The No On 37 campaign knows that the less you know about your food, the more money they are likely to make. Their goal is literally that simple, even though their campaign of deception is far more elaborate.
T hey've set up phony AstroTurf groups, misrepresented spokespeople and embellished their credentials , and misrepresented leading science, government, professional and academic organizations--including (but not limited to) the National Academy of Sciences, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, US Food and Drug Administration and World Health Organization. They've bankrolled demonstrably phony "economic studies," made repeated false statements in advertisements, deceived voters with mailers sent by obvious front groups, and repeated one falsehood after another ---hoping somehow that no one would ever notice.
Well, someone just did. Yesterday, the Federal Bureau of Investigation called to tell us that they were looking into the allegations we've made against the No On 37 campaign .
The No on 37 Campaign and the "Post Truth Era"
After four weeks of million dollar a day advertising by out of state pesticide and junk food corporations, No on 37 shrunk a 40 point deficit into a lead. Not because they were right on the facts--because they don't care about the facts.
No on 37's red herring arguments around common sense exemptions , phony lawsuit scares , bogus "big bureaucracy claims ", and " cost increase hysteria has been painstakingly documented .
Ultimately, we believe that "No on 37's" financially motivated corporate "sting operation" constitutes a profound disdain for the democratic process and the citizens of this state.
Why Spend $45 Million To Prevent A Simple Label?
Just follow the money: If we know what's in our food, and what's being done to our food, many of us will seek alternatives, and that would reduce the profit margins of companies like Monsanto and DuPont. Their fears are well founded: since Europe instituted labeling 15 years ago, only 7 percent of its food now contains genetically engineered ingredients -- compared to approximately 70% in the United States. Imagine what that would mean to these corporations if a similar shift in purchasing habits took place in California?
Multi-billion pesticide and junk food companies believe there is no greater threat than an informed consumer -- and with transparency comes accountability.
Prop 37 threatens their monopoly of our food system -- which prevents small farmers, the organics industry, and truly natural food producers from competing on an equal playing field.
Whose Side Are You On?
On Tuesday more than a label is on the ballot. Democracy itself is. Will voters allow out of state, multinational pesticide and junk food corporations tell us what we can and can't know about the food we eat, and what they're doing to that food? Are we going to allow television ads based on one demonstrable lie after another convince us that information is somehow a radical concept that we don't deserve?
This right to know movement began with a farmer, a grandmother, and former midwife, organizing women across the state two years ago toward a 2012 ballot drive.
Prop. 37 is about one and only one thing-- our right to know what's in our food, and make an informed choice about what we eat and feed our children.
We can't allow our democracy to be hijacked by unscrupulous corporate interests willing to say and spend anything to protect their profits at the expense of real people, and our rights as free citizens.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
