The
Pepperdine poll showed that a significant decline in the "Yes on 37" lead has been experienced.
Gary Ruskin, Yes on 37 campaign manager says, “The companies that told us
Agent Orange and DDT are safe are lying again and trying to buy this election by putting the full weight of their propaganda wizardry behind a campaign to confuse and deceive voters.”
“Ten days of incessant pounding lies have taken their effect, but in the end Californians will not be fooled by these tactics. We're confident that California voters will want to know what's in their food and will vote yes on Proposition 37.”
For examples of the deceptive tactics used by the opposition in just the past week, the "No on 37" anti-consumer, pro Big-Pesticide, campaign was accused by Stanford University, the Academy of Nutrition and three major newspapers, of misleading voters.
On
Thursday last week, the "No on 37" campaign had to pull and re-shoot their first TV ad, after they were caught out misrepresenting Stanford University, as reported in the
Los Angeles Times.
Turns out the "No on 37" campaign landed
in trouble again with Stanford on Wednesday this week, for misrepresenting the university yet again,
this time in a mailer that went out to millions of voters.
Just prior to that on Tuesday, the nation's largest professional association for nutritionists and dieticians, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics,
accused the "No on 37" campaign of misrepresenting its position and misleading voters in the official California Voter's Guide that went to 11 million voters.
Part of a statement by the President of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Ethan Bergman, reads, "The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics is calling for voters to be made aware of an error in the California Official Voter Information Guide regarding Proposition 37, which inaccurately states that the Academy has concluded that biotech foods are safe."
"Voters need accurate information in order to make an informed choice."
Three major newspapers have described the anti-Proposition 37 ads as misleading to the public, including
San Jose Mercury News,
Sacramento Bee, and
San Francisco Chronicle.
On the more positive side of things, best-selling author and journalist Michael Pollan has penned an excellent piece for New York Times magazine.
"The [food] industry is happy to boast about genetically engineered crops in the elite precincts of the op-ed and business pages - as a technology needed to feed the world, combat climate change, solve Africa’s problems, etc. - but still would rather not mention it to the consumers who actually eat the stuff," Pollan writes.
"Presumably that silence owes to the fact that, to date, genetically modified foods don’t offer the eater any benefits whatsoever - only a potential, as yet undetermined risk. So how irrational would it be, really, to avoid them? Surely this explains why Monsanto and its allies have fought the labeling of genetically modified food so vigorously since 1992."
The full article can be
read here.
It is obvious that the pesticide and junk food companies are doing their best to fight Proposition 37, so truth in the matter won't guarantee victory. Donations can help in the fight for the right to know what is in your food. Please make a
donation today and also view the ads on the
"Yes on 37" campaign.
