Another Health Nut Donor for California Proposition 37

Posted 10 CommentsPosted in California Proposition 37, David Bronner

Screencap of David Bronner

Police arrested David Bronner, CEO of Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, outside the White House. Bronner was protesting federal policy that prevents farmers from growing industrial hemp.

Here is another nut job that is bankrolling California Proposition 37, the Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food Initiative which will be on the California November ballot.

Here is the initial donation, Bronner’s company may have donated more.

California Prop. 37 donationHere is a video of this “Hemp” supporter:


Outside the mainstream, would you say?

Why should Californians approve an unnecessary initiative bankrolled by a bunch of health “NUTS?” – Like a doctor who wants to treat cancer with Eggplant!

Californians shouldn’t – Vote No on 37.

California Court Rejects Yes on Proposition 37 Lawsuit

Posted 1 CommentPosted in California Proposition 37

From the press release:

Sacramento Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny yesterday rejected arguments made by the Yes on 37 campaign seeking to strike language from the official Prop. 37 Ballot Label, Title & Summary and Legislative Analysts’ (LAO) Analysis concluding that Prop 37 could prohibit processed foods without genetically engineered (GE) ingredients from being marketed or labeled as “natural”.

Yes on 37 argued that Prop. 37’s provisions restricting the use of the word “natural” apply only to processed foods with GE ingredients.

Yesterday’s ruling is a blow to the Yes on 37 campaign. It means that the State Attorney General, independent Legislative Analyst, and now the courts all disagree with Yes on 37’s interpretation of the measure.

In final ballot materials made public last month, the Attorney General’s official Ballot Label and Title & Summary, as well as the LAO Analysis, each included reference that Prop. 37 could be interpreted by the courts as a ban on processed foods without GE from using “natural” in their labeling. This position is consistent with No on 37’s reading of the flawed ballot measure which can be found here.

Judge Kenny completely rejected Yes on 37’s requested changes to the Prop. 37 Ballot Label and Title & Summary. Both remain unchanged and can be found here.

While Judge Kenny did order a small change to the LAO write up of Prop. 37, the language still will highlight Prop 37’s restriction on marketing non-GE processed foods as natural. The revised LAO section on the “natural” provision reads like this:

“Given the way the measure is written, there is a possibility that these restrictions would be interpreted by the courts to apply to some processed foods regardless of whether they are genetically engineered.”

“The inability to market our non-GE processed products as natural could harm family farmers and our competitiveness,” said Jamie Johansson, an Oroville farmer who grows olives to make olive oil. Mr. Johansson is also second vice president of the California Farm Bureau Federation “This is a serious flaw in Prop. 37. And the court’s ruling means state ballot materials will remain accurate and truthful.”

There is little doubt that California Proposition 37 is a “flawed” and poorly written measure the benefits only the proponents – certain law firms and organic food growers.

This measure has very little benefit to California voters/consumers while hurting California farmers by increasing their costs unnecessarily.

Californians should reject Proposition 37.

Who is the Health Nut Donor Behind California Proposition 37?

Posted 1 CommentPosted in California Proposition 37, Joseph Mercola

CA Prop 37 Right To Know California Proposition 37: I Have a Right to Know

From the Yes on 37 website

A few posts ago, I mentioned California Proposition 37, the Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food Initiative which Californians will be asked to approve in November.

So, let’s look at who is behind this initiative. In other words, who are the major donors?

Joseph Mercola is one of the main financial supporters of the initiative. He is an osteopath who lives in suburban Chicago. According to Mercola, “Your health care, your food supply, everything you need to live a healthy life is now being taken away and controlled by a massive industrial complex and corrupt government

Dr. Mercola has donated over $800,000 to the cause.

But, who is this Osteopathetic doctor and why is he so driven to donate almost a $ million for a California initiative campaign?

Here is a profile on Dr. Mercola from Sacramento Bee reporter Dan Morain:

Rich people with a cause cannot seem to resist inflicting their world views on California politics, no matter if they are levelheaded or wacky, and no matter where they reside.

It’s generally not a good thing for those of us who do live here.

Joseph Mercola is the latest guy seeking to improve the Golden State. Mercola is an osteopath who lives in suburban Chicago and runs a website,, which promotes his alternative, though generally unproven, health-related products and ideas.

Mercola donated at least $500,000 for a signature-gathering drive to place a measure on the November ballot that would require labeling of genetically modified food sold in California.

Although there’s no proof that genetically modified food has caused anyone’s nose to fall off, labeling is not a terribly bad idea. People like to know what they’re eating. But if the big money behind this proposal is a guide, the California Right to Know Genetically Modified Food Act would be an unmodified, unmitigated and unadulterated turkey.

Read the rest of Morain’s profile on the whacky Dr. Mercola and you can see Mercola in action in the embedded video below:

Extreme and non-sensical, you say? Maybe dangerous?

And, why would Californians vote to approve an initiative proposed and bankrolled by this “health nut?”

Californians shouldn’t – Vote No on 37.

California Proposition 37: I Have a Right to Know

Posted 2 CommentsPosted in California Proposition 37

From the Yes on 37 website

Yes, and Californians also have the RIGHT to be stupid.

California Proposition 37 is one of those stupid moments. Let’s look at this initiative statute which was placed on the November ballot by California voters via initiative (Voter petition signatures).

Proposition 37, a Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food Initiative, is on the November 6, 2012 ballot in California as an initiated state statute.

If Proposition 37 is approved by voters, it will:

  •     Require labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if the food is made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways.
  •     Prohibit labeling or advertising such food as “natural.”
  •     Exempt from this requirement foods that are “certified organic; unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material; made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves; processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients; administered for treatment of medical conditions; sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant; or alcoholic beverages.”

James Wheaton, who filed the ballot language for the initiative, refers to it as “The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act.”

Now, lets look what the California Legislative Analyst has said about the initiative (the report is embedded below):

Prop 37 Leg Analysis

So, what is so wrong about food labeling disclosure? I mean shouldn’t we know what is in our food?

Yes and the government both federal and state do regulate the agriculture and food industry. But, Proposition 37 is unnecessary in just so many ways AND a costly waste of time and money.

Let’s look at a major reason – There is NO Risk with Genetically Engineered Food. Look at this post.

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are no riskier than their conventionally farmed equivalents, the European Commission’s Chief Scientific Advisor Anne Glover has told EurActiv in an exclusive interview, calling for countries impeding GMO use to be put to proof.

The endorsement of GMO safety will rattle member states where bans are in place (see background), and represents the CSA’s highest-profile policy intervention since Glover became Commission President José Manuel Barroso’s scientific advisor last December.

“There is no substantiated case of any adverse impact on human health, animal health or environmental health, so that’s pretty robust evidence, and I would be confident in saying that there is no more risk in eating GMO food than eating conventionally farmed food,” Glover told EurActiv, saying the precautionary principle no longer applies as a result.

Glover said she was not promoting GMOs, and added that “eating food is risky”, explaining: “Most of us forget that most plants are toxic, and it’s only because we cook them, or the quantity that we eat them in, that makes them suitable.”

I would say this is a major impediment to the rationale for the initiative, wouldn’t you say?

In future posts, I will delve into the details of just how ridiculous and poorly written the initiative is. Plus, I will go into the possible motivations of California Proposition 37 proponents.

Stay tuned….