Site Meter

Posts Tagged “California Proposition 37”

Share

No on 37 radio ad No on California Proposition 37 Say Three Southern California Newspapers

No on California Proposition 37

The Los Angeles Times has an interesting piece out today discussing how “JUNK” science is being used to support and promote California Proposition 37, the food labeling initiative on the November ballot.

Proposition 37, the ballot measure mandating the labeling of genetically modified food that is also known as the “right to know” initiative, is narrowly running ahead of the opposition, according to the latest opinion polls.

But even if the measure goes down — and it’s the target of a $35-million publicity attack by agricultural and food industry interests — the campaign behind it will mark an important milestone in politics: the deployment of weapons-grade junk science.

Of course, ignorance and anti-intellectualism are not new phenomena in our elections, nor in the political processes of other lands, dictatorships and democracies alike. Pseudoscience is part and parcel of corporate advertising in every medium. (“I’m not a doctor, but I play one on TV.”)

But where science is at the heart of a campaign, as it is for Proposition 37, the promotion of manifestly shoddy research is especially shameful. That goes double where multibillion-dollar industries, tens of thousands of jobs, and the health and well-being of millions of consumers are at stake.

Read all of the rest of Hiltzik’s piece.

The fact is that laws that so affect Californians are best handled through the legislative process rather than the initiative – unless there is a clear and purposeful obstruction by the California Legislature.

Testimony and evidence gathered in legislative committees lead to better laws – most of the time.

Proposition 37 goes out of its way to use confusing scientific terms and scare tactics to make its argument for passage of special interest legislation. Legislation that would not otherwise, pass the California Legislature, nor probably be signed by even the most liberal of governors, Jerry Brown.

California Proposition 37 is more than a “right to know” issue. The supporters know this and this is why they are using this method to get their special interests codified into California law.

Here is a video clip with some physician views on genetic engineering and food production and Proposition 37:

YouTube Preview Image

Remember, Vote NO on 37.

Share
Tags: , ,

Comments 2 Comments »

Share

CBRT Pepperdine University Polling Website Screencap

The more voters learn about the flawed California Proposition 37, the food labeling scheme, the more they seem to turn against its passage.

Look at the latest poll from the California Business Roundtable and Pepperdine University: YES: 48.3 NO: 40.2.

But, look at the graph of their polling results:

CBRT Pepperdine University California Propoisiton 37 polling graphI would suspect that all of the advertsing, plus the fact that every major California newspaper has come out against the poorly constructed initiative has had something to do with the precipitous change in the polls.

What a few months ago looked like an initiative with a sure bet to pass, now California Proposition 37 looks like a loser come November.

Share
Tags:

Comments 4 Comments »

Share

California Proposition 37 Food Labeling Official Music Video

Good grief!

Let’s see every major California newspaper has said “Vote NO” on California Proposition 37 and have editorialized against the food labeling scheme.

Here is the Los Angeles Times:

These are all valid arguments for rejecting Proposition 37, but a more important reason is that there is no rationale for singling out genetic engineering, of all the agricultural practices listed above, as the only one for which labeling should be required. So far, there is little if any evidence that changing a plant’s or animal’s genes through bioengineering, rather than through selective breeding, is dangerous to the people who consume it. In fact, some foods have been engineered specifically to remove allergens from the original version. By contrast, there is obvious reason to be worried about the fact that three-fourths of the antibiotics in this country are used to fatten and prevent disease in livestock, not to treat disease in people. The rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria from overuse of pharmaceuticals poses a real threat to public health. So why label only the bioengineered foods? Because the group that wrote Proposition 37 happened to target them. What’s needed is a consistent, rational food policy, not a piecemeal approach based on individual groups’ pet concerns.

How about the San Diego Union-Tribune:

Should genetically modified food be labeled and face more thorough regulation? That is a completely valid question, one that should be the focus of congressional hearings and possible federal legislation.

It is not, however, an issue that should be addressed via a weakly crafted state ballot proposition whose leading donor appears to stand to gain from its passage. We refer, of course, to Proposition 37. Its biggest backer is businessman Joseph Mercola, who runs the “world’s No. 1 natural health website.” Mercola doesn’t just sell a wide range of organic products. He is also a critic of child vaccinations, mammograms and other fundamental tools of medical science.

But Mercola’s key role in advocating the measure is not the prime reason to oppose it. Instead, we agree with the persuasive argument made by Tyler Cowen, the George Mason University economist and New York Times columnist: Proposition 37 “is full of bad ideas and questionable distinctions” and places such a burden on small farmers and retailers that it could kill them off. Cowen also believes, as we do, that the measure has some hard-to-fathom loopholes and could spawn a wave of costly lawsuits.

Proposition 37 may have some value in bringing attention to genetically modified foods and the somewhat laissez faire way with which the U.S. government has monitored their arrival in grocery stores. But it is not good legislation, and we urge its rejection.

The Orange County Register:

Information about the food we eat ought to be readily available and accessible to consumers but Proposition 37 is not the right approach to achieving that outcome. Voters should reject it.

Prop. 37 would require labeling of foods that have been genetically modified. Backers believe that consumers are entitled to know about what is in their food and as such, government should demand labeling. While we would encourage the utmost disclosure especially as it pertains to food, we recognize that information comes at a cost and is best parsed in the marketplace, not with a coercive mandate. And in the case of this particular mandate, its vagueness opens the door to far too many unintended consequences.

Voters should be concerned that Prop. 37 would likely spawn waves of lawsuits, with the litigation and enforcement costs passed on to grocers and the consumers. The initiative’s language invites abuse, as a retailer “generally must be able to document why the product is exempt from labeling.” Prop. 37, according to the state’s independent Legislative Analyst, allows plaintiffs lawyers “to sue without needing to demonstrate that any specific damage occurred as a result of the alleged violation.”

Tom Scott, Executive Director of California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, charged that Prop. 37 would “allow anyone to sue small businesses and family farmers without any proof of a violation or damages.” He is concerned it would propagate “shakedown lawsuits.” We share his concern.

Berkeley attorney James Wheaton, Prop. 37’s author, has made a career of filing lawsuits enabled by Prop. 65. Enacted by voters in 1986, Prop. 65 required disclosure of hazardous chemicals. You’ve probably seen signs in public buildings warning that something on the premises is “known to the state of California to cause cancer.”

The San Francisco Chronicle reported that Prop. 65 has spawned “16,000 legal actions – some legitimate, some designed to force business to settle quickly to avoid litigation costs.” Prop. 37 goes a step further. Even the minor checks in Prop. 65, like allowing the state attorney general to review lawsuits for excesses, are eliminated from Prop. 37.

What’s more, trillions of servings of “genetically modified organism” foods have been served up worldwide; and we’ve yet to see significant evidence of harm. The American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, among many others, deny that GMOs are bad for health, to date.

Were Prop. 37 to pass, the effect would be similar to what happens at the gasoline pump, where oil companies produce a California-specific fuel, which artificially drives up the overall price and acts as de facto protectionism. A California-only market for food reduces the food supply and food choices. And moreover,there are no exemptions for small grocers, but plenty for restaurants and alcohol sellers . That’s selective enforcement.

We like a California that makes room for all choices, from Walmart to Whole Foods, and allows consumers to choose what they chew and producers to be free to sell products their customers demand. Disclosure of GMOs isn’t a bad idea, and we would encourage retailers to do so voluntarily, but Prop. 37 is the wrong approach.

Vote No on Prop. 37.

The Riverside Press-enterprise

The San Jose Mercury News

OK, that is enough and you get the picture.

Here is the video:

YouTube Preview Image

Have a good laugh and then remember to vote NO on California Proposition 37.

Share
Tags:

Comments 2 Comments »

©Gregory Flap Cole All Rights Reserved