You are viewing the NationofChange archives. For the latest news and actions, visit the new
Get Email Updates | Log In | Register

Fighting for Prop 37: The Truth that $36 Million Can’t Hide

Stacy Malkan
Calitics / News Analysis
Published: Saturday 13 October 2012
While Californians are mired in debate about pet food versus steak, the real question facing voters is this: Are we going to allow out-of-state pesticide and junk food corporations tell us what we can and can’t know about what’s in the food we eat?
Article image

The people's movement for our right to know what's in our food has hit a critical fork in the road: the moment when it's time to ask ourselves and each other -- how hard are we willing to fight for our basic right to know what's in the food we're eating and feeding our families?

Proposition 37 is the  litmus test for whether there is actually a food movement in this country, writes Michael Pollan in an article to appear in Sunday's New York Times Magazine. It may also be the litmus test for whether there is democracy left in this country.

After months of sky-high support in the polls, just 10 days of relentless pounding propaganda by the pesticide industry has made a significant dent in support for Proposition 37 and our right to know if our food is genetically engineered.

So worried are the pesticide companies about California consumers having labels on genetically engineered foods that they are spending one million dollars a day flooding the airwaves with a tidal wave of deception about Prop 37.

As proof of the dishonest tactics in play, in just the past week, the anti-consumer No on 37 campaign has been accused of misleading voters by Stanford University (twice), the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and by three major newspapers.

Yet most voters are seeing only one face and hearing only one voice in the debate about Prop 37 - that of notorious pesticide-industry front man Henry Miller. Who is Henry Miller? And can easily discredited pesticide-industry lies really win an election? 

Easily Discredited Pesticide-Industry Lies

Hour after hour in every media market across the state, Henry Miller appears on TV to explain his views about Proposition 37. The ad campaign was exposed as dishonest at the outset, when Stanford University forced the anti-Prop 37 campaign to yank the ad because it falsely identified Miller as a doctor at Stanford (he is actually a researcher at the Hoover Institution), and used images of Stanford's vaulted buildings to push a political position in violation of university policy.

The edited ad was soon back on the air -- one viewer in San Francisco reported seeing it 12 times in one day -- pounding voters with Henry Miller's message that Prop 37 "makes no sense." But a lot of things that make sense to the rest of us don't make sense to Henry Miller: for example, that DDT was banned for a reason, or that exposure to radioactive elements after a nuclear power plant meltdown is not a health benefit. (Read all about the extreme views of the No on 37 science spokesperson here.)

Henry Miller is the perfect poster guy for the lack of credibility of the pesticide giants' campaign against our right to know what's in our food.  Who are they going to trot out next, the president of the Flat Earth Society?

The only honest thing about the No on 37 ads is the disclaimer that tells us who's funding this campaign of deception -- Monsanto and Dupont, the same companies that told us DDT and Agent Orange were safe.

Setting the Record Straight

Yet incredibly, it's working. Henry Miller's hypocritical script in a misleading ad campaign that was discredited as soon as it began has taken a bit hit out of the support for Prop 37.

In the ad, Miller claims the exemptions included in Prop 37 are "illogical" and included "for special interests." As if the companies for which he is working - the biggest special interests of all - would be in favor of Prop 37 if it were even stronger.

They would not. For the record, the exemptions are common sense. They follow the trajectory of labeling bills in the Europe Union and all around the world. Prop 37 will cover the vast majority of genetically engineered foods that consumers are eating - the food on supermarket shelves.

Meat, milk and eggs would be labeled if they came from genetically engineered animals. There are no genetically engineered animals in the human food supply right now, but if there were, they would have to be labeled. Which will come in handy since the first GE animal is on its way to our dinner plates - a salmon genetically engineered with an eel to grow twice as fast. Wouldn't you want to know if you were eating such a thing?

Because Prop 37 is designed to be simple and business friendly, it does not require labeling for cows that eat genetically engineered feed. It would not be a simple matter to track what cows eat. More to the point, that exemption is common around the world. It didn't make sense for California to try to leapfrog over the rest of the world with our labeling law, when we have been trying to catch up with the rest of the world for 15 years.

Yes pet food would have to be labeled if it contains genetically engineered crops like corn or soy. That's because the standard definition of food under the Sherman Act considers pet food to be food - so argue that one with the legislature.

As for other story lines the opposition is shopping -- there will be no increased costs to consumers with Prop 37. Doesn't it seem strange that these companies would spend tens of millions of dollars to convince us that adding a little ink to their labels will force them to raise the cost of groceries? And as for "shakedown lawsuits," that makes no sense when you consider the fact that there are no incentives for lawyers to sue under Prop 37.

The only shakedown lawsuits related to this issue are the thousands of farmers Monsanto is suing for planting their own seeds to grow food. In case you missed it, consider this chilling sentence from last week's Washington Post: Monsanto "has filed lawsuits around the country to enforce its policy against saving the seeds for the future." Policy against the future? Sounds about right.

Pet Food for Thought

While Californians are mired in debate about pet food versus steak, the real question facing voters is this:  Are we going to allow out-of-state pesticide and junk food corporations tell us what we can and can't know about what's in the food we eat?

"What makes you think you have the right to know?" asks Danny DeVito in a a parody video supporting Prop 37. "Knowing if you're buying or eating genetically engineered food is not your right."

"Maybe move to Europe or Japan if you want that right," says Kaitlin Olson. "Or China," adds Dave Matthews, because, "Here in American you don't get the right to know if you're eating genetically modified organisms."

Unless, unless: We demand that GMOs get labeled. Unless we vote yes on Prop 37. Unless we influence every single California voter we can to do the same.

The Yes on 37 campaign is a true people's movement for our right to know what's in our food. We will not be stopped. When California voters go to the polls this November, they will value their right to know what's in their food, rather than leaving it up to the pesticide industry and Henry Miller to make those choices for us. But in order to win this, every single one of us has to fight like hell to make it happen.

ABOUT Stacy Malkan

Stacy Malkan is the Media Director Yes on Proposition 37 Campaign

Don't want to grow my own

Don't want to grow my own food, I don't have a green thumb, I have a killer thumb. Do agree it is our right to know if food is gmo, or not. Good luck to California for leading the way.

This is all so very simple.

This is all so very simple. Stop demanding cheap food and grow your own food. Stop demanding that the companies you invest in produce record breaking profits quarter after quarter so that you get richer whilst your health silently gets worse and worse.

Here is why GMO's exist. People are breeding beyond sustainable levels, and I don't mean in developing nations as these people were able to sustain themselves until Western experts foisted West-is-best agriculture upon them. So to get more food to the table as cheaply as possible, foods were engineered to grow faster and provide higher yields per acre planted. The trade off comes in vastly lower quality foods. More chemicals are needed to grow these foods faster. It's all about the profit. Here I don't mean profit for the individual farmers either. They get very little as it is. Corporate Farms get huge welfare checks from the government and benefit from the Walmart pricing structure.

As GMO's become more an more popular, individual farmers are forced to pay more for seeds and chemicals to support the their crops. Their profits are getting smaller. It's all about the profits....for corporations.

Americans don't give a fig that their food is not high quality, all they want is cheap with meaningless labels like Organic on them. They also want to eat exotic foods all year around and see no problem trucking/flying foods in from a thousand miles away. Frankly, this fuss over GMO's is hollow and the arguement poorly structured. Prop 37 will not do what its supporters think it will do. It will be no better and no more meaningful than the label Organic.

The real fuss needs to be returning nutritional value to our foods. Insist that our fruits and vegetables have the protein and vitamin content that they did 50 years ago. Insist that our livestock eat the grasses and other foods from yesteryear and take a "normal" growth cycle (years, not months). And stop demanding foods to be flown in from other countries and stop trucking food cross-country. If artichokes cannot be grown in your area, learn to live without them. And for your health's sake stop eating pre-packaged meals. The problem resides with Us the Consumer, not the companies. We the Consumer are kings/queens of the marketplace. It's time to take your rightful place. Once this is done, then we can talk about meaningful food labels.

Come on America! This is a

Come on America! This is a super simple issue. Have the courage to resist over-complicated arguments! You have the right to know what you are eating! That's all this is about.

Don't let foolish, greedy people cloud the issue. You have the right to know what you are eating!

Did you know that you and

Did you know that you and your family have been enrolled in the largest research study ever conducted in the United States without ever signing a consent form or agreeing to participate?

Join us to learn about genetically modified foods and Proposition 37
The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act
Saturday October 20, 2012 at 1 p.m.

At the Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley
Campaign Headquarters

Carole Bartolotto, MA, RD will speak on GMO’s and Proposition 37

For more information go to: and

Genetically modified organisms (GMO's) also known as genetically modified or genetically engineered foods have been on the market since 1996 without testing by the Food and Drug administration or the U.S. Department of Agriculture and are not even labeled. You have a right to know what products are genetically modified. Proposition 37 gives you that right.

RSVP: Mike Goldman (that’s zero zero)
Come to the headquarters prior to the event and volunteer to get out the vote.

Carole Bartolotto, MA, RD has a master's degree in exercise physiology and is a registered dietitian who has twenty years of experience working in healthcare. Carole consults, writes and speaks on a variety of nutrition topics.

DPSFV and the California Democratic Party support a YES vote on Proposition 37

Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley Campaign Headquarters
14545 Victory Boulevard, Van Nuys (Between Vesper and Van Nuys Boulevard next to U.S. Bank)
Parking: City lot on Gilmore and Vesper is free on weekends; U.S. Bank lot is open after 1:00 p.m. Saturday and all day
Sunday; metered street parking is also available.

Given the recent reliable

Given the recent reliable reports of significant global Arsenic contamination of Rice due to excessive us of toxic pesticides, this should be a no-brainer. yet it probably will be. As for ‘Henry Miller’: Folk should read the real Henry Miller’s 1950’s essay on bread, ‘the Staff of Life’, for a great take on industrialized food (

Comment with your Facebook account

Comment with your Disqus account

Top Stories

comments powered by Disqus

NationofChange works to educate, inform, and fight power with people, corruption with community.

If you would like to stay up to date with the best in independent, filter-free journalism, updates on upcoming events to attend, and more, enter your email below:

7 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Support NationofChange

Our readers often tell us why they’ve decided to step up and become supporters. Here are some of the top reasons people are giving.

1. You’re keeping independent journalism alive
The corporate owned media has proven that it can’t be trusted. In a media landscape wrought with spin and corruption, NationofChange stands in very scarce company.

2. You’re sticking it to the rich, powerful, and corrupt
When you have money in this country you can get away with damn near anything, and they do. NationofChange isn’t afraid to expose these criminals no matter how powerful they are.

3. Your donation is 100% tax-deductible
NationofChange is a 501(c)3 charity. People tend to assume that many other organizations are (most nonprofits are NOT) but it’s that 501(c)3 status is a bit more rare than you think.

Read the rest...