This simple labeling initiative is about our fundamental
right to know what’s in the food we eat and feed our families.
We have a right to
know what’s in the food we eat and feed our families, so we can make
informed choices. Informed choice is a fundamental right.
People already can
see on their food label show many calories, how much fat content is in their
food, and what the ingredients are. All this measure does is require that
consumers be able to see if those ingredients have been genetically
engineered so they can make informed choices.
This is about
transparency and our right to have information about what we buy and eat.
Having tools to know what you’re buying is a good thing. Information is
power, and that power belongs in the hands of consumers. We’re voting for
information in November. It doesn’t cost anything for companies to give us
This is about consumer choice: People want to know.
It is not a ban on genetically engineered foods, or a recommendation that they
consume or not consume foods made with genetically engineered ingredients. ,
It’s providing them information so they can make a choice that is right for
them. . Polls consistently show that this is important to people, and this
initiative is about giving people information so they can decide for themselves
what they want to eat.
This is part of the larger movement for transparency in
our food system. Consumers want to know where food comes from, and how it’s
made, and this is part of the growing demand for information about what we buy
What would this initiative do?
This initiative is simple and straightforward – it requires companies to add a
few words to their labels—two years from now-- if their food contains
genetically engineered ingredients. This type of labeling is required in more
than 40 other countries. We have a right to know in California too. (The law
requires labels to say “partially produced with genetic engineering” or “may be
partially produced with genetic engineering.”)
What are genetically engineered foods? These are crops that have had their DNA artificially altered by genes from
other plants, animals, viruses or bacteria. This type of genetic modification
occurs in a laboratory and cannot be found in nature.
Which foods are genetically engineered? Some of our most common food crops have been genetically engineered without
notifying the public, including a high percentage of corn (85%), soy (91%),
sugar beets (95%) and cotton (88%). Processed foods containing these GMO crops
(i.e., corn syrup, soy sauce, soy lecithin, cottonseed oil, etc.) would have to
Why do we need to label GMOs? Because people want to know this information, and this information should not be kept from the public. We
have the right to know what’s in the food we buy and feed our families. Nine out
of 10 voters say they want to know if their food contains genetically engineered
ingredients. This is one of the few issues in American politics with such
overwhelming support across all demographics and political perspectives. The
people are demanding this.
Costs: There is no evidence to back up claims of
increased cost to consumers. The initiative simply requires adding a few words
to existing labels, and companies have until 2014 to change their labeling,
which they already do with some frequency . The law is easy comply with. If
companies are making foods with the 5 or 6 GMO crops, and they aren’t sure about
the source, they can put “may be partially produced with genetic engineering” on
Lawsuits: The opposition is making inaccurate claims
regarding so called “bounty-hunter lawsuits.” There are no bounty hunter fees in
our initiative and no incentives for lawyers to sue. There is no reason to
believe companies will violate the law; most companies honestly label their food
for calories, fat content, allergy information and other pertinent information
consumers want to know, whether or not that information is favorable to product
sales. This is the same thing – it’s a simple label and we expect that companies
will comply with the law
Exemptions: were included for practical reasons to
make the law easier to comply with. The initiative was written to encompass the
foods that people eat most frequently -- food on supermarket shelves. The
opposition is trying to make this out to be complicated and make it out to be
about things it’s not about: it’s about one thing – labeling food accurately and
giving consumers the information to make choices for themselves about what they
buy and eat.
Science: The jury is still out on the
of GMOs, the FDA doesn’t require safety studies and there are no long term human
health studies. Many studies show cause for concern, such as links to allergies
and unintended toxic effects. In the face of scientific uncertainty, labeling is
an important risk management tool to help track any potential health impacts.
But it’s important to point out that this isn’t a referendum on GMOs, it isn’t
saying GMOs are bad, this is simply saying let’s label them, let’s give
consumers the information to know what they’re buying and to make choices for
themselves. If consumers want additional information on GMOs and scientific
studies to help them decide if they want to purchase products with GMOs or not,
there is plenty of information of all sides of the issue available on the
Who are our donors: Thousands of people have
contributed money to the California Right to Know campaign, many of them small
donors contributing an average of $50. Larger donors include California
businesses such as Lundberg Family Farms, Straus Family Creamery, Dr. Bronner’s
Magic Soaps. Other big funders include Dr. Mercola and Organic Consumers
These accusations are from Washington DC based lobby
groups. The fact is, we have thousands of donors. We had thousands of volunteers
gathering petitions, many of them moms and grandmothers who are not typically
out on the streets for a ballot measure. Nearly a million people in California
signed the petitions to get this issue on the ballot. This is very much a
home-grown initiative with huge support from the people of California who want
to know what’s in their food.
What is a GMO,
and how do GMOs
effect you and
that said DDT
and Agent Orange
were safe have
now put millions
of dollars into
right to know
what's in our
will vote on the
issue to ever
effect our food
supply. As Goes
Goes the Nation.
Vote YES on Prop 37
Because We Have
The Right To
Know What's In
Learn more about
the future of
your food supply
CARightToKnow.org (2 Minutes)
Genetic Engineering in Agriculture is a threat to food security, especially in a changing climate. The introduction of genetically manipulated organisms by choice or by accident grossly undermines sustainable agriculture and in so doing, severely limits the choice of food we can eat. Once GE plants are released into the environment, they are out of control. If anything goes wrong - they are impossible to recall. GE contamination threatens biodiversity respected as the global heritage of humankind, and one of our world's fundamental keys to survival. (4 Minutes)
Organism (GMO) -
Myths and TruthsThis
video is based
on the new
Myths and Truths"
EarthOpenSource.org. (6 Minutes)
Genetic Roulette. When the US government ignored repeated warnings by
its own scientists and allowed untested genetically modified (GM) crops
into our environment and food supply, it was a gamble of unprecedented
proportions. The health of all living things and all future generations
were put at risk by an infant technology.
After two decades, physicians and scientists have uncovered a grave
trend. The same serious health problems found in lab animals, livestock,
and pets that have been fed GM foods are now on the rise in the US
population. And when people and animals stop eating genetically modified
organisms (GMOs), their health improves.
ResponsibleTechnology.org (84 Minutes)
TV News interview
Prop 37 in
O'Brien is a
and author of
Controlling our Food - the world according to Monsanto.
Gigantic bio-tech corporation Monsanto is threatening to destroy
the agricultural biodiversity which has served mankind for
thousands of years. (108 Minutes)
Genetically Engineered crops are developed to be grown in
conjunction with toxic chemical herbicides or designed to
produce their own internal pesticide in every cell of the plant,
including the part that is consumed by children and adults.
There is no nutrition benefit for Genetically Engineered crops
grown in the United States yet there is a growing body of
scientific evidence these transgenic crops and use of their
associated chemical herbicides and internal pesticides are
causing significant biological and ecological harm.
Pharmaceuticals must undergo human safety testing for FDA
approval whereas Genetically Engineered food does not. The
American Medical Association (AMA)
has called for mandatory pre-market safety test for all GMO
foods but the FDA ignores their recommendation. Read and
learn the facts about GMO "safety".
Are Not Lab Rats. To learn more about Prop 37 and
Food & Water Watch's campaign to make GE Labeling the Law visit
VoteYes37.org (1 Minute)
We are a group of kids out to make a difference in the world. Thank you
for watching and please do your research on 37! (2 Minute)
An 11 Year tells us the truth about our food
supply. (5 Minute)
Listen To Our Neighbors . . .
Listen To Our Farmers . . .
Percy Schmeiser of Saskatchewan, Canada, is but one of Monsanto's victims, but contrary to so many others, he refused to quietly tolerate the injustice. In a classic case of David versus Goliath, Schmeiser fought back against one of the most powerful businesses in the world.
Listen To Our Political
Leaders (the smart ones) . . .
Listen to Our Comedians (just for fun) . . .
"What makes you think you have the right
to know?" asks Danny DeVito in a witty, ironic public service
announcement by the political action committee sponsored by
consumer advocacy group Food & Water Watch in support of
Proposition 37 (2 Minutes)
Proposition 37 would require the labeling of Genetically Modified
foods, or GMOs. We asked real Californian's what they think about Prop
37. (2 Minutes)
Labels Ruin Lives - GMOs and the Right NOT to Know (2 Minutes)
Definition of a GMO (Genetically
Modified Organism) . . ......
Monsanto: Plants or
animals that have had their genetic makeup altered to exhibit traits
that are not naturally theirs. In general, genes are taken
(copied) from one organism that shows a desired trait and
transferred into the genetic code of another organism.
World Health Organization: Organisms in which the genetic
material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur
naturally. The technology is often called “modern biotechnology” or
“gene technology”, sometimes also “recombinant DNA technology” or
“genetic engineering”. It allows selected individual genes to be
transferred from one organism into another, also between non-related
Romer Labs: Agriculturally important plants are often
genetically modified by the insertion of DNA material from outside
the organism into the plant’s DNA sequence, allowing the plant to
express novel traits that normally would not appear in nature, such
as herbicide or insect resistance. Seed harvested from GMO plants
will also contain these modification.
Controlling Our Food: The World
According To Monsanto
Monsanto manufactures the
seed technology for 90% of all the genetically-engineered crops on the
planet, and thus arguably poses a greater environmental threat to mankind
than any other single company. The World According to Monsanto investigates
the company's checkered history and recounts its long string of alleged
health scandals and environmental abuses.
Biologist Ignacio Chapela: "Serious Problems" with GMO Science
In this interview with host Mark Hertsgaard, University of California at
Berkeley biologist Ignacio Chapela discusses the dangers of genetically modified
foods - not only the questionable science behind it, but also how these new
plants have been distributed worldwide.
GMO crops threaten livelihood of organic farmers
CBS News - May 28, 2011 The USDA approved
the unregulated release of genetically modified
alfalfa, which poses a threat of contamination
from one farmer's land to another's. And, as
Seth Doane reports, the release has organic
farmers concerned for their livelihood.
Barring Food Makers from Advertising Products as
10, 2010 The
FDA meanwhile appears
to be enforcing a policy of barring food
producers from trumpeting that their products
don’t contain genetically modified ingredients.
According to the Washington Post, the
FDA has sent a "flurry
of enforcement letters" to companies that have
products on their labels. The warnings come on
top of existing policy not to require food
makers to disclose if their products do contain
GMOs. Congress member Dennis Kucinich said,
"This, to me, raises questions about whose
interest the FDA is
protecting. They are clearly protecting
industry, and not the public."
Senate Amendment 2310
http://youtu.be/QOJ8qmlvd1k Vermont Senator
Bernie Sanders introduces an amendment to the farm bill that would require
labeling of foods produced through genetic engineering or derived from organisms
that have been genetically engineered. SA2310 was co-sponsored by
California Senator Barbara Boxer.