All eyes are on California where Proposition 37, which, if handed, would require labeling of foods produced using hereditary engineering. It’ll be put to voters on November 6th. In recent weeks, the battle over GMO labeling has taken an ugly turn. In a true David versus Goliath battle, the opposition will stop at nothing to beat the measure evidently.
What are they so scared of? A common commercial technique, well-honed by the tobacco industry, is to employ “third-party experts” to bring your message to the public, especially through the media. The idea is that academic types carry a lot more credibility than the likes of Monsanto as it pertains to defending genetically engineered food.
University of California at Monsanto? It’s no incident that the “No on Prop 37” campaign has many academics on its aspect at the University of California at Davis. The institution loves huge amount of money in research grants and other largesse from the biotech industry. That could certainly clarify why so many UC Davis professors profess support for the “No on 37” campaign. Professor Alston is no stranger to Monsanto largesse. It’s no wonder the funders of “No on Prop 37” would keep dipping in to the UC Davis deep well of alleged academic experts.
They obviously made an excellent investment, and it’s payback time. Henry Miller and middle of its campaign entrance. Miller has a sordid and long history14 of defending toxic chemicals such as DDT, in addition to doing work for Big Tobacco. He also tends to misrepresent himself quite a bit. Just one single problem: Miller is not a Stanford professor but a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank that occurs to be housed on the Stanford campus. Adding salt to the wound, Stanford has a policy to not take positions on applicants or ballot measures, and does not allow politics filming on campus. Oops. The advertising campaign admitted its error and edited the ad.
But the Stanford deception did not end there. The “No on 37” marketing campaign has been captured using deceptive misinformation to mistake voters over and over within the last several months. For instance, on October 18, the “California To Know Yes on 37” marketing campaign requested the U.S. The anti-choice campaign likes to declare that Prop 37 was written by trial lawyers to be able to hit small grocers and growers with lawsuits. The labeling campaign is about getting the right to know what’s in your food – just like you’re up to date about the nutritional content, and the presence of peanuts (very important to people that have allergies) and other food additives.
Whether genetically built elements are good or harmful to your health is really beside the point. Aspartame is bad for you, yet it’s on the label, and people have the to consume it as they please. That’s all of this is approximately – just state what it is on the label. The Monsanto marketing campaign claims Prop 37 is “anti-science” and would ban safe foods. This is nonsense, as Prop 37 doesn’t ban anything.
It simply requires the label to state whether the food includes genetically engineered ingredients or not. You’re still absolve to sell it and purchase it. The thing it prohibits is the mislabelling of GE foods as “all-natural,” a term that many tend to associate with an increase of organic criteria – which GE plants cannot comply with. You’re presently paying a premium for “all-natural” foods that truly use GE substances, thinking you’re getting something better than regular!
- 1,994 satisfied customers
- Find Out IF YOU ARE Being Followed
- Can you tell me a key that you’ve never informed anyone
- Create a partition
THAT’S harming your wallet. Accurately labeling these food types will not. As for their argument that genetically engineered foods have been with us for quite some time without health issues, this is another nonsensical claim, as there’s no way of tracing any potential health issues back to the meals without labelling! The truthfulness of their claim in fact depends on GE foods remaining unlabeled.
Without labelling there’s hardly any way to know, because there’s no way to track or trace side results like people is now able to do with aspartame, or any other food allergy. Moreover, spinning science through a advanced public relations campaign was paramount. Sounds unbelievable now, but for decades this strategy was so effective that it delayed policy action while millions died. They provide handy tips in this document23 called also, “Communicating risks in a soundbite: A guide for researchers,” on how to react to mass media questions by downplaying problems.
Why would a “science press center” put words into scientists’ mouths? 25 on the recent French research showing organ harm and massive cancer tumor tumors in rats fed GE corn. This was the first lifetime nourishing study that has been conducted with GE food ever, so that it was sure to be a major humiliation to Big Biotech. The very same day the French statement was published arrived a press release26 from the Science Media Centre declaring “anomalies throughout the paper” regardless of the authors having experienced the most common peer review process.