A report by GMO proponent Monsanto (”Taking a Stand”) explains its opposition to California Prop 37: Label foods with GMOs. Monsanto put $4.2 million into the anti-Prop 37 campaign. See: http://monsantoblog.com/2012/08/14/taking-a-stand-proposition-37-the-california-labeling-proposal/

According to “Nation of Change” (NoC), the report “reeks of false and misleading statements, and…downright deception.” NoC sites 7 lies Monsanto wants consumers to believe about GMO labeling and Prop 37.

1. The bill “…requires a warning label on food products.”
GMO foods will not require a warning label. Labels will say, ”partially/or maybe produced with genetic engineering.”

2. ”The safety/benefits of these ingredients are well established.”
Many “shorter” time interval studies show possible danger to humans, the environment and biosphere. See: www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm

3. “FDA says such labeling would be inherently misleading…”
Foods sold containing hidden GMOs is much more misleading.

4. “The American Medical Association just re-affirmed that there is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods.”
Although true, the AMA also wants mandatory pre-market safety studies.
www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_food_safety/018433.html

5. ”…the main proponents of Prop 37 are special interest groups and individuals opposed to food biotechnology who are not necessarily engaged in the production of our nation’s food supply.”
Countless farmers, food producers, and consumers support Prop 37. See list: www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements

6. ”The California proposal would serve the purposes of a few special interest groups at the expense of the majority of consumers.”
Not true: GMO labeling is so desired that the pro-labeling side has a 3-to-1 advantage.

7. ”Consumers have broad food choices today, but could be denied these choices if Prop 37 prevails.”
False. Actually, the bill adds value to purchases by consumers, as no one would need to unknowingly consume GMOs.
___________
This blog is a compilation of ideas and quotes from www.nationofchange.org/monsanto-s-top-7-lies-about-gmo-labeling-and-proposition-37-1345823619

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are plants or animals the DNA of which has been changed to produce what scientists see as a genetic advantage. Seeds or crops are made insect or disease resistant. In 2006, a pig was engineered to produce an enzyme converting omega-6 fatty acids pigs naturally produced into the healthy omega-3s.

This November, California will vote for or against Prop 37, The Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act requiring mandatory labeling of food products containing GMOs. Presently, 50 nations allow citizens to choose genetically engineered food or not.

Already the money is pouring in from both sides to influence the Prop 37 debate. [See: www.kcet.org/socal/food/prop-37] Businesses like Smuckers, Con Agra, Kellogg’s and even Morton Salt are lining with biotech companies to thwart the public’s right to know. Yet, why would anyone spend dollars to “hide” from consumers the fact that a product contains supposedly safe ingredients? Something’s not right here…

For more see: www.kcet.org/socal/food/prop-37/prop-37-the-california-right-to-know-genetically-engineered-food-act.html
___________
This blog is a compilation of ideas and quotes from “Food lobby’s ‘highest priority’ is fighting GM goal labeling in California” by Michele Simon, 08.01.12.
www.nationofchange.org/food-lobby-s-highest-priority-fighting-gmo-labeling-california-1343835797

The debate surrounding California Prop 37(requiring food labels show GMO ingredients) on November’s ballot is enhanced by a very thorough (123 pages) June report “GMO Myths and Truths” by Antonio and Fagan.
The authors counter the claims by the genetically modified (GM) crop industry and its supporters. Evidence they present indicates that GM crops:
–Are not an extension of natural breeding posing different risks from naturally bred crops: Are laboratory-made, using technology that is totally different from natural breeding methods, and pose different risks from non-GM crops
–Are not nutritious and safe to eat: Can be toxic, allergenic or less nutritious than their natural counterparts
–Are not adequately regulated to ensure safety
–Do not increase yield potential
–Do not reduce pesticide use, but increase it
–Do not benefit farmers and make their lives easier: Create serious problems for farmers, including herbicide-tolerant “superweeds”, compromised soil quality, and increased disease susceptibility in crops
–Do not bring economic benefits: Have mixed economic effects
_________
This blog is a compilation of ideas and quotes from “GMO: Myths and Truths.” See: http://earthopensource.org/files/pdfs/GMO_Myths_and_Truths/GMO_Myths_and_Truths_1.3.pdf