California Prop 37: Whose Side Are YOU On?

Consumers vs The Big 10

Not ONE human being has said "No" to GMO labeling. All $36 Million "No" campaign funding has come from the Big 10 offenders -you know, those who have told you that their products are safe, without testing or providing such information to the consumer.

"Yes" supporters are people you and me...moms, dads, kids, singles, marrieds, gays, straights, medical doctors, farmers, students, teachers, naturopaths, dental professionals, health practitioners, environmentalists...and non-profits and consumer
groups. 

"Yes" supporters provided $3 Million in funding. It doesn't really cost much to get the facts out. It costs a lot more to create a hefty ad campaign that resembles a hockey game...deflect, deflect, deflect. The Big 10 must feel they have a lot to lose. We ALL lose, unless Prop 37 is passed.

The Uber-problem for the Big 10 seems to be liability. They must be highly concerned  about potential lawsuits from the upshot of their controversial biotechnology and negligence in testing -- especially with the substantial increase in, and creation of, neurological and childhood diseases. Leaky gut syndrome in 10 year olds? Wow. But it stands to reason that if these frankenfoods were created to make the stomachs of insects explode, they'll have a similar effect on humans -- especially children. 

GMOs were created 20 years ago, so there's a good chance that GMOs have been a big part - or the only part - of the diet of someone under the age of 20...and without their knowledge! You can't blame parents because they weren't informed, either.  This information does not appear on the required food nutrition and ingredient label.

Why no full disclosure, Big 10?  You spent boat loads of money on the technology -- 
If GMOs are so great, why not just be proud and label it?

If I sat down with the powers at Monsanto, I'd ask one question: If there's nothing wrong with GMO and GE products, why spend $36 Million on a "No" campaign to defend their position, when simply labeling the products, as they already do for nutrition facts and ingredients, will cost them nothing?

In a recent ad, the No supporters erroneously claim that farmers will suffer -- that's simply not true. There is no additional cost to farmers. There are GMO farmers who support Prop 37!

So, what can we, the people, do?

It's easy.

Vote YES on Prop 37 on November 6, 2012.

Your YES vote on California Prop 37 simply mandates labeling of GMO and GE foods. It allows the Big 10 to put the label wherever they want on their package. 

Fifty countries around the world have already implemented a ban on GMOs.  Why were we not FIRST?  We've been kept in the dark long enough!  We want to know what's in our food, so we can make informed choices when making purchases. We also have every right to know what's in our food.

Vote YES on Prop 37. Know your food source.

California Gets the Carcinogens out of Pepsi and Coca Cola

Carcinogen-laden Coke and Pepsi

Did you know that Coke and Pepsi is in the process of reformulating their products? The report, from consumer watchdog the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), says that both contain unacceptably high levels of 4-methylilidazole (4-MI), a chemical that has been linked to cancer in mice and rats, and some soft drinks contain five times the amount of the chemical deemed safe in California. 

California called on the food and beverage industry to label 'caramel coloring', which was found to be potentially be a cancer-causing carcinogen. Rather than go through the labeling and liability that it may carry, Coke and Pepsi reformulated their products in California, and is doing so across the country.

The alleged carcinogen is formed when ammonia or ammonia and sulphates are used to manufacture the caramel colouring that gives Coke and Pepsi their trademark brown color.

The change has already been made in California, and will be implemented in other states in the near future.

http://www.ingredientsnetwork.com/news-content/full/pepsi-and-coca-cola-to- remove-carcinogen-from-their-drinks

Bottom line....it's all about avoiding liability. It would appear there's a huge lack of integrity at Pepsi and Coca-Cola. It's unfortunate that a consumer group had to blow the whistle on these world-wide giants, or they would have greedily continued, business as usual. 

As a consumer, I don't trust a brand which lacks integrity...on any level. There are just too many choices out there.

OC

Note: This information was prepared for all consumers.  Laguna Natural Health has never suggested or condoned the consumption of soda pop.  

YES on California Prop 37: Why Labeling GMOs is Important

You have a right to know what's in your food.

What is Proposition 37?  Proposition 37 is a common-sense November ballot measure that will help consumers make informed choices about the food they eat. Written with broad input from food groups, industry, science, legal and health experts Prop. 37 (The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act) requires clear labels letting consumers know if foods are genetically modified. 

Example: Genetically Modified corn has been engineered in a laboratory to produce pesticides in its own tissue. GMO corn is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency as an Insecticide, but is sold unlabeled. [EPA Pesticides]. Walmart is now sellingMonsanto's sweet corn that has been genetically engineered to contain an insecticide, but consumers don't know because it's not labeled.
  

What Are Genetically Engineered Foods (GMOs)?  A genetically engineered food is a plant or meat product that has had its DNA artificially altered in a laboratory by genes from other plants, animals, viruses, or bacteria in order to produce foreign compounds in that food. This type of genetic alteration is not found in nature and is experimental.   Many of the foods we currently eat and feed our families (including certain baby formulas and a high percentage of corn, soy, cotton and sugar beets commonly used in processed foods sold in the U.S.),  but we don’t know which ones without labeling.

Are Genetically Engineered Foods Safe?  GMOs have not been proven safe, and long-term health studies have not been conducted. A growing body of peer-reviewed studies has linked these foods to allergies, organ toxicity, and other health problems. These studies must be followed up. However, unlike the strict safety evaluations required for the approval of new drugs, the US Food and Drug Administration does not require safety studies for genetically engineered foods. The United Nations/World Health Organization food standards group and the American Medical Association have called for mandatory safety testing of genetically engineered foods -- a standard the U.S. fails to meet. 

GMOs Linked to Environmental Problems:  Various environmental problems associated with genetic engineering have been well documented, including biodiversity loss, an overall increase in pesticide use, the emergence of super weeds that are threatening millions of acres of farmland, and the unintentional contamination of non-GMO and organic crops.

We Have a Right to Know What's in Our Food:  Fifty countries around the world—representing more than 40% of the world’s population---already require GMO labeling, including all of Europe, Japan, India and China. Polls show that more than 90% of Americans want to know if their food is genetically engineered. We are free to choose what we want to eat and feed our children. The free market is supposed to provide consumers with accurate information about products so we can make informed choices.

Who is in Favor of Proposition 37?  Prop 37 was initiated by a grassroots organizing effort with the help of thousands of volunteers across the state, the Right to Know campaign gathered nearly one million signatures from California voters within a 10 week period.  More than 2,000 organizations – including media outlets, food manufacturers and retailers, leading consumer, environmental, farming, health, faith-based, political and labor groups – have since endorsed Yes on 37: www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements.

Who is Opposed to Proposition 37?  Not one human being has made a contribution to the campaign against Prop. 37.  Instead, the campaign is funded entirely by giant pesticide and junk food companies with a track record of making false claims about the safety of their products.  The “No” campaign’s two largest donors-- Monsanto and DuPont—are the same companies that told us Agent Orange and DDT were safe.  Further undermining the "No" campaign’s credibility is the fact that its biggest funder—Monsanto—produced a series of ads supporting labeling of GMOs in Europe in the 1990s. 

A Simple Proposition for California in 2012:  The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act is simple: The initiative would simply require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it is produced through genetic engineering, and would not allow these products to be labeled as “natural.” Prop 37 gives companies 18 months to change their labels, and allows for the GMO disclosure to appear wherever they choose on packaging.

No Cost to Consumers or Food Producers:  Companies change their labeling all the time, and research shows that Prop. 37 will have no cost impact on consumers or food producers.  In a recent study on the economic impact of Proposition 37, Joanna Shepherd Bailey, Ph.D., Professor at Emory University School of Law, concluded that there would be “no increases in prices as a result of the relabeling required.”  In Europe, introduction of GMO labeling produced no increase in food costs. David Byrne, former European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection of the European Parliament, stated that when Europe introduced GMO labeling in 1997, "it did not result in increased costs, despite the horrifying (double-digit) prediction of some interests.”

Prop. 37 Doesn’t Ban the Sale of Any Foods:  Despite opposition claims that Prop 37 would "ban the sale of thousands of groceries," it would not ban any foods at all. It merely requires that GMO-containing foods be labeled with the phrase “partially produced with genetic engineering” anywhere on the front or back of packages.

Greater Legal Certainty For Businesses: According to an independent legal analysis by James Cooper, JD, PhD, of George Mason University School of Law, Proposition 37 has been narrowly crafted in a way that provides “greater legal certainty” for businesses than other California consumer disclosure laws.  It won’t invite frivolous lawsuits.  What it will do is help California consumers make more informed choices about the food they eat.

The passing of Proposition 37 will be a huge step toward the transparency we deserve. This is about our right to know what's in our food and the right to choose for ourselves what we eat and feed our families. These are fundamental American values. Join us in helping us win back our right to know about the genetic engineering of our food system.  Vote Yes on 37 November 6th.  

"Know your food source."  -- OC