Is the fix in for California’s Prop 37?

-
-
- Dagum
- added this
Is the fix in for California’s Prop 37 before the polls even close later this evening?
Supposedly unbiased papers mirroring mega-corporate interests have lined up by the dozens to uncritically regurgitate the phony claims that GMO food is ‘tested’ and ‘safe’ throughout the election cycle. Now, they are celebrating their own success over cries to Californians to go back to sleep and ignore the public’s right to know, systematically campaigning to dull the senses and avoid sparking a movement that could have qucikly spread across the United States to demand labeling and greater transparency with genetically modified organisms on the market.
After weeks of the “No on 37″ crowd – Monsanto, DuPont, Pepsico, etc. – spending upwards of $46 million, and reportedly $1 million per day, to lobby against the food labeling initiative, with media lapdogs in tow, the MSM are reporting that Prop 37 may indeed fail.
Polls were initially clear, with over 60% of California voters clearly in favor of knowing what’s in their food. But a deluge of heavily-financed propaganda has sadly whittled that support down, with support for labeling (Yes on Prop 37) dropping to only 39% according to current reports.
Fudging poll numbers has its own science, as well as art, so it’s difficult to know if these numbers really represent Californians, but it is clear that it is influencing them to accept defeat before the fact. On election day, anyone combing the news is given the impression that Prop 37 has become a hopeless measure, even if the public in general have made clear that they want to know what is in the food they are eating.
But without a doubt, op-eds and even supposedly objective reports have boldly claimed that Prop 37 is not only much ado about nothing (there are already ways to choose organic, they say) but potentially costly and even damaging (by way of supposedly encouraging frivolous lawsuits over labels). The L.A. Times has predictably led the charge in this effort. Yesterday’s “Proposition 37 campaign is about everything but the meat,” blamed pro-labeling activists for trying to hold the other side accountable for misrepresenting quotes from the FDA, instead insinuating that the activists were the misleading ones. It further argues that Prop 37 is poorly written and would be ineffective, and this bunk argument is entirely typical.
These talking points are appearing all across the media in the final hours leading up to this election. The Christian Science Monitor asks suggestively if Prop 37 is really about ‘Safer food or invitation for lawsuits?‘ while Slate published ‘Delusions of Danger: Why the food movement’s demonization of genetically modified crops isn’t just scientifically baseless—it’s politically stupid.’ Meanwhile, others pen articles giving the misleading perception that biologists have been surveyed, and indeed ‘say ‘No’ on GMO Labels Proposition 37.‘ Indeed, there are many scientists against Prop 37, but at study of their ties to Big Agra would be very revealing of where their interests lie.
The Daily Nexus ridiculously argues ‘Don’t Let Frankenfoods Scare You.’ Patrick Allen, admittedly imaginative, argues the literary point, writing, “Perhaps if proponents of Prop 37 had access to a library they would realize how ironic the term “Frankenfood” (used to describe GMOs) is. The Frankenstein monster was actually an intellectually benign monster until he became hated by a hysterical mob.” The implication is clear – the right to know crowd is somehow hysterical, and themselves to blame for demanding food labels and sufficient testing for GMOs.
None of these and plenty of other dirty tricks are new, and bought out media has been a continuing problem for the movement trying to achieve food accountability.
Just days ago, the New York Times was engaged in trashing activists urging the Department of Justice to investigate the misrepresentation of the FDA’s position and misuse of their official logo by the ‘No on 37′ camp.
Monsanto & friends have formed their disinformation campaign around the issue of consumer wallets, deceitfully claiming that Prop 37 would cost people $400 per year in the handed-down costs of labeling, despite the fact that food companies have painlessly adapted to changes in labeling requirements over the years, such as nutritional content, and have jumped at opportunities to brag about supposed beneficially ingredients contained in their products. As if GMO mega-corps hellbent on domination really care about saving consumers money! Their effort is quite clearly a massive deception to fight transparency and keep herd-like Americans in the dark about the takeover of food staples with experimental crops....
Continued at:
http://www.infowars.com/is-the-fix-in-for-californias-prop-37/
-
- groups:
- Community, News and Politics, Politics, Green, 7 more
-
- tags:
- Crime, Corruption, California, International News, 46 more
-
-
JanforGore
-
-
And once again, how fitting this is.
- 6 months ago
-
JanforGore
-
-
JanforGore
-
-
The defeat of proposition 37 due once again to huge amounts of money being infused by Monsanto, DOW et al in order to protect their own profits using lies and misinformation is not a surprise. Their food fascism is now well in place. The level of destruction these untested organisms has levelled upon the biosphere from the changing of soil organisms, to transgenic contamination even in the wild, to pest resistance, to superweeds all the way up to affecting the animals that consume them and changes in the plants themselves is something these companies will protect with all they have. It is why their mythological "substantial equivalence" label was stamped on them when the USSC gave them the right to patent life itself for profit in order to hide that they are far from substantially equivalent.
These organisms are unstable and untested in harsh environments. Where the invading traits from the bacteria or other species would wind up in the DNA sequence of the plant and the effects of this over time is anyone's guess. Such an unprecise science begs for the precautionary principle and yet we have seen none of that where this is concerned.
To say these organisms cause no health problems with no data to back that up is to be totally ignorant of just how far "plausible deniability" is being used by these companies and the industry to foist these untested organisms on us without our consent or knowledge. Scientific testing has already shown infertility and allergies in third generation mammals. Increases in obesity, diabetes, cancer, digestive disorders as well can all be explained away as being caused by other externalities. It is what Monsanto did in the case of Anniston, Alabama after dumping PCBS in their water and on their land.
The 'GRAS' or Generally Regarded As Safe label is also a red herring designed to push these organisms through without fully testing them. Tests have also shown the BT toxin in the blood of pregnant women and the gut bacteria of animals still contains the toxin even though these companies contend it is passed through. This on the heels of studies stating we eat our weight in GMOs every year (and that is particularly concerning regarding children). There is simply no way to state that there are absolutely no health effects to consuming these organisms because we do not have quantitative studies showing longterm effects which were not done prior to the approval of these organisms!
From what we are now seeing any scientist who dares to do so is quickly intimidated and dismissed. From Armad Putztai to Giles Serallini to Dr. Ignatio Chapela and others there has been a concerted intimidation and discreditation smear campaign put forth against them. From the Starlink disaster all the way up to the farmer suicides in India we are seeing an epidemic that is killing our biodiversity and bringing death and poverty. We cannot survive in a monoculture world but that is exactly what we are making by continuing to ignore this.
Standing up to at least have these foods labelled is essential in not only giving people the right to know what is in their food but how it is made. However, since this proposition was defeated it will fall on consumers who are aware to spread this information so we can use our wallets to make sure their secrecy and deception no longer brings them profits on the backs of the poor and our environment. I just hope it isn't too late.
- 6 months ago
-
JanforGore
-
-
Saladin
-
I'll probably be chased out of this thread but, I voted no on 37.
It just seems pointless. We've already established the GMO's don't cause adverse health effects. So we've decided to allow the public to commit its own witch hunt instead?
The reality is that it would just be bad for business. The average person will now feel weirded out buying something they've always bought because it has this label on it. So now they're going to subsidize "organic" businesses they don't support all because they're worried about the health effects of something that isn't dangerous.
All for the unconscionable crime of being genetically modified to have increased iron, or something.
Then scientists who study this will lose funding and we'll have what is essentially the left-wing equivalent of creationism.
The truth about this issue is, as evil as Monsanto and their business practices are, there's nothing wrong with GMO foods, not by themselves.
Modifying the genome of an organism does not, by itself, threaten any part of your health any more than traditional selective breeding does. To think otherwise is ludicrous. You won't find any reputable geneticists or biologists to say the contrary because there is no evidence to the contrary.
- 6 months ago
-
Saladin
-
-
gerardange
-
-
Saladin:
@Saladin...
I am here to educate you.... I am figuring you primarily watch ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, PBS, MSNBC, etc... and yes... it is easy to believe that everything that Corporate Media tells you is in your best interest and also is 100% true! Saladin, television is a business and Monsanto is also a business and money is King! One hand washes the other...
Saladin, what you don't know from watching Corporate TV is very understandable... You also most likely don't know: The conflict of interest that exists from the head attorney for Monsanto now Head of the FDA = aka:( Food & Drug Administration). The FDA has put Regulating and approval of Monsanto's so called Tested Products in the Fast Track But in Reality Saladin...These products Are NOT FULLY Tested! Yes that is 100% Fact. Saladin... You and I and every man woman and child are the test animals they are testing these product on... That is also a Fact...
If You would like to be educated more on this subject. Then watch this video and Learn what 60 countries are concerned about and why and how... Monsanto Operates with our Corrupted FDA covering Monsanto's Lies. That also is a Fact!
- 6 months ago
-
gerardange
-
-
gump
-
Saladin:
You are dramaticly and completely miss informed if you believe the first part of what you wrote. You are either lost or lieing. Sure didn't bother to read more than that. Bloody garbage. Just like the poison Monsanto produces and distributes.
- 6 months ago
-
gump
-
-
maasanova
-
Saladin:
When did we establish that GMO's don't cause adverse health effects? I thought it was exactly the opposite; that scientists have established clear links to GMO foods and adverse health effects.
- 6 months ago
-
maasanova
-
-
MSII
-
Saladin:
I am not anti-science by any stretch. Very much pro-science! To say "it's established the GMO's don't cause adverse health effects", I don't believe for a second. These things haven't been around long enough or tested INDEPENDENTLY enough that I believe there's conclusive true INDEPENDENT SCIENCE (free from the taint of the industrial "food" producers) to make a real clear and independent conclusion.
I can't be behind a decision forced on people by big-money to deny them information about what they're eating. We have established that we have a right to know what ingredients, and chemicals are in food I see this as the same thing we have the ABSOLUTE right to know what's in that, -period-. We have the right to know these aren't "naturally occurring" carrots for instance.
You say "The reality is that it would just be bad for business.", that's just plain tough for precious business then. Frankly too d@mn bad for them! That's no reason for real CITIZENS to be denied information they should be entitled to.
"Modifying the genome of an organism does not, by itself, threaten any part of your health any more than traditional selective breeding does."
I disagree, as this allows modifications not found in nature. Additions not found in nature, cross species additions not found in nature (not capable of happening through selective breeding). - 6 months ago
-
MSII
-
-
MSII
-
gerardange:
The FDA became nothing but a propaganda-arm of big-business under the right-wingers, their program of turning regulatory agencies into "friends" of the very businesses they were created to protect us from!
- 6 months ago
-
MSII
-
-
maasanova
-
Obama filled key posts with Monsanto people, in federal agencies that wield tremendous force in food issues, the USDA and the FDA:
At the USDA, as the director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Roger Beachy, former director of the Monsanto Danforth Center.
As deputy commissioner of the FDA, the new food-safety-issues czar, the infamous Michael Taylor, former vice-president for public policy for Monsanto. Taylor had been instrumental in getting approval for Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone.
As commissioner of the USDA, Iowa governor, Tom Vilsack. Vilsack had set up a national group, the Governors' Biotechnology Partnership, and had been given a Governor of the Year Award by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, whose members include Monsanto.
As the new Agriculture Trade Representative, who would push GMOs for export, Islam Siddiqui, a former Monsanto lobbyist.
As the new counsel for the USDA, Ramona Romero, who had been corporate counsel for another biotech giant, DuPont.
As the new head of the USAID, Rajiv Shah, who had preciously worked in key positions for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a major funder of GMO agriculture research.
We should also remember that Obama's secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, once worked for the Rose law firm. That firm was counsel to Monsanto.
Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the US Supreme Court. Kagan, as federal solicitor general, had previously argued for Monsanto in the Monsanto v. Geertson seed case before the Supreme Court.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037310_Barack_Obama_Monsanto_lobbyist.html#ixzz2BZUqn...
- 6 months ago
-
maasanova
-
-
gump
-
maasanova:
Thankyou Massanova. Your information here is so important to me that I am going to try to print it off. I am not computer litterate. I did not know that Bill Gates was funding Monsanto's mess. Bill sure screwed up . I really needed to know all the rest of your info aswell. Thanks again.
- 6 months ago
-
gump
-
-
maasanova
-
gump:
No problem Most of this was new to me as well when I found it because I only new about the Tom Vilsack appointment.
- 6 months ago
-
maasanova
-
-
mrpuma2u
-
maasanova:
Yes ol' Tom Vilsack is a Monsanto man through and through. His appointment was not change I could believe in.
- 6 months ago
-
mrpuma2u
-
-
gump
-
maasanova:
This is gut wrenching and heartbreaking.
- 6 months ago
-
gump
-
-
gerardange
-

-
History shows clearly... That Monsanto will stop at nothing to expand their Poison Empire ~ Even Flipping The Vote! That's Criminal.
We must make sure they don't continue to get away with these crimes against the all people and all living things.
- 6 months ago
-
gerardange
-
-
treewolf39
-
It was about money. I have not found who all of those responsible parties are listening to. Crazy humans don't even have the since to make sure they know about their food. They call themselves intelligent!
- 6 months ago
-
treewolf39
-
-
maasanova
-
Golden Rule: As California Goes, So Goes the Country
- 6 months ago
-
maasanova
-
-
Incredulous
-
Their arguments are absurd. If GMOs are so safe, then why are they fighting labeling so vehemently? It's not like Prop 37 was asking to have GMOs banned, people just want to know so they can make an informed choice, but the very fact of this subversively funded fight against labeling is far more incriminating than the labels could ever hope to be.....
- 6 months ago
-
Incredulous
-
-
MSII
-
Incredulous:
Well said! Agree 100%! People have the RIGHT to know what they're eating. -Period-!
- 6 months ago
-
MSII
-
-
jubal
-
No doubt in my mind the fix is in with regard to GMOs.
- 6 months ago
-
jubal
-
-
gerardange
-
We need to take Monsanto to the next level...
Our elections and our courts in the USA have been corrupted... We need to expand our actions against Monsanto to the international court in the Hague. Monsanto has corrupted our FDA and our Government Who have conspired to hide their poison in our food supply... By doing that, Monsanto is in fact Committing Crimes Against Humanity. I think the Hague would seriously consider an international tribunal against Monsanto. As we can all see with our Supreme Court Corruption. That outside our country we have more chance of a non corrupted platform and real justice. We need to keep the pressure on Monsanto by all directions to crush them and prosecute them.These are serious charges and very serious crimes.
- 6 months ago
-
gerardange
-
-
gump
-
gerardange:
I fully agree.
- 6 months ago
-
gump
-
-
circlesquared
-
And so...NO labeling of GM foods. This shouldn't even be litigation as we are supposed to have government agencies looking out for the safety of the people. If the FDA only gets involved with toxic substances, it's time they focus on the toxicity of GM products; however, since 37 was voted down they can point a finger and say we really don't care.
- 6 months ago
-
circlesquared
-
-
Incredulous
-
this is a battle that we will have to keep on fighting, but labeling will become law.
- 6 months ago
-
Incredulous
-
-
Dagum
-
It makes ZERO SENSE for anyone to vote against Prop 37. Anyone that eats should care about what's in their food.
This just shows how blatantly corrupt California politics is.
- 6 months ago
-
Dagum
-
-
MSII
-
Dagum:
Exactly why money has to be bodily CUT out of politics! Has to be isolated from politics, the absolute corruption of laissez-faire-crony-style-capitalism is a cancer on the body politic, on any semblance of decent and SANE society.
- 6 months ago
-
MSII
-
-
artemis6
-
WHAT !!! Oh Cali , what have they done to ya !
- 6 months ago
-
artemis6
-
-
hammywill
-
Actually, now that they are not going to be required to, we now are not legally ALLOWED to know if we are purchasing GMO Products because the FDA does not allow voluntary labeling.
- 6 months ago
-
hammywill