Is the fix in for California’s Prop 37?


Media Prepares Public to Accept Defeat of Prop 37 to Label GMOs

Aaron Dykes

Is the fix in for California’s Prop 37 before the polls even close later this evening?

Supposedly unbiased papers mirroring mega-corporate interests have lined up by the dozens to uncritically regurgitate the phony claims that GMO food is ‘tested’ and ‘safe’ throughout the election cycle. Now, they are celebrating their own success over cries to Californians to go back to sleep and ignore the public’s right to know, systematically campaigning to dull the senses and avoid sparking a movement that could have qucikly spread across the United States to demand labeling and greater transparency with genetically modified organisms on the market.

After weeks of the “No on 37″ crowd – Monsanto, DuPont, Pepsico, etc. – spending upwards of $46 million, and reportedly $1 million per day, to lobby against the food labeling initiative, with media lapdogs in tow, the MSM are reporting that Prop 37 may indeed fail.

Polls were initially clear, with over 60% of California voters clearly in favor of knowing what’s in their food. But a deluge of heavily-financed propaganda has sadly whittled that support down, with support for labeling (Yes on Prop 37) dropping to only 39% according to current reports.

Fudging poll numbers has its own science, as well as art, so it’s difficult to know if these numbers really represent Californians, but it is clear that it is influencing them to accept defeat before the fact. On election day, anyone combing the news is given the impression that Prop 37 has become a hopeless measure, even if the public in general have made clear that they want to know what is in the food they are eating.

But without a doubt, op-eds and even supposedly objective reports have boldly claimed that Prop 37 is not only much ado about nothing (there are already ways to choose organic, they say) but potentially costly and even damaging (by way of supposedly encouraging frivolous lawsuits over labels). The L.A. Times has predictably led the charge in this effort. Yesterday’s “Proposition 37 campaign is about everything but the meat,” blamed pro-labeling activists for trying to hold the other side accountable for misrepresenting quotes from the FDA, instead insinuating that the activists were the misleading ones. It further argues that Prop 37 is poorly written and would be ineffective, and this bunk argument is entirely typical.

These talking points are appearing all across the media in the final hours leading up to this election. The Christian Science Monitor asks suggestively if Prop 37 is really about ‘Safer food or invitation for lawsuits?‘ while Slate published ‘Delusions of Danger: Why the food movement’s demonization of genetically modified crops isn’t just scientifically baseless—it’s politically stupid.’ Meanwhile, others pen articles giving the misleading perception that biologists have been surveyed, and indeed ‘say ‘No’ on GMO Labels Proposition 37.‘ Indeed, there are many scientists against Prop 37, but at study of their ties to Big Agra would be very revealing of where their interests lie.

The Daily Nexus ridiculously argues ‘Don’t Let Frankenfoods Scare You.’ Patrick Allen, admittedly imaginative, argues the literary point, writing, “Perhaps if proponents of Prop 37 had access to a library they would realize how ironic the term “Frankenfood” (used to describe GMOs) is. The Frankenstein monster was actually an intellectually benign monster until he became hated by a hysterical mob.” The implication is clear – the right to know crowd is somehow hysterical, and themselves to blame for demanding food labels and sufficient testing for GMOs.

None of these and plenty of other dirty tricks are new, and bought out media has been a continuing problem for the movement trying to achieve food accountability.

Just days ago, the New York Times was engaged in trashing activists urging the Department of Justice to investigate the misrepresentation of the FDA’s position and misuse of their official logo by the ‘No on 37′ camp.

Jeffrey M. Smith: GMOs Flourishing Based on Consumer Ignorance


Monsanto & friends have formed their disinformation campaign around the issue of consumer wallets, deceitfully claiming that Prop 37 would cost people $400 per year in the handed-down costs of labeling, despite the fact that food companies have painlessly adapted to changes in labeling requirements over the years, such as nutritional content, and have jumped at opportunities to brag about supposed beneficially ingredients contained in their products. As if GMO mega-corps hellbent on domination really care about saving consumers money! Their effort is quite clearly a massive deception to fight transparency and keep herd-like Americans in the dark about the takeover of food staples with experimental crops.

Despite what the L.A. Times, Reuters and countless local papers in California have uncritically reported as ‘safe and tested,’ GMOs remain frightening. Even more frightening is the level of personal awareness about the issue. Our Infowars exposé found that many members of the public were ignorant altogether of the GMO issue, many believed that the foods had been approved as ‘safe’ only after thorough testing, while many more had little idea how many products on the shelves contained hidden GMO ingredients, even at high profile ‘organic’ food stores like Whole Foods.

Even USA Today admits that the FDA does NOT test GMO foods before they go to market. Instead, responsibility for testing the safety of these food-like products is held solely by the companies that create them.

Having personally read Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods by Jeffrey Smith, which summarizes numerous studies conducted both by the GM industry and from independent scientists around the globe, it is shockingly clear that these pesticide & GMO corporations have knowingly hidden the truth from the public in order to force their market share, and in many cases purposely conducted bad science to give the appearance of safety. This includes all manner of tricks including keeping feeding studies short, defining parameters to avoid real issues, diluting the GMO food stuffs given to test animals and discouraging and sometimes legally barring independent researchers from testing GM crops.

After reading up on GMO and viewing literally dozens of documentaries exposing the known risks of genetically modified foods, I am absolutely appalled by this strong-armed effort to brainwash the public to vote against its own interests and hide the presence of GMO foods on the U.S. market.

In a final appeal, all California voters should vote their consciences, ignore the expectations of Prop 37′s success as portrayed in the media and never give up fighting for transparency in our foods, for access to safe foods and a defeat of those engaged in a takeover of the global food supply for the benefit of a tiny but well-connected few.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

© 2012 Pakalert Press. All rights reserved.