Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1


Ratings: (0)|Views: 224|Likes:

More info:

Published by: CESAR ACHING GUZMAN on Aug 26, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Monsanto’s Top 7 Lies About GMO Labeling andProposition 37
By Mike Barrett, Natural Society News, 24 August 2012
 Monsanto has even recently published a page on their site titled Takinga Stand: Proposition 37, The California Labeling Proposal,” where theGMO giant attempts to logically explain why it is against GMO labeling.
 Due to the near future voting on November 6, 2012 for California’s Proposition37, there has been a lot of heat going back and forth concerning GMO foods.Up until now, 10
s of million of dollars have been funneled into the opposingside of the bill, with biotechnology giant Monsanto dishing out awhopping$4.2 million alone. Monsanto has even recently published a page on their site  titled ”Taking a Stand: Proposition 37, The California Labeling Proposal,”where the GMO giant attempts to logically explain why it is against GMOlabeling. Needless to say, the post reeks of false and misleading statements, andoftentimes downright deception. Here are the top 7 lies Monsanto wants you to believe regarding GMO labeling and Prop 37.
Monsanto’s Top 7 Lies
1. The bill”would require a warning label on food products.”
 GMO foods will not require a warning label (although they ought to!) Actually,foods made with GMOs would say ”partially produced with geneticengineering” or “may be partially produced with genetic engineering,” – not awarning label, but a clear warning sign to those of us who want to avoidGMOs. The whole idea of the GMO labeling bill is to make consumers awareof what they are consuming, not to bash GMOs on every label. We have a rightto know.
2. ”The safety and benefits of these ingredients are well established.”
 This may be the most comical statements of all. While no long-term studies portray the dangers or benefits of GMOs, countless studies using a ‘shorter’time interval show not only how GMOs are a danger to humans, but also theenvironment and the biosphere.One studypublished in the InternationalJournal of Biological Sciences shows that GMO corn and other GM food isindeed contributing to the obesity epidemic and causing organ disruption.Through the mass genetic modification of nature via GMO crops, animals, biopesticides, and the mutated insects that are created as a result, mega biotechnology corporations are threatening the overall genetic integrity of theenvironment as well as all of humankind. This is just one reason that GMOcrops are continuously banned around the world in nations such as France,Peru, Hungary, and Poland.
3. “FDA says that such labeling would be inherently misleading toconsumers.”
 While the FDA may think that labeling GMO foods would be misleading, inreality the exact opposite is true. Most consumers are in the dark when it comesto GMOs residing in their purchased foods. Foods being sold that containhidden GMOs is much more misleading than letting the consumer be aware.The FDA may call it ‘misleading’ since ‘GMOs are safe,’ but research showsthat this is far from the truth.
4. “The American Medical Association just re-affirmed that there is noscientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods.”
 Although true, the American Medical Association also recently called for mandatory premarket safety studies for GMOs – a decision virtually polar 
opposite of the above quote. It seems that the AMA is being inconsistent nomatter which view is taken. Here is a quote from Consumers Union recentlynoted in itsreactionto AMA’s announcement:“The AMA’s stance on mandatory labeling isn’t consistent with its support for mandatory pre-market safety assessments. If unexpected adverse health effects,such as an allergic reaction, happen as a result of GE, then labeling could perhaps be the only way to determine that the GE process was linked to theadverse health effect.”
5. ”…the main proponents of Proposition 37 are special interest groupsand individuals opposed to food biotechnology who are not necessarilyengaged in the production of our nation’s food supply.”
  Not engaged in the production of our nation’s food supply? Countless farmers,food producers, and consumers who are engaging with their hard-earned dollar support Proposition 37. In fact, many farmers havetaken legal action againstMonsantoin the past for widespread genetic contamination.Here is a growinglistof endorsements for the GMO labeling bill.
6. ”The California proposal would serve the purposes of a few specialinterest groups at the expense of the majority of consumers.”
 Monsanto says “at the expense of the majority of consumers.” Maybe the biotech giant isn’t aware that GMO labeling is so desired that the pro-labelingside has a 3-to-1 advantage, based onrecent polls. The majority of consumersactually
GMO foods to be labeled. It is no secret that governmentorganizations such as theFDA and USDA are in bed with Monsanto, but this isa decision for the people – not any government organizations.It has also been revealed that Monsanto has control of virtually allU.S.diplomats, and the company has even used its massive influence to force other nations to accept their genetically modified crops through economic threats and political pressure.
7. ”Consumers have broad food choices today, but could be denied thesechoices if Prop 37 prevails.”
 There is absolutely no reason to think that because of Proposition 37, foodchoices would become more limited. Actually, the bill would add value to the

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->