The “Empire Strikes Back” Against California’s GMO Initiative

July 3, 2012
Print This Post Print This Post

factsCharges are flying. Here are some facts.

As we have reported many times, GMO foods are not safe. Remember those rats fed GMO corn whose offspring were fine but whose grandchildren were sterile? Is this uncontrolled experiment on human beings a good idea?

The California Right to Know 2012 Ballot Initiative, if enacted in November, would require GMO food—that is, all food containing genetically engineered ingredients—to be so labeled in the state. Consumers all over the US are in favor of this by wide margins. It is very important because, with the full power of the US government behind GMO, and huge amounts of money flowing back to Washington from GMO producers, the only way to stop the GMO juggernaut is to tell consumers what they are buying.

The usual suspects are mounting a huge disinformation campaign against the initiative. A leading coalition is StopCostlyFoodLabeling.com, the funding for which comes in part from the Council for Biotechnology Information—whose members include Monsanto, Dow, and other GMO companies.

Peggy Lemaux, an extension specialist in the Department of Environmental Science at UC Berkeley, was recently quoted in a National Public Radio piece as opposing the initiative. She has credentials, but keep in mind that she’s a member of an agricultural science council that includes all the major biotech companies, and was recently the recipient of a financial award provided by Monsanto.

One of the chief charges against the initiative at the moment is that it will be used by bounty-hunting trial lawyers to file abusive lawsuits against food companies, including natural food companies, arguing that they are selling foods or supplements that contain undisclosed GMOs. This charge is designed to cause division within the natural health and natural foods community by frightening off companies that might normally support the initiative.

Is there any truth to their allegation? Will “Label GMO,” if passed, turn into a rich source of income for racketeering—legal bucket shops and bounty-hunting lawyers? In short, no. This is not a valid charge.

Currently there are many abusive lawsuits going on in California, many of them associated with an earlier initiative passed in 1986 called Proposition 65 (formally titled “The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986”). This poorly designed and poorly written law too often allows lawyers to make false charges against businesses—particularly supplement companies—for not adequately warning consumers about trace amounts of heavy metals or other chemicals in their products. It also allows plaintiffs to keep a “bounty” of 25% of whatever civil penalties are collected.

The vague rules governing the law and the bounty seem to encourage some lawyers to try to make a fast buck by shaking down companies for a settlement prior to going to court. This is possible because, among other problems, Prop 65 has defined allowable levels of these contaminants for only about 300 of the over 800 different chemical elements covered by the law. Not only are some of those defined limits unrealistically low, but undefined limits mean that any trace may be considered toxic and actionable.

This is not good science. Metals and other such elements naturally occur in food; the more natural the product, the more likely that it will contain what might mistakenly be taken for a contaminant. Our bodies are designed to remove elements such as lead every day so long as we are not being flooded with them. It is bad enough for a company to be expected to test for over 800 different elements and compounds, but to do so with defined standards on only 300 of them is indefensible.

Label GMO, the current initiative, is not at all like Prop 65. The differences have been carefully delineated in a paper by James C. Cooper, PhD in economics from Emory University and JD magna cum laude from George Mason School of Law, where he is currently an adjunct law professor. Among the important points Cooper makes:

  1. Label GMO provides seven years in which producers can gradually reduce the GMO exposure of their products from no more than 5% to zero.
  2. So long as food or supplement producers have a statement from their supplier stating that to the supplier’s best belief there are no GMO elements, the producer is immune from suit.
  3. The same is true if the food is certified organic and certified GMO-free by an independent organization, or falls into some other categories—the producer is immune from GMO labeling liability. No doubt it will make sense for some food producers to help create an independent certifier.
  4. Once a violation has been identified, the producer also has 30 days in which to correct it, in which case there is no liability.
  5. There is no “bounty” for plaintiffs who initiate lawsuits.

Professor Cooper is not an activist supporting the Label GMO Initiative. He is a respected scholar pointing out that Label GMO should not be crudely tarnished with Prop 65’s failings. Indeed, Label GMO was drafted with Prop 65’s failings in mind. Although both involve labeling and both allows lawsuits, they are otherwise very different laws.

The opponents of the Label GMO initiative—led and financed, we can expect, by GMO producers working as surreptitiously as possible—will do whatever they can to defeat it. They know the initiative is currently popular with consumers and voters. Consumers naturally want to know what is GMO food and what is not, and feel, rightly, that they have a right to know. The GMO producers can be expected to use scare tactics and to try to enlist natural food companies on their side, or at least blunt their support for the initiative, by using any charge they think will stick. Our job is to give you, and California voters in particular, the facts, pure and simple. Please read Dr. Cooper’s full report for all the facts about why Label GMO is not “another Prop 65.”

And stay tuned. This is just one battle in what will be a long, drawn out, expensive conflict.

55 Responses to “The “Empire Strikes Back” Against California’s GMO Initiative”

  1. It is difficult to disagree with this article. you have a lot of reasons

       0 likes

  2. John says:

    I think this is the problem with modern technology. Don’t get me wrong, modern technology is great when used properly. It is when it goes to the extreme when the problems begin to show.

       0 likes

  3. dodie Humphrey says:

    I read that Monsanto has bought out all the seed companies, if that is so where can we buy any seeds that have not been GMO’D.

       0 likes

  4. coalmine canary says:

    If The Empire Is Striking Back with false education, we too can use the peaceful power of the pen.

    I suggest:

    A) Very simple: Cross-post articles to blogs and ask that readers seed them around the web
    B) The knowledgeable among us who can answer tough questions with knowledge and authority, dial in to radio and TV talk shows
    C) Write letters to the editor
    D) Organize lectures and presentations by trusted, knowledgeable people. Funding: http://www.fdncenter.org
    E) Sources where lectures can happen: Community colleges, county fairs, churches, synagogues, etc. Free publicity in the events calendar of the newspapers.
    F) College kids talk to their parents and wake them up. Write letters to the college newsletter editors.

    There is lots we can do to educate the masses in the right and truthful direction! We need not be victims, that’s just a game.

       11 likes

    • NoMonsanto says:

      “What Will be Monsanto’s Next Move?” This question we must always ask until this evil corporation is extinct. (What a great visualization: See Monsanto et al in the ash heap of history!)

      A few thoughts and questions:

      —The people of California need to find out all of the PR mechanisms–especially in Sacramento. Who are all of the “players?”

      —Who are the California politicians and entities most likely to be bribed (”incentivized”) by big biotech?

      —Who are the California newspaper editors, publishers, writers most likely to be bribed?

      —Who are the California academic shills and pseudo-scientists most likely to perform their required PR for big biotech?

      —Once the American people finally wake up to the American industrial agricultural holocaust, we need to put the players where they belong–in prison.

         0 likes

  5. coalmine canary says:

    Considering the overwhelming public sentiment and that two CA Senators (Feinstein, Boxer) have co-signed the bill, I am confident that the Right to Know About GMOs will pass into law, and Monsanto will take a nose dive. Considering that several Monsanto agents sit on the FDA’s panel, and own stock in BigPharma, then the monopoly over natural supplements will have to be weakened too. There is hope!

       4 likes

    • Suzi says:

      OH, do not be overly confident. This has been tried in 19 other states & failed because Monsanto will spend a gizillian $ to make it fail. (18 of the states tried to do it via the legislature & Monsanto threatened to sue). We have to gird up our loins & be ready for the battle. When you know enough about this you will be scared speechless because their intent is so diabolical and they have so much power.

      The US senate just vetoed it 26 to 73 with Boxer & Feinstein voting to label it, but a whole slue of other Demos voting it down. Just be aware of how tough this could be. In 1999 the European’s stopped what would have been a disaster for us & a huge win for Monsanto & Monsanto will do everything it can to keep that from to happening again.

         0 likes

    • NoMonsanto says:

      Thank you so much for your comments! Please keep them flowing!

      Monsanto’s fall is inevitable; in spite of appearances, such might already be happening.

      It seems to me that we must all see to it that American agriculture changes for the better. As it now exists, it is one of the greatest technological hoaxes in world history. Quite the hyperbole one may say. Maybe not.

         0 likes

  6. Tim Wallace says:

    California must vote to enforce labelling of GMO products. The rest of the world insists on such labelling and very few people buy foodstuffs containing GMO’s in the rest of the world. All genetically modified seeds should be unpatentable, and the patents that exist should be cancelled retrospectively. Any damages that farmers have financially suffered as a consequence of these purported patent infringements should be repaid forthwith with interest amounting to at least 10% per annum, compounded from the date that the monies had been paid.
    However, are there enough politicians who are prepared to enable such legislation to be pushed through? Control of legislation must be removed from Corporate America!

       7 likes

  7. Roger Fuller says:

    7-5-2012
    Dear ANH-USA and members:
    Your article says that Prop. 65 has 800 different chemical elements covered by the law. There are only 92 known natural chemical elements in the World. You must mean 800 chemical COMPOUNDS or MIXTURES. covered by the law ( Prop. 65 ). But otherwise, I completely agree with you about Proposition 65. It is just about the worst law California ever passed. Almost every store in the state was forced to put a sign in their window listing every chemical they had that could cause cancer. I even saw sand listed. It was ridiculous.
    On the issue of the California Right to Know 2012 Ballot Initiative, Notice that our enemy : the Biotechnology Industry is stating that ” natural food companies are selling natural foods or supplements that contain undisclosed GMO’s and lawyers will sue them “. But it has been known from the very beginning of genetically engineered foods that GE plants can contaminate organic plants through cross pollination. I think that the natural food companies best defense is to simply come out and admit that almost all organic food has a small amount of GE plant contamination which cannot be avoided but that 100% of that contamination is the FAULT of the genetically engineered food industry. ( So called Biotechnology Industry ). The liability belongs 100% with the Biotech companies. Their arguement against labeling is totally worthless.

       6 likes

    • Caring says:

      …best idea ever, you mean..do you really want to eat shit?? The companies that DO NOT WANT THIS LAW TO BE PASSED, are obviously selling you crap in their product–so easy to figure out… and caps, really? for your being anal enough to correct that, wow.. take care of OUR food, Be kind and respect,, start there..

         1 likes

  8. Although I do not live in California, I am seriously concerned by the corporate push to add GMO crops and food animals into the nation’s food supply. I am furiously opposed to this experiment using the American public as guinea pigs in the endless corporate effort to make a fast buck. If GMO foods are so safe, let the corporate officers, their children and grandchildren prove it by eating such foods themselves. Monsanto is the best (or worst) known, but certainly not the only company, to force their “Franken-foods” into our diets. Do not let them!

       23 likes

    • Mike says:

      Gmo’s have been in our foods for decades. Now they dominate processed foods. If you eat products containing non organic sugar (beets), potatoes, corn (hfcs and other derivatives), soy, or any meat or dairy (rbgh, fed gmo crops) then you’ve been eating gmo’s. That’s only a partial list.

         1 likes

  9. Justin says:

    Monsanto is one of the most corrupt and evil corporations in America. They pulled off one of the largest scams in U.S. history with soybeans. There is allot of experts and farmers that believe they flew planes over fields to drop GMO soybeans in the fields of farmers that were not” using their unnatural GMO patented soybean. Then they had the soybeans tested coming from the farmers fields and even if only 1% of the soybeans produced proved to be their genetic freaks they sued them and spend hundreds of thousands with evil greedy lawyers to ruin the farmers financially and force them to settle by agreeing to use their unnatural soybeans. We all know soybeans really aren’t that good for you to begin with, now 83% of the soybean market is an even worse soybean. American politics is bought and paid for, period. It really is sad we can not all get together and demand change, real change. Outlawing any campaign contributions by anyone other than a voting united states citizen. Not corporations, PACs, foreign governments and other entities that are “Not” citizens.

       23 likes

  10. C F CALDWELL says:

    Genetically engineered crops are not natural. While I am not a purist, nature would never place such a disparate/foreign gene into another organism. There have never been studies to demonstrate the safety of these GMO foods. The FDA should err on the side of safety, as most European nations have done, and ban use of GMOs in the food supplies. Therefore, we must know, by labeling, what foods contain these foreign genes.

       17 likes

  11. Ron Adams says:

    I am one American who believes I have an absolute right to know what I am purchasing and most especially eating. The only reason I am not informed is to hide the truth for profits for wealthy individuals who don’t seem to be enlightened into reality. Well ,maybe they own false reality. Let’s just put it out there and do away with this cover up.

       14 likes

  12. Crystal Pomeroy says:

    How exciting that California can generate such great and urgent legislation. I tried repeatedly to share this on Facebook and was blocked, by…. ?!

       8 likes

    • Haji Warf says:

      This is not being done through the legislative process, which failed us, as in so many other states. The measure is a truly grassroots, citizen’s initiative — I have the blisters on my feet to prove it. Nearly a million signatures were gathered earlier this year by thousands of volunteers throughout the state. We, the People, put it on the ballot, not politicians.

         8 likes

  13. hankbob says:

    Monsanto wants to control all the food in the world by having patents on all the food seed varieties on the planet while at the same time eliminating competitive natural seeds.This is the diabolical end game. We need to focus more outlawing the patenting of biotech created frankenorganisms…and then all this seed monopolization will stop and we’ll go back to natural foods the way evolution intended it to be for our respective human DNAs.
    It’s pretty obvious isn’t it? What are you all nuts out there?

       17 likes

  14. Patricia R. King says:

    Agribusinesses, like far too many financial institutions, suffer from the “too big to fail” syndrome. We need to downsize them to cure them of their firmly held belief that their bottom line in the shortrun is more important than the health of the human race in the long run.

       14 likes

  15. Tim says:

    “…..Remember those rats fed GMO corn whose offspring were fine but whose grandchildren were sterile? Is this uncontrolled experiment on human beings a good idea?…..”

    It is astonishing that such a sentence can be written, even if ironically. We see here the Great Agenda, openly espoused by Gates and the other Bilderburgers, to decimate the world’s population, without licence or consultation. It is hard to see how anybody would answer “Yes please” to the question “Do you wish to be rendered sterile, along with your unborn future grandchildren?”
    We should also remember that surviving offspring are also significantly sicklier than controls, and far more likely to perish from other health challenges.
    It would seem that many of the new technologies being unleashed on a naive and ignorant public are implicitly designed to further this agenda, in line with the Talmudic injunction to “Destroy the memory of the Amalekites”.
    You are an Amalekite, in the psychotic imagination of these sons of Khazaria.

       4 likes

  16. Connie DeJong says:

    Thank you for explaining some of the conflict we are about to see regarding the Label GMO initiative.
    I also appreciate the effort that has been put into this and the fact that it will be on the ballot in Ca. I track EWG list of GMO products and do not purchase anything that might be GMO. That is unfair to some producers, but how could I know if they are using non-GMO ingredients until this labeling law is in effect. I am for bio-technology advancements made to improve crop production, but not by adding pesticides to the seeds or making them Round-up ready so herbicides can be sprayed on them without killing them. There seems to be no conscience benefit regarding the planet or humanity that Dow or Monsanto has put into their products.

       11 likes

  17. james herrin says:

    i strongly beelieve that gmo food is bad and it should be labeled.

       5 likes

  18. After reading this article, I must say. We have a tendency to give Corporations, Political Parties, Government Institution etc., etc. Way too much importance. They only have the power me and you grant them, lets not forget that. Enough said.

       2 likes

  19. Emily Dale says:

    I choose to buy only organically-grown or raised foods, as I cannot trust that conventional foods are safe to eat any longer. so long as Monsanto or one of its cronies has several of its former employees in high places in the FDA and USDA, I cannot trust any information they circulate. What does appall me is that members of Congress are willing to expose their lives, those of their families and their constituents to unproven and untested products that may do severe harm.

       7 likes

  20. ToeTagTunny says:

    Well I for one would certainly want to know what I’m shoving down my gob.. Sure wouldn’t want to discover people (soylent green) in my lamb chops.

       1 likes

  21. eileen miller says:

    The proof is the money and effort Monsanto has and is currently expending to stop the labeling of GMO’s. If they didn’t have something to hide they wouldn’t want GMO’s keep secret in this country. Even China is labeling GMO’s. Meanwhile, Monsanto is doing everything to fast track more GMO foods for approval hoping to have 100% by the time they are forced to label. Why are our regulatory agencies and government officials not protecting the public’s health when 96/% of consumers want labeling.

       7 likes

  22. The Rev. Linda Wilson says:

    If gmos were safe, the industry would not hesitate to label them!

       6 likes

  23. Robaire M. Viloria says:

    We need to elect persons that are for the people. And, don’t elect their children their parents are at fault for this action. You know Original Sin.

       1 likes

  24. Dave Dunaway says:

    Whether or not you believe GMO is harmful is not the question. This is about informed consent. Let the public decide what they want to put in their bodies. It is a simple matter. If there is nothing to hide, label it.

       6 likes

  25. Michele FitzGerald says:

    I am a consumer who is grateful for information based upon logic, reason and rationale to combat sensational, dramatic and misleading information that stirs consumer emotions in order to gain legal and political support. It is far more difficult to be a consumer today than it is to identify harmful products in the food industry. The “squeaky wheel” used to get the grease but today “reality based upon the absurd” is awarded the most attention. As a consumer I cannot count upon my government to protect my best interest re: human health over and above the health of the economy. I cannot count upon manufacturers, farmers, and engineers to serve my best interests because industry is driven by market expansion, not balance. I cannot protect my best interests as a consumer because the economy is based upon consumerism that sustains dependence, debt, and ignorance. Consumer welfare is successfully delegated to authority in these terms. The fact remains GMOs exist and will remain in the market no matter how well the fight or how right the fight for either side. Litigation takes the limelight while health of human beings remains a non-value in government, industry and law. Information used to be power to consumers but now it is power solely captured by marketers in social networks. Consumers are guinea pigs with all the trappings of a caged rat and experimental procedures created to profit until it can be shown to harm…and when that happens it will be too little too late. Please consider the consumer perspective on topics such as GMOs and avoid if you will arrogance of protecting consumer best interest when all consumers need is to live in a society that values human health over profit. It is after all a Democracy where the majority rules, not special interests ruling the majority.

       3 likes

  26. There is a new document by scientists on GMO, titled “GMO Myths and Truths.” Download it from http://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/58.

       0 likes

  27. In reality in their desperation to maintain complete control of the consumer mind the producers and promoters are leaving themselves open to endless suits using the same reason and logic they employ hoping to recruit borderline health food and supplement producers to join in their opposition to this fair and balanced foundational law. They will be forced by growing international opposition to GMO, labeled or not to test for and accept liability for all side effects including metals in the derivative products they create.My advice to them, the health food producers is old fashioned but apt;”lie down with dogs get up scratching with fleas!” ” Surely I have set them in slippery places saith the Lord!”and”Those turned aside after gain I will quickly lead to destruction!” “They who destroy the temple of God will I destroy!” And,” I will destroy those who spoil the earth.” While these are old fashion cautions they historically have an uncanny way of coming true for any scholars who know the minutae of history in the rise and fall of all civilizations. GMO is a disaster already happening in the Green Backlash seen in Europe and elsewhere. The investors will be left with bankrupt corporations and lawsuits while the management class like former Governor Romney will have slipped all the funds into their offshore accounts!

       1 likes

  28. We have the right to know what we eat. That is non-negotiable.

       4 likes

  29. Dea says:

    Zero tollarence for GMOs is exactly what it needed. We should be sifting through these rediculous messages from those involved in production and or the pushing of these things on animals and humans. They’ve been proven unsafe and cruel. We care not for their pocketbooks, we care for the safety of our children, families and friends and for their animals.

       1 likes

  30. One of the things the opponents of the Label GMO initiative continuously pitch is the high cost of the labels. This is baloney: any company that can afford to print its logo on a label can certainly afford a “Contains GMO” seal or a line of text; the cost of that is practically ZERO.

    There IS one cost that will increase the price of processed foods: the tens of million$ Monsanto, their ilk, Big Food and Agribusiness WILL be spending to try to defeat the initiative. They will go after us, the consumers, to recover those costs. The cost will be there WHETHER THE INITIATIVE PASSES OR NOT! That cost will not vanish if the initiative fails.

    So, do not let anybody con you: come voting time, vote YES to labeling those GMOs.

       4 likes

  31. This act is intended for the safety of consumers,so that they don,t unknowingly consume foods that contain genetically modified ingredients.That’s understandable enough,my dear people.

       3 likes

  32. Clearly the jury is still out on the integrity of GMO foods. THe rush to market is premature. There is no reason outside of the insistence on profit over quality for pushing these foods onto the consumer. When does the capitalist free markets interests overrule the safety, integrity, quality of the foods that we consume. And why should a major corporation set the standards for all of us. Providing the freedom of choice to Monsanto is taking freedom of choice from me and my family. Requiring Monsanto and other GMO food producers to label oeir foods as such should be a no brainer – Corporations should not be allowed to dictate standards – the market should – there are plenty of consumers whose rights will be infringed by these practices. Obama should be the first to agree – his wife is a proponent of organic farming.

       3 likes

    • dodie Humphrey says:

      Yes maybe the presidents wife is a proponant of organic farming, she’s not eating gmo’d foods, she has an organic garden at the white house for her and her family. how many organic gardens do you have on your property or do you have to buy from the super markets for food to eat and are they gmo’d how can you rell if they are. they have no labels.

         0 likes

  33. Richard Pendarvis says:

    We have a right to know what we are buying. Incomplete or inadequate labeling should be considered a violation of product liability requirements. Please take action to require labeling of GMO.

    Richard Pendarvis, Ph.D. (Chemistry)

       2 likes

  34. Jennifer Henderson says:

    When there is a large group of corporations, and individuals funded by those corporations; claiming that we do not need to know what they are up to……well really, that just speaks for itself does it not? They are using old carnival style fast talk and trickery to keep us uninformed, so we will not notice that we are being treated unfairly. I have a degree in Agriculture, Botany and Environmental Ethics. I KNOW that we do not need the chemical industry’s patented crops. We can grow plenty of food to feed this planet using natural, healthy farming methods. Please can we call these ‘gmo’ crops by the name that really identifies them for what they are? TIC Toxin Intensive Crops, that is what they really are. The ones being harmed most by the chemicals needed to raise TIC’s are the farmers and food industry workers.

    It is time that we wake up and start telling ourselves and each other the sad truth, we have been had. The chemical companies are so over confident in their ability to con farmers that they have become very bold in the amount of harm they can do to us; to our finances, our health, and our future generations. They think that we the people are generally stupid and apathetic and that they can lie to us and we will never even notice.

    They are wrong.

       5 likes

  35. Ann J says:

    Foods containing gmos should definately be labeled. Genetically engineered food that is harmful to people should not be allowed by law.

       3 likes

  36. Kate says:

    Excellent article. Please keep the FACTS flying. People must be educated and learn the truth. Thank for all you efforts! You and the Organic Consumers Assn. are indispensible advocates for consumers and the EARTH. Thank you!

       2 likes

  37. Ron Hildebrand says:

    It the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) is accepted by the US, which is on track to do so, food labeling like this won’t be permitted, as the World Trade Organization considers it detrimental to trade.

    As quick background, TPP, labeled a “free trade agreement”, has been compared to NAFTA on steroids. A leaked chapter of the proposed agreement shows it’s a HUGE threat to any member nation’s autonomy. A primary goal to remove barriers to trade–including safety warnings like GMO labeling. (And as a bonus, it’s being negotiated secretly.)

       2 likes

  38. james swartz says:

    the truth is only where there is light

       0 likes

  39. Janie Masi says:

    The short cut to all of this is simple. Until such a law is passed, you must assume that anything not labeled as organic must contain GMO’s. Refuse to buy anything that is not organic. It will increase the number of crops and the amounts of them to be raised organically and bring down the cost of organic foods. If you have to, grow your own, even in your home. Crate your own “Victory Garden” as they did in WWII. There are so many ways to do this, if you want to.

    To eat food that is undisclosed as to its nature is just unwise. If they will not disclose what the food is in actuality, one must assume it is just not safe. Otherwise, why would it be such a secret? Oh, the patent law? The first such patent that was granted was a bacteria to kill the nucleus of the plant because the plant will not accept such foreign cells as animal (human or otherwise) or any other substance not itself or compatible, like graftings from related plants.. Once the nucleus is dead, the process begins. Most people would not eat food that was identified as containing insects, humans, etc. Hence, the aggressive silence.

    Just don’t buy it.

       1 likes

  40. Michael J Dorning says:

    It almost sounds like the GMO people are secretly proponents of Zero Population Growth. GMO, if allowed to flourish, would nearly eliminate the earth’s population in just a few generations.

       2 likes

  41. william shiner says:

    Why is it all over Europe, GMO labeling, law in many countries. What areAgribus companies hiding? Thank you

       1 likes

  42. To be quick and simple: Mother Nature Rules! If we want to mess with Her, then we’d best be using our most discerning empirical science that we care capable of. We’re doing in our oceans since _we_ wanted to so a few already wealthy persons could get wealthier. We forgot that Mother Nature, in Her far superior long-term designations, planned for those wetlands to clean up on-shore offal before it reached the oceans — or the rivers or the lakes or any other natural water. Now, _we_ desire to mess with Her far-superior knowledge to alter Her designs once again and again merely for profit. When will _we_ learn?

       1 likes

  43. paul tescher says:

    americans are being used as guinea pigs. i think of the study at cornell university in the 90’s where it was shown that monarch butterflies which fed on monsanto’s bt corn, suffered smaller offspring and many that didn’t survive. this alone tells me that they should AT LEAST be labeled so american people can make an intelligent choice regarding the food they eat!

       2 likes

  44. Cheryl Liniman says:

    I believe that genetically modified foods, etc. can be harmful to us and future generations. These chemical companies know exactly what they are doing. The are in the business of making profits off chemicals and the more widespread they are, the more profit they can make. They are trying to take over our food supplies with their chemicals by forcing them on people. It is similar to the way harmful chemicals in vaccinations are forced on the people of our country by demanding as close to 100% compliance as possible, or they threaten to stop making them. These chemical companies work by coercion. I want to be able to make the choice for my family and our offspring. There are already two children in the family with Autism .. BOTH born in 2001. Into a family that has never had neurological disorders anywhere. Two separate families on opposite ends of the country. Additionally, following my own generation, growing up back in the 50’s & 60’s, the subsequent children are showing more and more signs of other difficulties and disorders due to our environment, our foods, vaccinations and all other things they’re been exposed to. We don’t want the GMO foods and demand the choice to not buy it. It SHOULD be banned altogether.

       2 likes

  45. DONI MAE says:

    The information about prop 65 in this article explains why California has more restrictions on nutritional supplements than any other state, accoridng to the lists I found on Swanson’s website. This didn’t affect me much until yucca root got banned.
    I think the law as you describe it has another drawback. There are probably many substances that are necessary or helpful in small, naturally occuring amounts that are considered toxic contaminants because of evidence from large doses. There may be little or nothing known about some such substances, since there is liittle money for the appropriate research .

       0 likes

  46. bSpittle says:

    lets hope that california isn’t bought off again by a 50 million dollar ad blitz

       0 likes

  47. Rick says:

    That is a totally false and misleading title in my opinion.

    Otherwise, keep up the good work !

       0 likes

  48. annie steele says:

    Many praises to you for being bold enough to confront these corporations head-on
    The lawyers and others who are not afraid of getting right information out is much
    to appreciated as well.
    The agency such as the FDA who say a little Agent Orange won’t harm is like a
    little arsenic is good for a good night’s sleep… permanently. We need agents in
    those agencies who have a ethical values.

       1 likes

Leave a Reply

Comment Policy:
ANH-USA provides a comment forum for our readers to share their constructive thoughts and criticisms about our newsletter articles and engage in civil debate with other readers. All comments are pre-moderated regardless of author. We never censor comments based on political or ideological point of view. We only remove those comments that are abusive, off-topic, use foul language, include personal attacks, or are otherwise discourteous and uncivil. Please do not post comments in ALL CAPS; on the internet this is considered "shouting."

 characters available

Follow us on...