Monsantos Top 7 Lies About GMO Labeling and Proposition 37

By Mike Barrett, Natural Society News, 24 August 2012

Monsanto has even recently published a page on their site titled Taking a Stand: Proposition 37, The California Labeling Proposal, where the GMO giant attempts to logically explain why it is against GMO labeling.

Due to the near future voting on November 6, 2012 for Californias Proposition 37, there has been a lot of heat going back and forth concerning GMO foods. Up until now, 10s of million of dollars have been funneled into the opposing side of the bill, with biotechnology giant Monsanto dishing out a whopping $4.2 million alone. Monsanto has even recently published a page on their site titled Taking a Stand: Proposition 37, The California Labeling Proposal, where the GMO giant attempts to logically explain why it is against GMO labeling. Needless to say, the post reeks of false and misleading statements, and oftentimes downright deception. Here are the top 7 lies Monsanto wants you to believe regarding GMO labeling and Prop 37.

Monsantos Top 7 Lies

1

1. The billwould require a warning label on food products. GMO foods will not require a warning label (although they ought to!) Actually, foods made with GMOs would say partially produced with genetic engineering or may be partially produced with genetic engineering, not a warning label, but a clear warning sign to those of us who want to avoid GMOs. The whole idea of the GMO labeling bill is to make consumers aware of what they are consuming, not to bash GMOs on every label. We have a right to know. 2. The safety and benefits of these ingredients are well established. This may be the most comical statements of all. While no long-term studies portray the dangers or benefits of GMOs, countless studies using a shorter time interval show not only how GMOs are a danger to humans, but also the environment and the biosphere. One study published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences shows that GMO corn and other GM food is indeed contributing to the obesity epidemic and causing organ disruption. Through the mass genetic modification of nature via GMO crops, animals, biopesticides, and the mutated insects that are created as a result, mega biotechnology corporations are threatening the overall genetic integrity of the environment as well as all of humankind. This is just one reason that GMO crops are continuously banned around the world in nations such as France, Peru, Hungary, and Poland. 3. FDA says that such labeling would be inherently misleading to consumers. While the FDA may think that labeling GMO foods would be misleading, in reality the exact opposite is true. Most consumers are in the dark when it comes to GMOs residing in their purchased foods. Foods being sold that contain hidden GMOs is much more misleading than letting the consumer be aware. The FDA may call it misleading since GMOs are safe, but research shows that this is far from the truth. 4. The American Medical Association just re-affirmed that there is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods. Although true, the American Medical Association also recently called for mandatory premarket safety studies for GMOs a decision virtually polar
2

opposite of the above quote. It seems that the AMA is being inconsistent no matter which view is taken. Here is a quote from Consumers Union recently noted in its reaction to AMAs announcement: The AMAs stance on mandatory labeling isnt consistent with its support for mandatory pre-market safety assessments. If unexpected adverse health effects, such as an allergic reaction, happen as a result of GE, then labeling could perhaps be the only way to determine that the GE process was linked to the adverse health effect. 5. the main proponents of Proposition 37 are special interest groups and individuals opposed to food biotechnology who are not necessarily engaged in the production of our nations food supply. Not engaged in the production of our nations food supply? Countless farmers, food producers, and consumers who are engaging with their hard-earned dollar support Proposition 37. In fact, many farmers have taken legal action against Monsanto in the past for widespread genetic contamination. Here is a growing list of endorsements for the GMO labeling bill. 6. The California proposal would serve the purposes of a few special interest groups at the expense of the majority of consumers. Monsanto says at the expense of the majority of consumers. Maybe the biotech giant isnt aware that GMO labeling is so desired that the pro-labeling side has a 3-to-1 advantage, based on recent polls. The majority of consumers actually want GMO foods to be labeled. It is no secret that government organizations such as the FDA and USDA are in bed with Monsanto, but this is a decision for the people not any government organizations. It has also been revealed that Monsanto has control of virtually all U.S. diplomats, and the company has even used its massive influence to force other nations to accept their genetically modified crops through economic threats and political pressure. 7. Consumers have broad food choices today, but could be denied these choices if Prop 37 prevails. There is absolutely no reason to think that because of Proposition 37, food choices would become more limited. Actually, the bill would add value to the

purchase by consumers, as no one would need to eat in the dark and unknowingly consume GMOs. This article was published at NationofChange at: http://www.nationofchange.org/monsanto-s-top-7-lies-about-gmo-labelingand-proposition-37-1345823619. All rights are reserved.

Brazilian Court Demands Nestle Label GMO Ingredients

By Anthony Gucciardi Natural, Society News , 22 August 2012

Perhaps even more shocking is the fact that the court exposed a deep relationship between the Brazilian government and a major food industry lobby group that was forged in an effort to stop the court from issuing the ruling.

It appears another victory has been declared in the battle against Monsanto and GMO ingredients. According to a major Brazilian business publication and GMWatch, a Brazilian court has demanded that multi-billion dollar food giant Nestle label all of their products as genetically modified that have over 1% GMO content. The ruling reportedly coincides with Brazilian law which demands all food manufacturers alert consumers to the presence of GMOs within their products. Perhaps even more shocking is the fact that the court exposed a deep relationship between the Brazilian government and a major food industry lobby group that was forged in an effort to stop the court from issuing the ruling. This of course is predictable when considering that not only does Monsanto have a massive amount of political power with a figurehead in multiple branches of government, but when considering the previous

WikiLeaks report that detailed how those who opposed Monsanto and biotechnology would be subject to military style trade wars. The WikiLeaks documents revealed just how closely Monsanto has been working with the United States government, and just how serious the U.S. is about ensuring that the corporations GMO crops are widely accepted across the globe. Amazingly, the Brazilian court took a stand against this corruption. Instead of groveling to Brazilian officials and mega biotechnology groups, the Brazilian business wire reports that the court determined the Brazilian government to be illegally working with the food industry entity known as ABIA. Furthermore, the court stated that consumers have the basic right to know what they are putting into their mouths especially when it comes to GMO ingredients. The court issued a fine of $2,478 per product that was found to violate the ruling after finding the presence of GMO ingredients in Nestles strawberry Bono cookies. Other nations have taken similar actions against Monsanto and GMOs as a whole, with Poland banning Monsantos GM maize and Peru passing a monumental 10 year ban on GMOs as a whole. In the United States, the government continues to ignore and deny the concerns surrounding genetically modified crops and ingredients, instead streamlining the approval process for Monsantos new modified creations. This article was published at Nation of Change at: http://www.nationofchange.org/brazilian-court-demands-nestle-label-gmoingredients-1345649379. All rights are reserved.

12 New GM Crops Up For USDA Approval

USDA Fast-Tracks GMO Crop Approval Process By Melinda Suelflow, Campaigns Organic Consumers Association, August 15, 2012 Straight to the Source

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_26072.cfm
Earlier this summer, the USDA posted twelve new GE crops for public comment with a September 11 deadline, and nine are under the new fast-tracked process. That's twelve new GMOs to review and issue comments on in two months! Here's the lowdown. Three of the new crops are under the old petition process. Under the old process there is only one 60-day public comment period. Here are the three crops under the old process: --- Dow 2,4-D and Glufosinate Tolerant Soybean (APHIS-2012-0019) Take Action! Since the introduction of GM crops, the US has seen herbicide use increase by over 300 million pounds. Big Biotech originally claimed that weeds would not develop resistance to glyphosate (RoundUp), but they have and these new "superweeds" have become the driving force behind new crops engineered for stacked, or multiple, herbicide tolerances. Adoption of these new crops will lead to dramatic increases in the use of higher risk herbicides such as 2,4-D and dicamba, perpetuating the herbicide treadmill that is already in place. 2,4-D is already the third-most-used US herbicide, after glyphosate and atrazine, and as a leading source of dioxin pollution, it's one of the most deadly. As of yet, however, it's hardly used on soy at all. Just 3 percent of total US soybean acres were treated with 2,4-D in 2006. Not only will this percentage skyrocket once Agent Orange Soy hits the market, the amount used per acre may triple, according to the USDA. ---Bayer Glyphosate and Isoxaflutole Tolerant Soybean (APHIS-2012-0029) ---Syngenta Corn Rootworm Resistant Corn (APHIS-2012-0024) Take Action! Syngenta's genetically engineered Bt crops have been banned in many countries because of the documented harm they cause to people, animals and insects. Bt corn produces its own insecticide that kills bad bugs and good bugs alike, Bt corn pollen has reportedly killed peasants in the Philippines, Bt livestock feed harms animals, and the Bt toxin is now found in the blood of over 80% of women and their unborn children. Under the new process, USDA has also opened nine additional new crops for public comment. This initial comment period applies to the petitions for nonregulated status which include information submitted by the petitioning company. Once USDA has the completed their environmental analyses they will open a final 30-day comment period for the decision-making documents. Here are the 9 crops under the new process with the same September 11 deadline: ---Okanagan Non-Browning Apple (APHIS-2012-0025) Take Action!

Okanagan's "Arctic" apple would be the first genetically engineered version of a food that people directly bite into. According to the latest study by the Environmental Working Group, conventionally grown apples are the most pesticide contaminated fruit or vegetable on the market. Conventional apples are dangerous, and GMO apples are just a dumb idea - one not even supported by many in the apple industry itself! ---Dow 2,4-D, Glyphosate and Glufosinate tolerant Soybean (APHIS-2012-0032) Take Action! ---Monsanto Dicamba Tolerant Soybean (APHIS-2012-0047) Take Action! According to the Institute for Science in Society (ISIS), "dicamba is actually an old herbicide that served alongside "agent orange" in Vietnam, and has been resurrected as an environmentally friendly chemical through the magic of public relations." ---BASF Imidazolinone Tolerant Soybean (APHIS-2012-0028) ---Monsanto High Yield Soybean (APHIS-2012-0020) ---Monsanto Glyphosate Tolerant Canola (APHIS-2012-0035) ---Pioneer Glyphosate Tolerant Canola (APHIS-2012-0031) ---Monsanto Hybrid Corn (APHIS-2012-0027) ---Genective Glyphosate Tolerant Corn (APHIS-2012-0046)

USDA Fast-Tracks GMO Crop Approval Process Despite massive public opposition, last year the USDA announced plans to streamline its genetically engineered petition process under the Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Earlier this year these controversial changes were implemented, speeding up the approval process for new genetically engineered seeds and crops. The new process will cut in half the time it takes for new GE seeds and crops to enter the market. USDA claims that the new fast-track process allows for earlier input from the public to improve the quality of its environmental analyses. But according to a USDA press release, the new process is a part of efforts by the Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, to "transform USDA into a high-performing organization that focuses on its customers." The customers that USDA is so keen on assisting are none other than Monsanto, Dow, Dupont, BASF, Syngenta, and the rest of the Biotech bullies!