tagged w/ prop37
-
A campaign bankrolled by financially motivated pesticide and junk food companies is expected to lie - a lot. It's what they always do when confronted by inconvenient facts and consumers seeking to protect their rights - like the Right to Know what's in the food we eat and feed our families.
Prop 37 opponents have run one of the most deceptive misinformation campaigns in recent history - a $35 million deluge of one demonstrable lie after another to try and defeat a common sense measure that most Californians support.
Today, the No on 37 campaign's already tattered credibility was dealt yet another big blow with news that its "top scientist" is nothing more than a corporate shill willing to misrepresent himself and the University for which he works.
Meet Henry Miller - a spokesperson the No on 37 campaign has been all too eager to promote as an arbiter of good science and someone we can trust with our families health. Miller has been featured in No on 37 television ads, written outrageously deceptive opinion editorials, and has presented himself as an "unbiased" scientific expert.
And now he's been caught misrepresenting Stanford University- forcing the No on 37 Campaign to pull and reshoot a statewide television ad identifying Miller as "Dr. Henry Miller, MD, Stanford University," without disclosing his affiliation with the Hoover Institute, a right-wing think tank at the University. In other words, he works ON the Stanford campus as a corporate propagandist, but ISN'T a Professor at Stanford University.
The ad was pulled after the Yes on 37 campaign attorney sent a letter to Stanford pointing out that the university's affiliation was being used in a political advertising campaign, in violation of university policy.
Stanford also demanded that the campaign remove the campus from the ad's background.
Join NationofChange today by making a generous tax-deductible contribution and take a stand against the status quo.
But this isn't the most disturbing aspect of Miller's sordid career. Before we trust anything he has to say about something as fundamental as our health, we'd do well to consider his two decades of work dedicated to undermining it:
• Miller shilled for Big Tobacco, where he helped Phillip Morris discredit the links between tobacco products, and cancer and heart disease;
• Miller advocates for the reintroduction of the toxic pesticide DDT, which was banned in the United States and has been linked to pre-term birth and fertility impairment in women;
• Miller aided Exxon's efforts to undercut the reality of climate change;
• Miller attacked the US Food and Drug Administration's efforts to ensure proper vetting and testing of new drugs safety while urging it outsource more of its functions to private industries,
• And Miller claimed Japanese exposed to radiation from Fukushima "could actually have benefited" from it.
Miller isn't the only dubious character the No On 37 stable, but his one man "tour of lies" about Prop 37 includes some especially notable whoppers. He often repeats one claim that includes three lies in a single sentence, stating "The World Health Organization, American Medical Association, National Academy of Sciences and other respected medical and health organizations all conclude that genetically engineered foods are safe."
The only problem is not one of these organizations has come to such a conclusion:
• A National Academy of Sciences report concluded that products of genetic engineering technology "carry the potential for introducing unintended compositional changes that may have adverse effects on human health."
• The American Medical Association has adopted a position calling for mandatory safety assessments of genetically engineered foods.
• And the World Health Organization / United Nations food standards group, Codex Alimentarius, which sets the global science-based standards on food policy issues, states that mandatory safety studies should be required - a standard the US fails to meet.
In fact, within the past few weeks alone, independent peer reviewed studies have raised even more troubling questions about the impact of GMOs on our environment, and potential risks to our health.
Ultimately, to understand the No On 37 campaign's credibility problems, just follow the money: the six largest pesticide corporations in the world have contributed nearly $20 million of its $35 million war chest. The two largest donors - Monsanto ($7.2 million) and Dupont ($4.9 million) - told us Agent Orange and DDT were safe. Now they've telling us we don't deserve to know what's in our food. And the kicker is that while Monsanto spends $ millions to deny our right to know in California, it supported labeling in Europe.
So who should we trust?
On the Yes side stands millions of California consumers and more than 2,000 leading consumer, health, women's, faith-based, labor and other groups; 50 countries that already require GMO labeling; and a growing stack of peer-reviewed research linking genetically engineered foods to health and environmental problems.
More at the linkA campaign bankrolled by financially motivated pesticide and junk food companies is... more
-
-
The Yes on 37 Right to Know Campaign launched its first TV ads this week. In November, Angelenos will vote on the grassroots ballot initiative Proposition 37, which would require labeling of genetically engineered foods and a restriction on foods that can be advertised as "natural."
Earlier this week, The Sacramento Bee reported: "The 30-second ad - which will run in select online news venues and on broadcast and cable television stations in major California media markets for 10 days - presents the history of notoriously inaccurate corporate health claims, including falsehoods from some of the very same corporations now funding the No on 37 campaign."
The video features mid-20th century footage, which would make any conscientious citizen cringe: A doctor proudly smoking a cigarette, a woman liberally spraying DDT on her couch cushion, and a shirtless man spraying an herbicide (presumably a derivative of agent orange) from a fire hose onto an orchard. Meanwhile, an old-timey-sounding narrator ensures the safety of these products.
As history shows, the widespread use of these products was soon shown to have a negative effect on people's health and the environment—at times, fatal. The ad calls into question the trustworthiness of corporations that pushed these products decades ago. It also challenges the notion that the public trusts the companies that oppose labeling of genetically engineered foods, which they have more recently introduced into the market.
The last image conveys the main thrust of the campaign: "Yes on 37 for the Right to Know What's In Our Food." The ad also notes that it is "Supported by Consumer Advocates, Makers of Organic Products, and California Farmers. Major funding by Mercola.com Health Resources LLC, and the Organic Consumers Fund."
This begs the question: How will the opposition approach advertising for their position?
More at the linkThe Yes on 37 Right to Know Campaign launched its first TV ads this week. In November,... more
-
