Ecuador's Indigenous People Still Wait To Be Consulted

Monday, 06 May 2013 23:49

A bill addressing prior consultation with indigenous peoples on legislative measures remains tied up in Ecuador’s National Assembly. (IPS) - The Constitution of Ecuador adopted in 2008 establishes a broad range of rights for indigenous peoples and nationalities, including the right to prior consultation, which gives them the opportunity to influence decisions that affect their lives. But this right has yet to be fully translated into legislation, as the bill for a Law on Consultation with Indigenous Communities, Peoples and Nationalities is still being studied by the National Assembly. Article 57, section 7 of the constitution guarantees “free, prior and informed consultation, within a reasonable period of time, on plans and programmes for exploration, exploitation and sale of non-renewable resources located on their lands which could have environmental or cultural impacts on them.” The constitution also stipulates the right of indigenous peoples “to share in the profits earned from these projects and to receive compensation for social, cultural and environmental damages caused to them. The consultation that must be conducted by the competent authorities shall be mandatory and timely.” “If the consent of the consulted community is not obtained, steps provided for by the Constitution and the law shall be taken,” it adds. Legal grounds for consultation are also established in Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization (ILO), which Ecuador ratified in 1998, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted in 2007. Nevertheless, recent mining and oil drilling projects have put the government’s commitment to respecting the right to consultation to the test, and spurred indigenous organisations to take action. On Nov. 28, 2012, hundreds of indigenous representatives converged in Quito to protest the lack of consultation prior to the 11th oil auction round, in which exploration blocks containing an estimated total of 1.6 billion barrels of crude oil would be put up for bids from private companies. At the time, Domingo Peas, a leader of the Achuar indigenous ethnic group, declared that “the government says it has carried out prior consultation, but this is not true.” “The consultations carried out among the peoples and nationalities in the areas of influence are invalid, because there was no participation by indigenous peoples and nationalities in determining the way they were conducted, they did not respect their traditional methods of decision-making, and cultural aspects, such as language, were not adequately taken into account,” he stressed. Overall, said Peas, the consultations “were neither prior, nor free, nor informed, and were conducted in bad faith.” The president of the influential Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE), Humberto Cholango, believes that the authorities have not done enough. “Prior consultation is still pending, we have still not seen the results we would like to see. We need the law to be approved; that would be a major advance,” he told Tierramérica*. The draft law, comprising 29 articles, refers to consultation on legislative measures and establishes four stages: preparation; a public call for participation and registration; the actual holding of the consultation; and analysis of the results and conclusion. In accordance with the law, the government will determine if a proposed bill affects the rights of certain communities, in which case the National Assembly will convene a prior consultation that will be conducted through the National Electoral Council. Lourdes Tibán, an indigenous National Assembly member from the leftist opposition movement Pachakutik, told Tierramérica that adoption of this law is crucial, because “it will guarantee the participation of indigenous nationalities in decisions on future laws that directly affect them, and will therefore prevent a lack of consensus.” Once this legislation is in force, other major bills can be addressed, such as the proposed law on water resources, on which debate has been postponed since 2010 precisely due to the resistance posed by indigenous peoples. One of their key concerns is that the proposals made during a prior consultation process will not be included in the final text of the law that was submitted to consultation. A number of other bills, such as those for laws on culture and land, are also on hold for the same reason. This is the heart of the conflict. One year ago, President Rafael Correa stated in one of his regular Saturday broadcasts that non-governmental organisations “want prior consultations to be popular consultations and to be binding; that means that for every step we want to take, we will need to ask the community for permission.” “This is extremely serious. This is not what the international agreements say. This would not mean acting in the interests of the majorities, but rather in the interest of unanimity. It would be impossible to govern that way,” he declared. In response to these statements, indigenous organisations sought reinforcement, calling on agencies such as the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the ILO to supervise the implementation of prior consultation. In fact, indigenous communities in Ecuador have already turned to some of these mechanisms in the past. In 2003, the Quechua community of Sarayaku filed a complaint with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights against the state for authorising oil exploration in their territory, without prior consultation. The community, located in the province of Pastaza, in Ecuador’s Amazon rainforest region, denounced damages to their territory, culture and economy. In June 2012, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled in favour of the community and against the state. The government is still studying how to pay the required compensation – a total of 1,398,000 dollars for material and moral damages and legal costs – and how to finish repairing the physical damage caused.

When Is It OK To Kill?

Is it okay to kill? I don’t mean a bug in your house, a snake in your garage, or a deer in the woods

Deer tastes good; you may not know if that snake in your garage is poisonous; and bugs are home invaders.
I mean is it okay to kill a man, a human being, a person? Again, I don’t mean someone trying to kill you, rob your business, rape your wife, harm your children, or break into your house. Killing someone might be perfectly justified in those circumstances if it involves defense against aggression.

Specifically, is it okay to kill someone who has not threatened or committed violence or aggression against you, your family, your friends, your neighborhood, anyone you know, or any American you don’t know?
No? Then –

• What if he is not an American?
• What if he lives thousands of miles away from America?
• What if he adheres to a religion that is different from that of most Americans?
• What if he is a darker color than most Americans?
• What if he speaks a language that most Americans don’t understand?
• What if he has habits that seem peculiar to most Americans?
• What if he holds to a political ideology that doesn’t resemble America’s?
• What if he smells different than most Americans?

Does someone having one or more of these characteristics alone mean it is okay to kill him?
Another no? Then –

• What if the U.S. government says he is a terrorist?
• What if the U.S. government says he is an insurgent?
• What if the U.S. government says he is a communist?
• What if the U.S. government says he is an extremist?
• What if the U.S. government says he is a potential threat?
• What if the U.S. government says he hates our freedoms?
• What if the U.S. government says he is the enemy?
• What if the U.S. government says he is a bad guy?

Does the U.S. government merely saying any of these things make it okay to kill him?
No again? Then –

• What if the U.S. government says it is a matter of national security?
• What if the U.S. government says it is in the national interest?
• What if the U.S. government says it is of strategic concern?
• What if the U.S. government says it has secret information that makes it necessary?
• What if the U.S. government says it is part of the president’s grand strategic vision?
• What if the U.S. government says it is essential to maintaining hegemony?
• What if the U.S. government says it is just a part of fighting terrorism?
• What if the U.S. government says it is important to foreign policy objectives?

Does the U.S. government merely saying any of these things make it okay to kill him?
Still no? Then –

• What if the U.S. military gives you a nice uniform?
• What if the U.S. military gives you a gun and ammunition?
• What if the U.S. military pays for your college education?
• What if the U.S. military provides you with free medical and dental care?
• What if the U.S. military offers you citizenship in exchange for service?
• What if the U.S. military gives you an enlistment bonus?
• What if the U.S. military gives you generous combat pay?
• What if the U.S. military assists you with repaying your student loans?
• What if the U.S. military offers you liberal retirement benefits?

Does the U.S. military doing any of these things make it okay to kill him?
Of course not? Then –

• Why are some so quick to make apologies for U.S. military personnel who kill for the state in unjust wars?
• Why are some so quick to excuse U.S. military personnel who kill while not defending the United States?
• Why are some so quick to justify U.S. military personnel who kill people thousands of miles away that are no threat to the United States?
• Why are some so quick to defend U.S. military personnel who kill people that resent and resist being invaded, bombed, occupied, or "liberated"?
• Why are some so quick to blame the government, the politicians, and the defense contractors and exempt the U.S. military personnel who do the actual killing?

For years now I have heard the excuses. But what are these apologists, excusers, justifiers, defenders, and exempters really saying?

• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you can’t find a job.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you can’t make it in college.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you are economically disadvantaged.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if your father was in the military.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you are patriotic.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you are ignorant.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you are poor.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you are uneducated.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you have no resources available.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you think you are doing the right thing.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you were raised to never question the military.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you were never taught otherwise.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you are just obeying orders.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you think you are avenging 9/11?
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you think you are defending our freedoms.

I have been given every one of these excuses at least ten times. The first part of the excuse is generally omitted, but why should it be? Is not this exactly what people are saying?

None of this means that the despicable creatures in the U.S. government who send American boys to war, and the equally loathsome creatures outside of the U.S. government who cheer them on, are not to be condemned as well. But those aren’t the people that are applauded in airports, called heroes, and thanked for their service.

But why is it that these excuses only seem to be valid for American soldiers? Why is it that soldiers from other countries aren’t lauded as heroes for killing Americans if they offer up one of the excuses that are commonly used to justify killings carried out by American soldiers? 

Some agree with everything I have said thus far, but think that if soldiers are draftees then it changes everything. I know this is the case because they write and tell me. I have written about the culpability of drafted soldiers in my article "Murder Is Still Murder." But again, why is it that it is only drafted American soldiers who can kill with impunity? I don’t think that apologists for draftees realize what they are saying. To excuse the actions of soldiers because they were drafted is to say that the state can somehow sanctify murder. 

Although the U.S. military is looking for a few good men to unjustly kill for the state, it is not okay to kill, even if the military advertises itself as a global force for good.

Former Pro-GMO Scientist Speaks Out On The Real Dangers of Genetically Engineered Food

By Thierry Vrain

I retired 10 years ago after a long career as a research scientist for Agriculture Canada. When I was on the payroll, I was the designated scientist of my institute to address public groups and reassure them that genetically engineered crops and foods were safe. There is, however, a growing body of scientific research – done mostly in Europe, Russia, and other countries – showing that diets containing engineered corn or soya cause serious health problems in laboratory mice and rats.

I don’t know if I was passionate about it but I was knowledgeable. I defended the side of technological advance, of science and progress.

In the last 10 years I have changed my position. I started paying attention to the flow of published studies coming from Europe, some from prestigious labs and published in prestigious scientific journals, that questioned the impact and safety of engineered food.
I refute the claims of the biotechnology companies that their engineered crops yield more, that they require less pesticide applications, that they have no impact on the environment and of course that they are safe to eat.

There are a number of scientific studies that have been done for Monsanto by universities in the U.S., Canada, and abroad. Most of these studies are concerned with the field performance of the engineered crops, and of course they find GMOs safe for the environment and therefore safe to eat.

Individuals should be encouraged to make their decisions on food safety based on scientific evidence and personal choice, not on emotion or the personal opinions of others.
We should all take these studies seriously and demand that government agencies replicate them rather than rely on studies paid for by the biotech companies.

The Bt corn and soya plants that are now everywhere in our environment are registered as insecticides. But are these insecticidal plants regulated and have their proteins been tested for safety? Not by the federal departments in charge of food safety, not in Canada and not in the U.S.

There are no long-term feeding studies performed in these countries to demonstrate the claims that engineered corn and soya are safe. All we have are scientific studies out of Europe and Russia, showing that rats fed engineered food die prematurely.

These studies show that proteins produced by engineered plants are different than what they should be. Inserting a gene in a genome using this technology can and does result in damaged proteins. The scientific literature is full of studies showing that engineered corn and soya contain toxic or allergenic proteins.

Genetic engineering is 40 years old. It is based on the naive understanding of the genome based on the One Gene – one protein hypothesis of 70 years ago, that each gene codes for a single protein. The Human Genome project completed in 2002 showed that this hypothesis is wrong.

The whole paradigm of the genetic engineering technology is based on a misunderstanding. Every scientist now learns that any gene can give more than one protein and that inserting a gene anywhere in a plant eventually creates rogue proteins. Some of these proteins are obviously allergenic or toxic.

I have drafted a reply to Paul Horgen’s letter to the Comox Valley Environmental Council. It is my wish that it goes viral as to educate as many people as possible rapidly. Any and all social media is fine by me. This can also be used as a briefing note for the councilors of AVICC or anywhere else. Thank you for your help. [Click here for original source with replies from Dr. Paul Horgen]
— Thierry Vrain, Innisfree Farm

I am turning you towards a recent compilation (June 2012) of over 500 government reports and scientific articles published in peer reviewed Journals, some of them with the highest recognition in the world. Like The Lancet in the medical field, or Advances in Food and Nutrition Research, or Biotechnology, or Scandinavian Journal of Immunology, European Journal of Histochemistry, Journal of Proteome Research, etc … This compilation was made by a genetic engineer in London, and an investigative journalist who summarized the gist of the publications for the lay public.

GMO Myths and Truths – an evidence based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops. A report of 120 pages, it can be downloaded for free from Earth Open Source. “GMO Myths and Truths” disputes the claims of the Biotech industry that GM crops yield better and more nutritious food, that they save on the use of pesticides, have no environmental impact whatsoever and are perfectly safe to eat.

 Genetic pollution is so prevalent in North and South America where GM crops are grown that the fields of conventional and organic grower are regularly contaminated with engineered pollen and losing certification. The canola and flax export market from Canada to Europe (a few hundreds of millions of dollars) were recently lost because of genetic pollution. Did I mention superweeds, when RoundUp crops pass their genes on to RoundUp Resistant weeds.

Apparently over 50% of fields in the USA are now infested and the growers have to go back to use other toxic herbicides such as 2-4 D. Many areas of Ontario and Alberta are also infested. The transgenes are also transferred to soil bacteria. A chinese study published last year shows that an ampicillin resistance transgene was transferred from local engineered crops to soil bacteria, that eventually found their way into the rivers. The transgenes are also transferred to humans.

 Volunteers who ate engineered soybeans had undigested DNA in their intestine and their bacterial flora was expressing the soybean transgenes in the form of antibiotic resistance. This is genetic pollution to the extreme, particularly when antibiotic resistance is fast becoming a serious global health risk. I can only assume the American Medical Association will soon recognize its poorly informed judgement.

In 2009 the American Academy of Environmental Medicine called for a moratorium of GM foods, safety testing and labeling. Their review of the available literature at the time noted that animals show serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.

 Monsanto writes “There is no need to test the safety of GM foods”. So long as the engineered protein is safe, foods from GM crops are substantially equivalent and they cannot pose any health risks.” The US Food and Drug Administration waived all levels of safety testing in 1996 before approving the commercialization of these crops. Nothing more than voluntary research is necessary, and the FDA does not even want to see the results.

 And there is certainly no need to publish any of it. If you remember 1996, the year that the first crops were commercialized, the research scientists of the US FDA all predicted that transgenic crops would have unpredictable hard to detect side effects, allergens, toxins, nutritional effects, new diseases. That was published in 2004 in Biotechnology if you recall seeing it.

I know well that Canada does not perform long term feeding studies as they do in Europe. The only study I am aware of from Canada is from the Sherbrooke Hospital in 2011, when doctors found that 93% of pregnant women and 82% of the fetuses tested had the protein pesticide in their blood.

This is a protein recognized in its many forms as mildly to severely allergenic. There is no information on the role played by rogue proteins created by the process of inserting transgenes in the middle of a genome. But there is a lot of long term feeding studies reporting serious health problems in mice and rats. The results of the first long term feeding studies of lab rats reported last year in Food and Chemical Toxicology show that they developed breast cancer in mid life and showed kidney and liver damage.

The current statistic I read is that North Americans are eating 193 lbs of GMO food on average annually. That includes the children I assume, not that I would use that as a scare tactic. But obviously I wrote at length because I think there is cause for alarm and it is my duty to educate the public.

One argument I hear repeatedly is that nobody has been sick or died after a meal (or a trillion meals since 1996) of GM food. Nobody gets ill from smoking a pack of cigarette either. But it sure adds up, and we did not know that in the 1950s before we started our wave of epidemics of cancer.

 Except this time it is not about a bit of smoke, it’s the whole food system that is of concern. The corporate interest must be subordinated to the public interest, and the policy of substantial equivalence must be scrapped as it is clearly untrue.

Thierry Vrain is a former research scientist for Agriculture Canada. He now promotes awareness of the dangers of genetically modified foods.

Australian Newspaper Pushes Aggressive Pro Vaccine Agenda

(NaturalNews) In a new low for even the mainstream media, the Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph newspapers in Australia are pushing a campaign of outright medical child abuse they call "NO JAB NO PLAY." The campaign demands that unvaccinated children be barred from all social contact with other children and condemned to the life of a social outcast where parents are presumably supposed to raise them in cages in dark basements. The paper has launched its horrific, anti-human-rights campaign, "NO JAB NO PLAY" that demands children who are not vaccinated with state-mandated chemicals (which include mercury, formaldehyde, aluminum and other toxins) be denied interaction with other children.

I'm not making this up. The paper, which seems to be run by a band of human rights haters and child abuse proponents, all but admits wanting to turn children into anti-social monsters and psychological criminals -- just one of the side effects of forcing children to be raised without healthy social interaction with other children. This is the first time in history that an Australian newspaper has directly called for the medical abuse of children -- and seem to be happy about doing so! Is their editor the ghost of Jimmy Saville from the UK?

It's a new low for even the Telegraph. Click here to see the campaign push by the newspaper.

See the image of the paper's "No Jab No Play" campaign on the right. This is the actual image taken from the paper's editorial page where they are pushing this idea of socially condemning all children whose parents do not submit to state-sponsored medical terrorism.

Telegraph caught with huge conflict of interest, taking money from vaccine manufacturers

Oh, and by the way: The Telegraph takes money from vaccine manufacturers while pushing their editorial agenda. Yet it never discloses this in its medical child abuse campaign for mandatory vaccinations. What we have here is a clear conflict of interest with the paper now being caught with its hand in the cookie jar of Big Pharma cash flow.

Here's one full-page ad the paper ran for Pfizer, a globally-known vaccine manufacturer. There are hundreds more examples of ads from vaccine companies who are financially supporting The Telegraph and essentially paying the salaries of its staff.

Are the Telegraph's editors vaccine-damaged or just scientifically illiterate?

To justify this medical child abuse against children, the Telegraph engages in an astonishing display of junk science logic that demonstrates the complete illiteracy of the paper's editors. It says, "Most parents are rightfully fed up with those who put other people's children at risk."

So let's examine that with actual scientific reasoning, shall we? (Something with which the Telegraph is entirely unfamiliar.)

This statement asserts that there are two groups of children: 1) Children who are vaccinated and therefore "protected" from infectious disease, and 2) Children who are unvaccinated and therefore "carriers" of infectious disease and a threat to others.

It further asserts that children from group 2 ("carriers") can somehow infect children from group 1 ("vaccinated").

But hold on a second. Wasn't group 1 ("vaccinated") supposed to be immune to the disease precisely because they were already vaccinated?

If vaccinations work, then a vaccinated child should be able to strut through even the most snot-nosed, coughing, sneezing, sick group of other children and have no concern whatsoever for catching any disease, right? The vaccine offers them 100% protection, doesn't it? So why would vaccinated children need to fear unvaccinated carriers?

Here is where the entire myth of vaccination falls completely apart -- and where the editors of the Telegraph show just why they are so easily discredited on issues requiring actual scientific reasoning. Vaccines do NOT offer 100% protection. In fact, if you look hard at the numbers for things like flu vaccines, it turns out that vaccines offer, at best, about a 1% protection effect. Flu shots, in other words, are worthless on about 99% of the children who receive them.

Even worse, flu shots always contain neurologically-damaging chemicals, so they risk harm to children's brains. The flu shot manufacturers could, if they chose, produce "clean" flu shots without methylmercury (a potent brain poison), formaldehyde, aluminum or other adjuvant chemicals, but they choose not to. Thus, every flu shot administered to your child is like playing Russian Roulette with your child's brain. Sometimes the result is disastrous and the child goes into a seizure. When they emerge from the seizure hours later, they are suddenly autistic, now a victim of permanent brain damage caused by vaccines.

The Telegraph doesn't seem to mind this idea, however. After all, the paper wants unvaccinated children to be medically abused and live like anti-social monsters, growing up in total isolation and suffering immense developmental harm as a result. It's no surprise the paper's editors also don't mind the fact that what they are pushing causes provable brain damage to children, turning healthy young boys and girls into screaming, moaning, lobotomized human beings who will require a lifetime of social support to keep alive and functioning in society. That's a good thing, according to the Telegraph. The more lobotomies, the better! After all, somebody's gotta be left behind with a low enough IQ to subscribe to the paper.

Now, to understand this even further, the real truth about all this is that vaccines weaken the immune system against future infections, and it's all the non-vaccinated children who are statistically far more naturally immune from infection. Take a sample of 100 sick children anywhere in Australia, and you'll find that the ones who have the most severe symptoms are the ones who were vaccinated. Every measles outbreak happens among children who were vaccinated against the measles. Flu outbreaks are carried and spread primarily by children who receive flu shots! This is the "inconvenient truth" the vaccine-pushing medical establishment doesn't want you to know.

In truth, it's the vaccinated children who are the risky "carriers" of disease, threatening the non-vaccinated children!

Vaccinations are now a weapon against children

But the real upshot of all this is that the Telegraph is now the first newspaper in the world to recommend that vaccines be used as an anti-human-rights weapon against children. By saying no to vaccines as an informed, scientifically literate parent, you might soon be condemning your child to the life of a social outcast... a psychologically-imbalanced misfit. This is medical child abuse at its worst, and it's openly endorsed by the Australian media.

This no doubt pleases the Telegraph in the same way that destroying the planet Alderaan might please the Grand Moff Tarkin from the Star Wars universe. What's a few billion lives lost compared to the raw power of total control over the lives of other humans, after all?

 Medical choice is a terrible, terrible thing, and parents must be denied any choice whatsoever... at gunpoint, if necessary, for their own good!

This is the logic of The Telegraph, a disgusting, anti-human rights, anti-children rag of vaccine quackery and cognitively impaired writers who most likely are vaccine damaged themselves. Perhaps that's their wish: to pay forward the "gift" of vaccine lobotomization to the next generation of children so that yet more Australians can grow up with sufficient brain damage to actually work for the Telegraph.

I'm just curious what's next for the Telegraph. Is this "NO JAB NO PLAY" campaign doesn't fly, will they up their game and recommend that all unvaccinated children be sexually molested, too? What are the limits to the degree of child abuse the Telegraph thinks is justifiable to make sure little children are penetrated with deadly chemical injections? "Sick" doesn't even begin to describe what's going on at the Telegraph.

These people are bordering on criminally insane, and if any state-sponsored action is to be taken in all this, I would recommend a police investigation of the Telegraph editors to make sure they aren't abusing their own children in some sick way in their own homes. They obviously think there's nothing wrong with abusing children in order to accomplish their goals. Might they also be abusing their own?

How Did Obama Become Monsanto's Man in Washington?

And when are anti-GMO activist groups going to stop saying they’re “shocked and disappointed” by the president? 

Shocked and disappointed is polite-speak and politically correct reaction. It’s baloney. 

Don’t you get it? Obama has never been on your side. He never deserved your trust. 

Disappointment implies he was your buddy and then unaccountably walked away.
The man is a politician. He’s a liar. Different pols have different styles of lying. Some pretend  they’re your friend before they screw you over and leave you in the dust. 

I’ve previously published Obama’s track record as Monsanto’s number-one political supporter in America. 

Meet Monsanto’s prime lobbyist, Barack Obama:

After his victory in the 2008 election, 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 previously 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. 

The deck was stacked. Obama hadn’t simply made honest mistakes. Obama hadn’t just failed to exercise proper oversight in selecting appointees. He was staking out territory on behalf of Monsanto and other GMO corporate giants.
And now let us look at what key Obama appointees have wrought for their true bosses.

 Let’s see what GMO crops have walked through the open door of the Obama presidency.

Monsanto GMO alfalfa.
Monsanto GMO sugar beets.
Monsanto GMO Bt soybean.
Coming soon: Monsanto’s GMO sweet corn.
Syngenta GMO corn for ethanol.
Syngenta GMO stacked corn.
Pioneer GMO soybean.
Syngenta GMO Bt cotton.
Bayer GMO cotton.
ATryn, an anti-clotting agent from the milk of transgenic goats.
A GMO papaya strain.

And soon, genetically engineered salmon and apples.

This is an extraordinary parade. 
 
Obama was, all along, a stealth operative on behalf of Monsanto, biotech, GMOs, and corporate control of the future of agriculture. 

He didn’t make that many key political appointments and allow that many new GMO crops to enter the food chain through a lack of oversight. 

Nor is it coincidental that two of the Obama’s biggest supporters, Bill Gates and George Soros, purchased 900,000 and 500,000 shares of Monsanto, respectively, in 2010.

Records don’t show Monsanto or other biotech giants pouring a landslide of (visible) campaign cash down on Obama, relative to other large donors.

Goldman Sachs was Obama’s number-one $$ donor, and Goldman touts GM-crop commodity contracts, for both buys and sells; but Goldman has its fingers in every significant money pot from Nome to Tierra Del Fuego.

The “Obama riddle” is as plain as the nose on the face of Globalism. Monsanto’s agenda, to monopolize the world’s food supply, is essential to the Globalist blueprint. That blueprint ultimately aims for redistribution of food to the world from a point of Central Planning 

As president, Obama has a sworn obligation to Globalism. His oath isn’t to protect the Constitution. Are you kidding?



Every recent president has had an overriding loyalty to Globalism. 

Obama’s signing of the Monsanto Protection Act, making that corporation senior in power to the US court system, wasn’t an accident. It was taken in keen awareness of his duty to his Globalist betters.

You won’t, of course, see this disclosed on the evening news.
Here is a president who, like Bush, has no plans for a better world. Obama’s notion of “better” is tied up in the Globalist agenda: 

An elite-run bureaucracy, promoting equality and justice, reduces all populations to a lowest common denominator, squashing freedom and prosperity.
Obama’s supporters will never learn the truth, because they’re blinded by the light, which they project on to the persona of the president. 

Obama is aware of the con, since he triggered it, and he leverages it.
He’s all nudge-and-wink. “Yes, we’ll help you and you and you. Of course we will.”
He might help you if you make a declaration of dependence. Sacrifice yourself on an altar of despair and then you might earn the right to be fed.

Obama, while on the campaign trail in 2008, was promising transparency in government, was claiming that every person has the right to know what’s in his food (GMO labeling). But clearly, that was all cover and fluff. He was lying through his teeth and he knew it. 

He’d been vetted for the presidency, and he knew the job entailed joining Monsanto and the larger Globalist agenda as a front man.
He hasn’t changed over the past four years. He’s been a covert agent since the beginning.

Imposter. Charlatan. 

These words fit Obama. He’s pretended, like Clinton, to care, but he doesn’t. He doesn’t care that GMO food is taking over the country and the world. He wants it to happen. He’s always wanted it to happen.

The sitting president of the United States, Monsanto, DuPont, and Dow, among others, are prepared to do whatever is necessary to make GMO food dominate America.

They intend, through Monsanto-gene drift among millions of plants in ag fields, through increased planting of GMO crops, and through introduction of still more GMO crops, to wrap up the USA in genetically engineered food.

Obama is on board. He’s always been on board.

He is the GMO president.

If tomorrow, the Globalist Rockefellers of this world decided that all food grown in the US should be injected with Prozac, Obama would find a way to help.
Stop making excuses for the man. He’s not a victim of evil forces surrounding his presidency. He signed up for this trip with eyes wide open. 

Sources:
http://redgreenandblue.org/2012/02/02/monsanto-employees-in-the-halls-of-government-part-2/
http://redgreenandblue.org/2011/02/09/monsanto-employees-in-the-halls-of-government/
http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2011/10/fda-labeling-gmo-genetically-modified-foods
http://fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2011/feb/15/update-obama-goes-rogue-gmos-tell-him-say-no-monsa/

---

Food & Water Watch Releases Report on the Corporate Giant Monsanto

Anyone and everyone who is even slightly into food, politics, or government conspiracy theories has at least heard something about Monsanto.

Whether it's the company's development of Agent Orange or farmer lawsuits, the consensus is that the company is pretty evil.

Well, to separate fact from fiction, Food & Water Watch compiled a report, Monsanto: A Corporate Profile, documenting the company's history and influence. Read on for details.

See Also:
- Oregon Saying No to GMO Frankenfish: Florida Senate GMO Labeling Bill Waiting to Be Added to Agriculture Committee Agenda
- Obama Signs Monsanto Protection Act
- GE Mandatory Labeling Laws Introduced in Florida

Food & Water Watch's team of researchers put together the report that outlines the corporation's history and strong ties to lawmakers, regulators, and academic researchers.
According to Lynna Kaucheck, senior organizer for Food & Water Watch, "We wrote the report to show that Monsanto is responsible for the fact that the vast majority of our food supply is both genetically engineered and not labeled as such."

Currently, Monsanto holds patents on 1,676 seeds, plants, and other agricultural applications. These products are grown on more than 282 million acres across the world, including 40 percent of croplands in the United States.

Started in 1901 by John Francis Queeney, the company released its first product, the sugar substitute saccharin -- a product feared to cause cancer. Since its inception, Monsanto has gone on to produce the notorious Vietnam War chemical Agent Orange, Roundup herbicide, GE Roundup Ready seed, and the dairy industry artificial growth hormone rBGH.

Sounds healthy, huh?

The report goes on to call out the numbers. In 2011, Monsanto brought in $11.8 billion in net sales. From 2000 to 2012, the corporation donated $829,662 to U.S. political campaign contributions. In addition, during the same period, Monsanto spent $62,356,730 on U.S. lobbying efforts.

Not exactly a bunch of farmers with pitchforks.

Food & Water Watch's report concludes with recommended actions for regulators.
"From seeds to grocery stores and every place in between, our food system is tremendously consolidated with a handful of corporations dictating what we eat," said Kaucheck. "This new report shows just what a huge influence Monsanto has on the entire food system, and I hope it will motivate concerned citizens everywhere to join the fight to label GE foods, because we all deserve the right to know what we are feeding our families."

In Florida, there are two mandatory labeling bills stuck in committee. Sponsored by Rep. Michelle Rehwinkel Vasilinda,  H.B. 1233 is awaiting approval from the Agriculture Natural Resources subcommittee in the House. Sen. Maria Sach's S.B. 1728 has not been added to Monday's Committee on Agriculture in the Senate.

To view the full Food & Water Watch Report, click here.

Nestlé CEO Says Water Is Food That Should Be Privatized – Not A Human Right

<iframe width="440" height="260" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/nTqvBhFVdvE?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>





Do you believe water is a basic human right?

According to Nestlé CEO water is a foodstuff that should be privatized, not a human right. Nestlé CEO Peter Brabeck says that with the global population rising water is not a public right, but a resource that should be managed by businessmen. Please do share your thoughts.

Nestlé CEO Peter Brabeck: “Access to water should not be a public right.”

McDonalds Is Serving Restructured Meat

Well, it's that time of year again when McDonald's rolls out its venerable McRib sandwich. Tens of millions of Americans will purchase one - or, judging by the nation's ever-widening belt line, several - but most will do so without knowing all they should know about this popular sandwich.

Besides high caloric content, there are several other reasons why you should avoid the McRib, a boneless pork product smothered in BBQ sauce that famously resembles a rack of ribs, as much as you avoid most of the other "delicacies" served by this fast-food behemoth. In addition, The Blaze reports, there are several "fun facts" about the sandwich you may not have known:

A sandwich 'built' from scratch?: The McRib is a product of Rene Arend, who came up with the idea and design of the sandwich. That said, Richard Mandigo, a professor from the University of Nebraska, who developed the "restructured meat product" that the McRib is actually made of.

According to Chicago magazine, citing a 1995 article by Mandigo, "restructured meat product" is described thusly:

Restructured meat products are commonly manufactured by using lower-valued meat trimmings reduced in size by comminution (flaking, chunking, grinding, chopping or slicing). The comminuted meat mixture is mixed with salt and water to extract salt-soluble proteins. These extracted proteins are critical to produce a "glue" which binds muscle pieces together. These muscle pieces may then be reformed to produce a "meat log" of specific form or shape.

 The log is then cut into steaks or chops which, when cooked, are similar in appearance and texture to their intact muscle counterparts. ... Such products as tripe, heart, and scalded stomachs are high in protein, completely edible, wholesome, and nutritious, and most are already used in sausage without objection.

Still hungry?

Packed with calories - and ingredients: In a time of labeling, when government entities and the public are pushing for more disclosure, the package for the McRib would have to grow just to list all of its ingredients.

According to the current box labeling, the sandwich consists of just five basic components - a pork patty and BBQ sauce with pickle slices, onions and a sesame bun.

But, as Time magazine points out, a closer examination of McDonald's own list of ingredients reveals that the sandwich contains a total of 70 ingredients, including azodicarbonamide, a flour-bleaching component that is often used to produce foamed plastics (think gym mats and the soles of shoes). In fact, "the compound is banned in Europe and Australia as a food additive," says Time. Other ingredients include ammonium sulfate and polysorbate 80.

Besides, the sandwich itself contains an incredible amount of calories - 500 at least - along with 26 grams of fat, 44 grams of carbohydrates and 980 milligrams of sodium, nearly half the recommended daily amount of about 2,400 milligrams.

Not a good choice for your heart: The ingredients, combined with a dose of 10 mg of saturated fat (nearly half of the recommended daily allowance), make the McRib an enemy of a healthy heart, say the experts.

"Think about that for a second: When you eat a McRib, you're eating the same chemical ingredients and compounds in those disgusting yoga mats at the gym. And that's on top of the fact that it tastes terrible in the first place," writes Rick Paulas, food editor for KCET, a public television network in southern California. "Which means it's time to ask: Why are we still eating this?"

That's a very valid question. In the meantime, that sound you hear is the further tightening of the nation's belt line.

Congratulations To Californians Who Are Happy To Keep Swallowing GMO Garbage~ Guess You Can't Fix Stupid

The quest to be inexplicably, self-abusing, loved-ones abusing stupid was superbly met this week when millions voted against Proposition 37 in California. When anyone asks me from now on how stupid I think the human race can potentially be I will always reply: see Proposition 37.
This was a public referendum in California which gave people the chance to vote for genetically-modified food (GM or GMO) to be compulsorily labelled as such and to stop the Big Food and Big Biotech cartels, including the notorious Monsanto, from promoting genetically-manipulated Frankenstein food as ‘natural’.

Now congratulations to the 4.2 million Californians who can see the obvious, but taking into account that rigging the vote to an extent is par for the course in the United States these days, the fact remains that large numbers of Californians (officially 4.8 million) actually voted against their right to know what is in the food that they and their families consume and even greater numbers - nearly 48 per cent of those eligible to vote - didn’t feel the need to even participate. That is a shocking level of utter stupidity, idiocy and brain-cell deficiency.

Do they not know what genetically-modified food is doing to their health, their children’s health and the health of virtually the entire American population - or that it is re-writing the human genetic code?

Clearly not and ignorance is often fatal as well as stupid.

The Fight For Real Organic Food Makes Shopping An Objectionable Experience

A

l
Greed and power in the food industry is turning a trip to the grocery store into an objectionable experience, as processed and factory foods are further pushed onto the unwitting public.
On the positive side, however, most of us now have plenty of organic  options, providing we know where to shop and how to find the good stuff.

 From fresh organic produce, to organic and compassionately farmed animal products, to a variety of delicious organic packaged foods, it is now easier than ever to eat healthy and stay away from unwanted pesticides, antibiotics, GMO ingredients, and synthetic additives in our food.

And now that Proposition 37 in California to label GMO foods has been defeated by the food industry and a sleeping populace, it is more important then ever to know how how to access and support the organic food movement.

  In a big way, your life depends on it.

Consumers must be prepared to demand and fight for high-quality organic options in our supermarkets, or we will be faced with a further degradation of production standards, questionable business practices, and conflict of interest matters.

Big Agra Conflict of Interest

A recent issue raised by various organic food industry watchdogs has been the presence of conflict of interest that has influenced decisions on what food additives are approved for use in organic packaged products. US organizations, such as the Cornucopia Institute and Center for Food Safety, have recently raised the issue of Big Agra business encroaching on the independent oversight that the US National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) has over what synthetic items can be added to the approved National List. This list includes processed synthetic items and processes that are approved for use in organic packaged products.

The decisions of the NOSB significantly affect the direction of the organic industry and what synthetic items are actually considered acceptable organic food components. Questionable items are already approved, such as the food additive Carrageenan, which was re-approved for use in organic food processing as of the Spring 2012 NOSB meeting.

“Degraded carrageenan,” which is present in all food-grade carrageenan, is classified as a “possible human carcinogen” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the National Academy of Science in United States. – Cornucopia Institute

Who Owns Organic

It can be quite shocking to realize that we’re at a stage of having a “possible human carcinogen” approved as an ingredient in our organic products. Perhaps as awareness of this grows, concerned industry players, consumers and government officials will implement new checks and balances to ensure that less conflict of interest exists in the NOSB in the US, and in similar organic industry authorities worldwide.

 Industry oversight will grow in importance now that most non-organic, all-American brands, many of which are supporting Monsanto’s no GMO labeling efforts, are the same companies that have been heavily investing in the organic industry over the last 15+ years.

Some of the big food companies that have given money to the [GMO] anti-labeling cause also own organic brands, such as Kellogg Co., which owns the Kashi cereal brand, Dean Foods Co., owner of the Horizon organic dairy line and J.M. Smucker Co., which owns several organic brands. – Wall Street Journal

Here’s a PDF of the top food companies in the US and their ownership ties to well-known organic brands (as of June 2009): http://www.cornucopia.org/wp-content/themes/Cornucopia/downloads/OrganicT30J09.pdf

Click here to download a short video created by Dr. Phil Howard, Assistant Professor at Michigan State University about who owns some of the more well-known organic brands.

How to Shop Organic

Let’s agree that buying food is much more complicated than it used to be, especially for the aware, health-conscious individual. There are more choices than ever, but these choices come from fewer companies. For shoppers, it is vitally important to understand the labeling process currently employed in the organic food industry.

This is why people who want to label GMO foods are so passionate about this cause: labels are one of a few ways, if not the only way, that consumers can make informed decisions about what food they buy.

The USDA’s NOP offers some insight on its website about the labeling requirements of organic products, which can be viewed in the Labeling Organic Products PDF.


Think Local
If you already buy organic products or just want to eat healthier, don’t get discouraged by this article. It is a resource. Take this opportunity to learn from the wealth of information available here, and start making even better food choices. In our world, it is difficult to be 100% organic. But there are ways you can move closer toward this goal. Support smaller organic food producers and local farms.

 Eat fresh and raw foods. Start an organic garden or become involved in a community urban farming project. And stay informed and educated, so YOU are the one who decides on what food ends up on your dinner table.

37 Lies & Dirty Tricks Brought To You By Monsanto

The Monsanto-Pepsi gang can't change the fact that 9 out of 10 people want to know if they're eating genetically modified organisms (GMOs). What they can do is try to trick California voters into believing that a simple label on their food is actually a nefarious plot to make consumers pay more for their food and make trial lawyers rich.

The corporations desperate to keep you in the dark about GMOS have tried nearly every trick in the book. Fake voter guides. Phony "scientists." Lies about newspaper endorsements. Illegal hijacking of government logos.

Here are 37 lies and dirty tricks brought to you by Monsanto and the No on 37 campaign:

#1 Fake Voter Guides - TRICK: It looks like a Democratic Party voter guide, with President Obama's photo on the front. But inside is an appeal to vote "No on 37." TRUTH: "The Ballot Guide" is a sham. The California Democratic Party has endorsed Prop 37!


#2 Illegal Use of the FDA Logo - TRICK: A No on 37 mailer contains the official seal of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration along with what appears to be a quote from the FDA opposing Prop 37. TRUTH: "The FDA has not made such statements with respect to Prop 37," FDA spokeswoman Morgan Liscinsky told KPBS. "We cannot speculate on Prop 37 and have no comments at this time."
Source: 'No On 37' Campaign Mailers 'Criminal'

#3 Use of Profits from Organic Brands to Fight your Right to Know - TRICK: Organic and natural brands appear to share your values, promoting family farms, sustainable agriculture and healthy and nutritious food. TRUTH: Many of your favorite organic and natural brands are owned by big food companies donating their profits to the No on 37 campaign, including Kraft, Kellogg, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and General Mills.
Source: Brands Attack Consumers Right to GMO Labeling

#4 Scientists for Hire - TRICK: University of California at Davis professors oppose labeling GMOs because they understand the science of genetic engineering, they know its benefits, and they're confident that GMOs are safe. TRUTH: UC Davis professors oppose labeling because they are financial beneficiaries of the same pesticide companies that are funding the No on 37 campaign.
Source: "Experts" are Shills for Big Biotech

#5 Scientists as Sock Puppets - TRICK: An anti-Prop 37 op-ed is authored by Kent J. Bradford, a professor of plant sciences at the University of California, Davis, and the director of the Seed Biotechnology Center. TRUTH: The words Bradford uses to describe Prop 37 are taken verbatim from the No on 37 website. The Daily Democrat and The Reporter (Vacaville) published Monsanto's talking points disguised as legitimate opinion from a university professor of plant biology.
Source: Did Monsanto Write This Op-Ed?

#6 Scientists with Hidden Strings - TRICK: Martina Newell-McGloughlin, D.Sc., is the director of the International Biotechnology Program and an Adjunct Professor of Plant Pathology at the University of California, Davis. When she acts as a proponent for genetic engineering, as she did recently on the Dr. Oz Show, she presents herself as an independent academic scientist. TRUTH: Martina Newell-McGloughlin's work is funded by the same pesticide company that backs the No on 37 campaign, but the strings that attach her to Monsanto are rarely reported along with her pro-GMO views.
Source: Seeds of Doubt

#7 Lies about the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics - TRICK: The "Argument Against Proposition 37" in California's Official Voter Information Guide states that the Academy "has concluded that biotech foods are safe." TRUTH: That statement is false. "We are concerned that California's voters are being misled to believe the nation's largest organization of food and nutrition professionals is against Proposition 37, when in fact, the Academy does not have a position on the issue," said registered dietitian Ethan A. Bergman, president of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. "Voters need accurate information in order to make an informed choice."
Source: Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics

#8 Lies about Newspaper Endorsements - TRICK: In an anti-Prop-37 TV ad, the San Francisco Examiner is featured prominently as having editorialized against Prop 37. TRUTH: The San Francisco Examiner has endorsed Prop 37.
Source: No on 37 Ad Yanked

#9 Lies about Stanford University Affiliation - TRICK: A No on 37 TV ad features an academic, identified on screen as "Dr. Henry I. Miller M.D., Standford University." TRUTH: Miller is not a Stanford professor, but rather a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank housed on the Stanford campus.
Source: TV Ad Is Pulled

#10 Lies about Farmer Support - TRICK: No on 37 spokesperson Kathy Fairbanks claims the "entire agricultural community of California" is opposing Prop 37. TRUTH: More than 2,000 farmers, including some GMO farmers, as well as the California Grange, the Central Coast Agricultural Network, the United Farm Workers, California Labor Federation and United Food and Commercial Workers western region all support Prop 37.
Source: No On 37 Lies Again

#11 Fake Yes on 37 Supporters Spreading No on 37 Lies - TRICK: The California Right to Know Facebook page often gets posts from people who "Like" it that begin with a statement of support for Prop 37 but end with lies straight from the No on 37 disinformation handbook. TRUTH: Employees of the pesticide and junk food companies fighting our right to know,  including Frito Lay, are trolling our pages. (No on 37 has to hang out on our page because California Right to Know has literally 100,000 more Likes than they do!)
Source: https://www.facebook.com/carighttoknow

#12 Lies about GMOs' Safety - TRICK: GMO's are "perfectly safe." TRUTH: No one's vouching for the safety of genetically engineered foods. This summer, the American Medical Association passed a new resolution calling for mandatory pre-market safety testing of GMOs. The GMO foods that are currently being consumed in the US not only aren't labeled, they have never been safety tested by independent parties.
Source: GMOs Should Be Safety Tested Says AMA

#13 Lies about the National Academy of Science - TRICK: The National Academy of Sciences says GMOs are safe and there's no reason to label them. TRUTH: The NAS study referenced by the Monsanto-Pepsi gang is the 1987 report, Introduction of Recombinant DNA-Engineered Organisms into the Environment. The 1987 NAS report doesn't address the issue of GMO labels and doesn't claim to present evidence that GMOs are safe for human consumption. GMO foods didn't exist in 1987, so they couldn't have been safety tested then. The NAS only argued that GMOs shouldn't be treated differently from normal organisms. The fact that government regulators followed the NAS approach and failed to treat GMO foods with any more precaution than normal foods is not evidence that they are safe or shouldn't be labeled.
Source: Introduction of Recombinant DNA-Engineered Organisms into...

#14 Lies about the World Health Organization - TRICK: The World Health Organization says GMOs are safe and there's no reason to label them. TRUTH: WHO recognizes "the need to examine the potential negative effects on human health of the consumption of food produced through genetic modification" and that "consumer concerns have triggered a discussion on the desirability of labeling GM foods, allowing an informed choice."
Source: The World Health Organization

#15 Lies About Pesticides - TRICK: Genetically engineered crops reduce pesticide use. TRUTH: Genetically engineered crops have actually increased pesticide use, especially the use of Monsanto's herbicide RoundUp. 527 million additional pounds of RoundUp were used on genetically engineered crops between 1996 and 2011.
Source: Modified Crops Increase Herbicide Use

#16 Lies about Disease Resistance - TRICK: Genetically engineered crops are more resistant to disease. TRUTH: Recently, scientists have identified new outbreaks of blight, rust, and other fungal infections in Monsanto's genetically engineered RoundUp Ready crops.
Source: Dangers of Genetically Engineered Food

#17 Lies about a Ban on GMOs - TRICK: Prop 37 bans genetically engineered foods unless they're specially re-labeled or remade with higher-cost ingredients. TRUTH: Prop 37 wouldn't ban anything, it would just let us know what we're eating and allow us to make an informed choice about GMOs. Prop 37 doesn't confer any regulatory authority that could be used to ban GMOs under any circumstances.
Source: A Label, Not a Ban

#18 Lies about Zero Tolerance - TRICK: Prop 37 has a zero-tolerance for accidental GMO content in foods that aren't labeled as containing GMOs. Such a policy would force producers of essentially non-GMO products to use the label "may contain GMOs," simply out of fear of litigation. TRUTH: Prop 37 exempts foods that do not intentionally contain GMOs.
Source: Incorrect Reports

#19 Lies about Frozen Pizza vs. Delivery Pizza - TRICK: Why would a frozen pizza from the grocery store with genetically engineered ingredients be labeled GMO, while a pizza with the same ingredients delivered from a restaurant wouldn't? TRUTH: Frozen pizza from the grocery store has an ingredients label on it. Pizza delivered from a restaurant does not. Prop 37 can add GMOs to a label, but it can't add a label to food that doesn't already have one.
Source: Opponents Have Holes in their Loopholes

#20 Lies about Fruit Juice vs. Alcohol - TRICK: Why would fruit juice with genetically engineered ingredients be labeled GMO, while alcohol with the same ingredients wouldn't? TRUTH: Fruit juice has an ingredients label, alcohol doesn't. Prop 37 is just about adding GMOs to the label, not adding labels to products that don't already have them.
Source: Opponents Have Holes in their Loopholes

#21 Lies about Soy Milk vs. Cow's Milk - TRICK: Dairy products, eggs, meat and poultry are all exempt. TRUTH: No, they're not. All dairy products, eggs, meat, poultry, and fish, for that matter, will be labeled under Prop 37, if and when genetically engineered animals are sold for human consumption.
Source: The Truth About Exemptions

#22 Lies about Dog Food vs. Steak - TRICK: Dog food with beef would be labeled, but beef wouldn't. TRUTH: Cows haven't been genetically engineered yet. If and when they are, GMO beef and dairy will be labeled under Prop 37. "Dog food with beef" contains other ingredients (vegetable oils, for instance) that might be genetically engineered and therefore might be labeled.
Source: Vote Yes on Prop 37

#23 Lies About Animals Fed GMOs - TRICK: I'd support Prop 37's labels on GMO fruits, vegetables, animals and ingredients  -  if it covered animals raised on genetically engineered feed. TRUTH: The Monsanto-Pepsi gang isn't opposed to Prop 37 because it doesn't go far enough. The fact is, no labeling law in the world covers animals raised on genetically engineered feed. Prop 37 is designed to be compatible with the laws of our 61 trading partners who already label genetically engineered food, because most US farmers and food processors are already aware of and complying with those laws abroad.
Source: Opponents Have Holes in their Loopholes

#24 Lies about Special Interest Exemptions - TRICK: Prop 37 is funded by the organic industry and it looks like they've exempted themselves from the law. Why would organic be exempt, while producers of conventional food have to label GMOs? TRUTH: Organic food is verified by a USDA accredited certifier to be made without the use of genetic engineering. The organic law is actually much stricter than Prop 37 because it requires third-party certification.
Source: The Truth About Exemptions

#25 Lies about Costs to Consumers - TRICK: GMO labels will result in increased food costs for needy families. An average family's annual grocery bill would increase by $400. TRUTH: 61 other countries label genetically engineered food and there isn't a single real-world example of increased food costs. Likewise, food prices didn't go up in the US when information about allergens  - or any other piece of information - was added to labels. What makes the Monsanto-Pepsi gang's grocery bill trick so dirty is that the $400 figure they cite is actually their estimate of the cost of companies switching from GMO to organic to avoid labels,  not the cost of GMO labels themselves.
Source: Anti-Prop 37 Ad Misleads

#26 Lies about Costs to Farmers and Processors - TRICK: UC Davis Professors of agricultural economics released a report that showed Proposition 37 would increase costs for California farmers and food processors by $1.2 billion. TRUTH: The No campaign paid the authors of this study, Julian Alston and Daniel Sumner, at least $30,000. The study assumes that farmers and food producers will respond to Proposition 37 by switching from genetically engineering to organic to avoid the labeling. The authors don't devote much attention to the possibility that producers will respond to the labeling mandate by simply relabeling.
Source: Perils of the Initiative Process

#27 Lies about Costs to Taxpayers - TRICK: Prop. 37 "would cost California taxpayers millions for more bureaucracy and red tape." TRUTH: This nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office's estimates the annual cost of enforcement as "a few hundred thousand dollars to $1 million."
Source: The Truth About Cost

#28 Lies about "Natural" Claims - TRICK: Based on an analysis by Peggy Lemaux, part of the Monsanto-Pepsi gang, NPR's Eliza Barclay wrote an article claiming Prop 37 would stop producers of any processed food from using the term "natural." TRUTH: Only processed food containing GMOs will be blocked from carrying "natural" claims under Prop 37. The Center for Environmental Health pointed this out to Barclay and she corrected her report.
Source: GMO Food Labeling Lies

#29 Lies about Prop 65 - TRICK: Prop 37 is just like Prop 65. TRUTH: Proposition 65 granted private attorneys a share of fines and penalties exacted from violators, making it more of a bounty system. Proposition 37 doesn't do that. Private attorneys can sue only to obtain injunctions, not penalties.
Source: Perils of the Initiative Process

#30 Lies about Damages - TRICK: The independent, nonpartisan Legislative Analyst says that Proposition 37 would allow trial lawyers "to sue without needing to demonstrate that any specific damage occurred as a result of the alleged violation." TRUTH: Say you buy a box of cereal whose main ingredient is corn. It's not labeled GMO, but you get it tested and find that it has levels of GMO above what could result from unintentional contamination. You bring a lawsuit under Prop 37. You might be right that the processor intentionally used genetically engineered ingredients without labeling them, but what's your "damage"? If you suffered no harm, there aren't any damages that can be recognized under the law, except maybe what you paid for the cereal. If Prop 37 required a demonstration of damages before a violation of the law could be rectified, GMO labels couldn't be enforced. The advantage to this system is that the only incentive to sue will be to enforce the law, not to win money damages.
Source: The Truth About Lawsuits

#31 Lies about Trial Lawyers - TRICK: Prop 37 was written by trial lawyers for trial lawyers. TRUTH: The California Right to Know campaign began with the efforts of Pamm Larry, a former midwife, farmer and longtime Chico resident. In 2011, Pamm started organizing mothers and volunteers across the state toward a 2012 ballot drive with only one goal in mind: to let California consumers know if the food they are eating is genetically engineered. With the help of thousands of volunteers, the Right to Know campaign gathered nearly one million signatures from California voters within a 10 week period.
Source: The Truth About Lawsuits

#32 Lies about Grocers - TRICK: Prop 37 is "a nightmare scenario for grocers" and retailers because they have to obtain and keep "reams of paperwork." TRUTH: Retailers would only have to label the few raw commodities (sweet corn, papaya, squash) that are genetically engineered - if they were buying them directly from farmers, as opposed to a packer who would have responsibility for labeling. They can either stick a simple label on the bin or, if they wish, they can ask their farmer supplier for a sworn statement that the crop is not genetically engineered.
Source: The Truth About Lawsuits

#33 Lies about Lawsuits - TRICK: Prop 37 will lead to a bonanza of lawsuits. TRUTH: Lawsuits are expressly forbidden unless the potential defendant is given a chance to put the labels on. If the defendant labels the product, no lawsuit. Second, the law protects anyone for whom a claimed violation was not intentional or resulted from an error.
Source: The Truth About Lawsuits

#34 Lies about Lawsuits Against Farmers - TRICK: Farmers will get sued. TRUTH: If they're selling direct to customers, farmers need to label their genetically engineered produce. If they're selling into the supply chain, all farmers have to do is provide sworn statements as to whether or not their crops are genetically engineered (if the crops are typically GMO). Genetically engineered seeds are patented, they can only be used under contract and must be purchased each year, so farmers definitely know whether they're growing GMOs. Monsanto's the only one suing farmers.
Source: The Truth About Lawsuits

#35 Lies about a Corporate Agenda - TRICK: In California, there is nothing on the ballot that doesn't serve some corporate agenda. TRUTH: Look at the list of donors for and against Prop 37. Will you stand with the natural health advocates and organic consumers, farmers and retailers who support your right to know, or the biggest pesticide and junk food companies in the world who want to hide the GMOs you're eating?
Source: Prop 37 Funders

#36 Lies about Foreign Corporations - TRICK: Foods imported from foreign countries are exempt if sellers simply declare that their products are "GE-free." TRUTH: There are no special provisions related to imported food.
Source: Read the Initiative

#37 Lies about Consumer Choice - TRICK: Mandatory GMO labels are unnecessary because food that is certified organic or non-GMO verified is labeled for consumers who choose to avoid GMOs. TRUTH: Only a small fraction of the public is aware of GMOs in their food. In fact 74% of the public is ignorant of the fact that they're already eating GMOs. It isn't fair to keep consumers in the dark. We deserve the right to know what we're eating! California, vote Yes on 37!