Who is behind the No on 37 campaign?
Monsanto, the top contributor to No on 37 with $4.2 million in donations, was a primary manufacturer of Agent Orange, as was Dow Chemical, which has contributed $1.2 million to No on 37.
Agent Orange was the code name for herbicides used by the U.S. Military during the Vietnam War. U.S. soldiers were told that it was "perfectly safe" and often wore little protective clothing when applying it, as shown in our ad.
Agent Orange is now linked with various types of cancer and other diseases.
DuPont, the second largest funder of No on 37 with just over $4 million in contributions, was the first major manufacturer of DDT.
DDT was marketed as "harmless to humans" but has since been linked to breast cancer, diabetes, reproductive disorders and other hazards to human health. DDT was banned in the U.S. in 1972 due to health and environmental concerns.
Tobacco industry operatives are key players in the No on 37 Campaign, including:
No on 37 consultants, MB Public Affairs, worked for Altria (formerly Phillip Morris Companies, Inc.).
Donations to No on 37 go to the law firm of Bell, McAndrews and Hiltachk. Thomas Hiltachk was a key operative in the tobacco industry's misinformation campaign in the 1980s and 1990s, and is also:
o Treasurer of the No on Prop 37 campaign.
o Architect of efforts to dismantle California's global warming law.
o Author of union-busting Prop 32 on the November ballot which LA Times columnist Michael Hiltzik described as the "fraud to end all frauds"
Also see: Big Tobacco Shills Trying to Stop GMO Labeling in California.
Henry Miller of the Hoover Institution, a lead spokesman for No on 37, has called for the reintroduction of DDT in the U.S. and is linked to atobacco industry front group that worked to discredit science on tobacco health risks.
Consider the Source: No on 37 is a Campaign of Lies
MYTH: "The World Health Organization, American Medical Association, National Academy of Sciences and other respected medical and health organizations all conclude that genetically engineered foods are safe." Henry Miller, Hoover Institute fellow, in an op-ed in San Francisco Chronicle and highlighted in a No on 37 press release issued Friday, August 24, 2012
TRUTH: None of these organizations has concluded genetically engineered foods are safe. The American Medical Association and World Health Organization/United Nations have said mandatory safety studies should be required -- a standard that the U.S. fails to meet. Numerous studies in the scientific literature suggest genetic engineering is linked to allergies and other adverse health effects. Despite these scientific warnings, the U.S. federal government requires no safety studies for genetically engineered foods, and no long-term human health studies have been conducted.
A National Academy of Sciences report concludes that products of genetic engineering technology "carry the potential for introducing unintended compositional changes that may have adverse effects on human health."
MYTH: Proposition 37 will raise the cost of groceries by "hundreds of dollars" per year.
TRUTH: Disclosing the presence of genetically engineered ingredients on food labels will not force food companies to raise the cost of groceries. In a recent study of the economic impact of Proposition 37, Joanna Shepherd Bailey, Ph.D., Professor at Emory University School of Law, concluded: "Consumers will likely see no increases in prices as a result of the relabeling required."
MYTH: Proposition 37 will "ban the sale of thousands of groceries"
TRUTH: Proposition 37 does not ban genetically engineered foods; it merely requires that they be labeled with the phrase "Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering."
MYTH: Proposition 37 will result in "shakedown lawsuits."
TRUTH: Proposition 37 will enable consumers to make informed choices about the food we're eating and feeding our children. The lawsuits argument is a red herring. Food companies accurately label for calories, fat content and other information required by law; likewise they will abide by the requirements of Prop 37. According to a legal analysis by James Cooper, JD, PhD, of George Mason University School of Law, Proposition 37 is unlikely to result in frivolous lawsuits.
MYTH: Prop. 37 would prohibit processed foods from being marketed as "natural."
TRUTH: Proposition 37 applies only to genetically engineered foods, not other foods. Processed foods such as canned olives could still be marketed as "natural" as long as the food is not genetically engineered. See legal analysis by Joseph Sandler of the law firm Sandler, Reiff, Young and Lamb. See more information about this red herring storyline.