredients, or have been grown from GMO seed. This idea that the entire agricultural economy of California is going to collapse from a LABELING LAW is plain falsehood.

Frivolous Lawsuits

Opponents claim that there is a provision in Prop 37 that will allow people to bring frivolous lawsuits against farmers and food producers by making false claims that their products contain GMO. That such lawsuits would be costly and that these costs would be passed onto the consumers. Under current labeling laws, if a food producer omits an ingredient on their label, and it happens to be something that someone is allergic to, they could file a lawsuit for damages to their health. There are both civil and criminal penalties for misbranding, false advertisement, etc. Prop 37 simply creates a new category of adulterant, GMO. As with any new law, there must be consequences for violation. They must not be too lenient, but not overbearing either. They must fit the crime committed. Private individuals are the most effective community watchdogs in existence, and unless they can be empowered to ensure that companies stay within the bounds of the law, compliance to the provisions of Prop 37 will not occur. If a factory contaminates the groundwater supply of a community, the factory's owner should be held accountable, if the community develops health problems. If a food producer attempts to hide the fact that they use GMO ingredients and it causes health problems for their consumers, they also must be held accountable. This is part of common law and common sense, if you hurt an innocent person, amends must be made, and justice must be served.

Likewise, these companies also have ways that they can correct themselves if a mistake has been made. Prop 37 allows companies a grace period to correct the label, to obtain a sworn statement from their suppliers that they do not use GMO ingredients, etc. Then the false accuser will have no grounds for a case. The burden of proof of wrongdoing rests heavily on the accuser. If they cannot provide hard evidence like laboratory analysis results, then their case will not proceed very far. Don't forget that this law will not go into affect until 2014 and that producers have a year to figure out how to become compliant with the law and get their legal affairs in order.

Arbitrary Exemptions

Of all the arguments put forth by the opposition, this area is the one in which the most ridicule and deception occur. One of the most promoted anti-Prop 37 ads being promoted is the one where Dr. Herny Miller, a former FDA employee, gives examples of "arbitrary exemptions" in Prop 37 and summarizes that this new labeling law "makes no sense". The ad uses a simple cartoon to compare products that are required to be labeled if they contain GMO ingredients and those that are not. Let's go over these examples and see if they truly are nonsensical or if this is just an attempt to confuse and mislead the public. The first example is soy milk vs cow's milk. Soy milk must be labeled, cow's milk doesn't. Why?

First of all, the text of Prop 37 makes no specific reference to milk products. Soy is a SEED crop. GMO soy beans are among the most common GMO crop on the planet. Cow's milk comes from a COW. The livestock industry has done some pretty terrible things to cows, but they have yet to create a "GMO" cow. As such, if Soy Milk comes from GMO Soy it must be labeled.

Juice vs Alcohol

This one may at first seem bizarre, but then you should probably realize that people don't drink alcoholic beverages for the health benefits. Prop 37 does allow an exemption for alcoholic beverages. My theory is that this was somewhat political. You are already going to try and pass a measure that will infuriate one of the largest and richest multinational corporations in the world, do you really want to make an enemy of the Beer and Wine industry as well? Probably not.

Bread vs Cheese

This is effectively the same scenario as soy vs cow milk. Bread is made from grains, which are seed crops which can be GMO. Cheese is from dairy which is NOT GMO. This is blatant deception intended to confuse voters. A clear example of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.

Dog food vs Meat consumption by humans

This may also seem bizarre at first glance. Prop 37 makes no specific reference to animal versus human food. The No on Prop 37 ad shows a dog food can, and a T-bone steak. This is the major deception. Any dog owner who reads the ingredient labels on their dog food packages will know that most dog foods contain GRAINS, including but not limited to soy, corn, wheat, barley, and rice. The No on Prop 37 ad has Dr. Miller saying "why meat in dog food should be covered, but meat for human consumption is not, makes no sense..." This is a very clever lie. MEAT is not covered at all under Prop 37. There is no such thing as GMO meat. Does not exist. The GRAINS in dog food, however, are covered and because so many animal food products do contain GMO ingredients means that health conscious pet owners will be able to know which dog food brands use GMO ingredients.

This ad, specifically, is a very clear example of the FUD campaign that the wealthy corporate interests are running on the voters of California. They are using deceptive language and relying upon voter's ignorance of the topic in order to generate fear, uncertainty, and doubt in order to remain hidden behind this loophole that allows them to use potentially toxic ingredients in their foods without our knowledge or consent.

We have the Right to Know, and it is time that we exercised that right by voting Yes on Prop 37.

To read the full text of Prop 37 and get the written truth, go here:

http://www.carighttoknow.org/read_the_initiative
Feline Butcher
[To learn about a balanced raw food diet, go here: http:www.WeWant2Live.com ]