Proposition 37: Support Declines for GMO Labeling Law

And why have the last three Whitehouse families insisted on everything being Organic?  Because they are just quirky like that? And why have Monsanto employees refused to allow GMO's in their own cafeteria?  I can't even come up with a sarcastic answer for this.  Why do 50 countries including China either ban or require labeling for GMO's but the USA and Canada don't. Is it because we are so much smarter than anybody else? Or maybe they believe in "junk science" as the Monsanto flunkies put it. Exactly what are the testing procedures required by the FDA for GMO's?  Did you know that very little govt testing is done, and the FDA relies on the manufacturer's internal test results?  And why did the FDA install key logger software and spyware on their scientist's computers after negative evidence was being leaked?  I guess that is their way of making sure our food is safe.  The views expressed in this piece are either based upon complete ignorance or calculated propaganda.  I cannot abide by either.

This was never a food safety issue for the Bio-techs. They know it is unsafe. This was always a legal issue for them.  If this passes, then it opens the door to more people questioning how these products were so easily introduced into our food supply. Mainstream media will have no choice but to recognize the will of the people.  It is Pandora's box for Monsanto. As in most cases, the information is available if you look hard enough.  Most Americans are too lazy and are willing to be lead around by the nose. They are easily suseptible to big money propaganda.  All Monsanto has to do is tell them everything is ok, and the more they see it the quicker they believe. Monsanto has spent a fortune in payoffs, destroying scientist reputations, advertising, and now creating false polls all in the effort of hiding the truth...which they have done before. If this fails to pass, I will be moving to a sane country and give up my citizenship.  I will have lost all faith in American's ability to prevent their own demise as well as mine.   

I posted this on the LA times, and I'll post in here for Mr. wagner, as he is a prolific contributor.

For Robert Wager:

Robert, you have posted here quite a lot. Thank you for your insights and opinions. I do not think most people reading these posts are interested in thetechnical studies you have provided. The truth is, we all know scientists can be bought and sold, and we know scientific research can be manipulated to meet the ends of industry. Just look at how heavily funded university botany and agriculture programs are by biotech companies. I believe most university grants for research come from companies like Monsanto, as well as student scholarships. That is certainly the case her in CA at UC Davis. I think many of us also know what happens to scientists who do not tow the party line--they are discredited, as was Arpad Putszai (sp), who was thankfully later vindicated by 30 of his peers, leading scientists at good universities. So let me ask you some concrete questions that the readers here can relate to.

Let's take the case of BT toxin sweet corn, recently released by Monsanto. Do you eat it yourself? Do your wife and children? Or do you seek out conventional corn, or even so-called orgainc, for your own consumption?

Are you affiliated with any academic program that receives research funding or grants from the biotech industry? From the sophistication of your posts, I am assuming you are a biologist or botanist.

Do you yourself receive research money or any kind of money from Monsanto?

Or are you a free spirit who is sharing this information with us without anything to gain economically, either directly or indirectly?

Schmeiser exposes Wager's industry spin

http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/44-2005/1485-schmeiser-exposes-wagers-industry-spin-2242005

Robert Wager, any comments?

http://www.cjly.net/deconstructingdinner/011008transcript.htm

...Following these articles, some interesting comments appeared on a blog hosted by Canadian Content.net. Some of the comments appear to be made by Saskatchewan farmers. And while the following allegations cannot be verified, they're worth repeating. One comment referring to Robert Wager reads this, "He ignores inconvenient data, and hasn't got a clue about farming, but here's the coolest thing he takes money from Monsanto to cover his travel costs when making speeches." Another comment reads, "Everyone knows he is a paid lakie of monsanto."...

Coolest, cruelist? Comment so far:

"Hamsters fed GMO diets are mostly sterile in the third generation. Look how many fertility clinics there are now? What will you say to your granddaughter decades from now when she can't conceive?

 "We believed we were protecting some grocer somewhere from a lawsuit so we didn't vote to label genetically modified food" "We kept on eating it and didn't pay attention."  "I'm sorry Honey.... Maybe you can adopt a child from China?"

What would you think of an industry that swore up and down that their products were safe and that people  that questioned them were wrong? “Show me the proof” is what you would say?

Just like cigarettes, asbestos, pesticides, Agent Orange, L-Trytophan, Thalidomide, PolyChlorinatedBiphenyls, Bovine Growth Hormone, BPA,  the biotech industry has its hired experts to testify that their products are safe and there’s nothing to worry about. Just like the victims of those industries, once you are sick and dying it’s too late. Parents, are you going to risk your unborn child, your infant, your children, or your own health to their promises and reassurances? What’s more important their profits or your health?

Yes on 37. Just label the genetically modified creations in the supermarket. We’re smart enough to use that freedom to do what we think is right.

Noticing the BigFoodCorpse shills everywhere... To cut the crap, if GMO and GE food is so great, why ain't it labeled now?

Analysis, GMO crop Technology, Scientists agreeing or disagreeing, wether  GMO's are good or bad, WE, THE CONSUMER HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT WE ARE EATING!!  JUST A SIMPLE LABLE!!   YES ON 37!!   PLASIN AND SIMPLE!!

Here's the spokesman for the NO on 37 campaign, the guy that keeps popping up on those million dollar TV ad buys.

"Dr." Miller, who has appeared in TV ads arguing against Prop 37, is a founding member of a now defunct tobacco front group that tried to discredit the links between cigarettes and cancer, has repeatedly called for the reintroduction of DDT, fronted for an oil industry funded climate change denial group, and claimed that people exposed to radiation from the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster “may have benefited from it.”

Tobacco-Asbestos-DDT-Agent Orange-Pesticides-PCBs-Thalidomide-Thalates-BPA and finally,

-Genetically Modified Food...

All “Perfectly Safe!” With lots of doctors testifying that they are misunderstood, vital for the economy etc.

How can these people stand to look at them self in the mirror?

$Millions to billions in advertising? You MonsantoBots are really funny! Here's how much  "robert's" employers have spent as of October 26th. It's far more by now. The stench of corporate desperation!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/26/prop-37-opponents_n_2023719.html

"Monsanto - $7,100,500,DuPont - $4,900,000 Pepsi - $2,145,400 Bayer - $2,000,000 Dow - $2,000,000 BASF - $2,000,000 Syngenta - $2,000,000 Kraft Foods - $1,950,000 Coca-Cola - $1,455,500 Nestle - $1,315,600 General Mills - $1,135,000 ConAgra - $1,077,000 Kellogg’s - $790,000 Smithfield - $684,000

And here's a list of companies that have supported Prop 37:

Mercola.com - $1,115,000 Nature’s Path - $610,000 Dr. Bronner’s - $369,000 Lundberg - $251,000 Udis/EarthBalance/Glutino - $102,000 Clif Bar- $100,000 Organic Valley - $100,000 Amy’s - $100,000 Annie’s - $50,000 Nutiva - $50,000 Frey Vineyards - $35,000

We'll let the numbers speak for themselves."

GMOs cause cancer, autism, allergies, arthritis, gluten sensitivity

and infertility. It would be great to ban them. I'll settle for just labeling them. Shannon

AAAS, AMA, NAS, Royal Society, EFSA, ANZFA, WHO, UN-FAO, etc etc all supoort the safe conclusion for GM crops and food.

Why is it that these scientific bodies opinions can be swept aside so easily with claims of bias yet the research sponsored by the organic industry (which has spend millions to billions on anti-GMO advertising)  is accepted as not biased? 

Polls: USC gets millions from Monsanto in grants. The Grocery Manufacturers Association selling the processed genetically modified junk food is the L.A. Times biggest advertiser. Their poll is suspect.

Wager, still waiting for a link or two to  peer reviewed scientific studies demonstrating the safety of GMOs. That's the way it's done in the scientific community; A researcher publishes their experiment details, lab notes, math, conclusions in a reputable science journal and then their peers in the scientific world vet it for accuracy. Out of all these "thousands of studies" you claim have been done, why can't you come up with even one reference????????

AAAS? Quotations from industry trade groups that make money off a technology are not an impartial endorsement of it.

My sick daughter who had asthma, allergies and skin disorders is now symptom free after going  on a GMO free diet. It took a lot of research to figure out that diet. It's not fair to working parents for them to have to do scientific research in the cereal aisle.

yes on 37

Any person experiencing symptoms that their doctor cannot explain should watch the Genetic Roulette Movie.

If it comes down to me having a smaller chance of getting breast cancer and my children having healthier lives, I will choose that option over any harm that 37 might cause some corporation in future profits.

AAAS Board of Directors: Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could “Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers” http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/1025gm_statement.shtml

Forget your health! We have your best interests at heart!

Nothing good has ever come from people knowing what they're ingesting, or inhaling.  We are a billion dollar a day company that is really concerned about the three cents or less that it may cost every Californian to know what he or she is eating. That really adds up you know! That's why we're spending a million and a half a day to put up these NO on Prop 37 radio and TV ads, to warn you of this impeding horror.

It's the least we can do for you.

63 countries have a GMO labels its time for california to have GMO on all foods

>>>>>>>>>>>>ONE LINK<<<<<<<<<<<

to a peer reviewed scientific study showing the safety of GMOs then?

Prop 37 failing, who writes this stuff? Who would NOT want to know what is in their food? They are collecting signatures right now in Washington State to put this labeling on the ballot up there. 

The A.M.A.,? A trade group for those that  make money off sickness and expensive pharmaceutical, surgical and radiological treatments? Yeah, what do they have to say about people taking responsibility for their own health?

The "weird wording" was dictated by the Secretary of State's office. A ballot proposition can only address one issue, hence the exemptions.  The "business roundtable" and Pepperdine are trying to dissuade grass roots support for people donating a few bucks to put one or two commercials on the air.Their poll is bogus. Monsanto is spending over a million dollars per day on No ads.

Your average 18 year old has been eating GMOs all their life. Is this generation healthier than the last? 1 in 88 kids now has autism. Used to be one in 1,500. Kids are dying after eating one peanut. Adult onset diabetes in children. Puberty at 10 years old, Babies with weird rare cancers. Pink ribbons everywhere. Prostate cancer, breast cancer, shaved heads, acid reflux, Crohn's disease, arthritis, thyroid disease, gluten sensitivity, all these "new" diseases appearing.  Horribly expensive medications raking in the cash though.

Hamsters fed GMO diets are mostly sterile in the third generation. Look how many fertility clinics there are now? What will you say to your granddaughter decades from now when she can't conceive?

 "We believed we were protecting some grocer somewhere from a lawsuit so we didn't vote to label genetically modified food" "We kept on eating it and didn't pay attention."  "I'm sorry Honey.... Maybe you can adopt a child from China?"

Proposition 37 is about our right to read a simple label added after the fat and nutrition content. 

p.s. There were no safety studies. 90 day rat trials. That's it. No on 37 is free to rebuke me by positing a link to a peer reviewed human trial. There are none.

OUR GENERATION IS THE LAB RAT.

Would you like to see the same opinion from the American Medical Association? 

or

AAAS Board of Directors: Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could “Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers” http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/1025gm_statement.shtml

Only paid shills and lackeys (for Monsanto, DuPont, Dow Chemical, ConAgra, Pepsico and the like) have the energy to be posting against labeling GMO's... Think about it...  Friends don't let friends eat poison, let alone encourage them to do so unknowingly, or otherwise....   Like friends say when they love you: "Take good care of yourself" - VOTE YES on PROP 37!...

Yes on 37!! Did you know that the attorney for Monsanto is the commissioner for the FDA?

This should be of interest to people:

A Decade of EU-Funded GMO research 2001-2010

The 50 research projects can be grouped into the following

principal areas:

• Environmental Impacts of GMO;

• GMO and Food Safety;

• GMOs for biomaterials and biofuels –

.

It is evident from this grouping that many of the research

projects have been launched to address not only the scientific

unknowns but, more importantly, public concerns about the

potential environmental impact of GMOs, about food safety,

the co-existence of GM and non-GM crops, and risk assessment

strategies….The main conclusion

to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research

projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research,

and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is

that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se

more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.