headline:

The NO on Prop 37 Campaign: Debunking the Lies
By Katherine Paul
Organic Consumers Association, October 18, 2012
Straight to the Source

Since Oct. 1, Monsanto and the rest of the Biotech and Big Food gang
have been pounding the California airwaves with nearly $36 million
worth of boldface lies and twisted truths.

Their goal? Misinform and confuse California voters into believing
they'd be better off not knowing what pesticide-makers are hiding in
their foods, than they would be if food manufacturers had to label
genetically modified foods.

The ads are having an impact. After enjoying a 26-point lead for the
past six months, the YES on 37 campaign has dropped 19 points in the
polls.

But the YES team is fighting back, calling out the lies. And the
liars. They've already forced the opposition to pull its first TV ad
and re-shoot it after exposing the ad's dubious spokesperson, Henry
Miller, for misrepresenting himself and Stanford University.

Miller, a long-time front man for Big Tobacco and Big Oil, doesn't
have an ounce of credibility. Neither do the folks working behind him.
No sooner had the Stanford University kerfuffle simmered down, than
the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics accused the campaign of
misleading voters by falsely stating, in the Official Voter
Information Guide, that the Academy opposes Prop 37. In fact, the
Academy has not taken an official position on the initiative.

The American Medical Association and the World Health Organization/
United Nations also called out the NO campaign for misrepresenting
their statements and positions on Prop 37.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

It's a campaign full of bunk. Lies perpetrated by liars. Yet some
voters will continue to buy it unless we de-bunk it for them.

Here are a few of the most confusing, most dishonest, and most widely
circulated misstatements and outright lies hitting California's
airwaves, newspapers, and blogs.

BUNK: Prop 37 is full of "arbitrary" exemptions that don't make sense.

Here's what doesn't make sense. Trotting out the likes of Henry Miller
- a guy who still thinks DDT is a good idea - to convince voters that
GMO labeling is a bad idea. Miller does a masterful job of twisting
the truth and confusing voters about why, under Prop 37, some products
will require labels and others won't. But if you take away the smoke
and mirrors and look at the facts - as carefully explained by the YES
on 37 campaign - every single exemption in Prop 37 is guided by common
sense.

For example:

-- Meat, cheese, milk and eggs from animals. If an animal is
genetically engineered, the meat from that animal would be labeled
under Prop 37. (So far, genetically engineered salmon is the only
imminent possibility here). But meat, cheese, dairy, and eggs from
animals that have been fed genetically engineered food? No labels.
After all, a steak from a cow that ate GE corn is no more a
genetically engineered cow, than you're a genetically engineered human
because you ate an ear of GE corn. Soy milk labeled? Yes, if it
contains GE soy. Milk from a cow? No GE ingredients, no label. This
exemption is common all around the world. Would the NO on 37 campaign
have preferred a stricter law in California than the international
standard for GMO labeling? ... (cont)