Dear Ventura Area Faith Leaders,

Jan Dietrick

As some of you know, I have been very active during the past year with the California Right to Know ballot initiative to label genetically engineered food. In my business promoting biological pest control, I have been aware of the problems with GM crops for the past 16 years. We now have studies revealing truly alarming health risks; with my earlier background studying and working in public health nutrition and human ecology, I believe what the biotech industry is trying to do to food around the world to be as morally reprehensible as anything ever perpetrated on the masses. I can come and screen the new documentary Genetic Roulette in which doctors report how patients improve from many symptoms when they stop eating GE food. I recommend that you bring Dr. Robin Bernhoft of Ojai, past president of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine to one of your meetings to answer questions about GM food and health risks.

Some of you have indicated that you cannot take a stand on this proposition. If your reluctance is rooted in your understanding of IRS code, it is a common misconception among non-profits. It is easy to look up online to see that the code clearly allows a 501c3 nonprofit to spend up to 20% of annual resources on a ballot initiative (there are two ways to determine the 20% but an endorsement would involve no material resources anyway).

If your concern is to not confuse parishioners, please consider that $34 million is being spent on a litany of lies in TV ads to confuse them. You are a trusted source for the believers. The Council of Churches endorsed Proposition 37 as a moral imperative and at the level of spiritual principle, as explained in the following article and the linked newspaper article http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_21709576/proposition-37-some-circles-gmo-stands-god-moves?source=rss You can fall back on their excellent analysis and leadership.

If you would like a 5-10 minute presentation to any group of voting members about why you want to endorse voting Yes on Proposition 37, I am happy to come over or help someone in your congregation who would like to make a short presentation.

Here is the Council of Churches supporting statement:

Proposition 37. Genetically Engineered Foods. Mandatory Labeling. Initiative Statute.

Recommendation: SUPPORT

This proposition extends an existing concern about the spread of Genetically Modified Organisms in our food chain. There is a massive difference between GMOs and hybridization that can and does create new strains of seeds and therefore crops. This occurs though cross pollinization. GMO production has introduced non-food genetic material into crops to improve their tolerance to pesticides, be available for harvest at one uniform time, and for other reasons of convenience for farmers. Some crops are approved for use in animal and human food sources. Some are not. Since our work in the care for creation by limiting GMO planting within CA has been entirely unsuccessful to date, we understand that no consumer has the ability to know what they are eating. We agree with opponents this proposition is likely insufficient since it does not provide what European nations offer farmers in the “escape clause” for those regular crops that have been inadvertently cross contaminated by bee pollination. That is a weakness that should be addressed down the road. However, it is immoral that consumers be left in the dark about what is in their food. Californians have been leaders in the public’s “right to know” on food labeling, and this is a good first step in continuing our pursuit of healthy food and market transparency.

Proposition 37: In some circles, GMO stands for 'God Moves Over'

By Dana Hull Posted: 10/06/2012

In the battle over Proposition 37, the statewide ballot initiative that would require California to label genetically engineered foods, GMO typically refers to "genetically modified organisms."

But in some religious circles, GMO stands for "God Moves Over."

Proposition 37 enjoys endorsements from groups such as the Sierra Club, the California Nurses Association, the United Farm Workers and the Organic Consumers Association. But many religious and faith-based organizations are coming out in support of the measure because genetically engineered food clashes with religious beliefs, from keeping kosher to being stewards of God's creation.

The California Council of Churches, which represents 1.5 million members, says it supports the measure because it's concerned about the spread of genetically modified organisms in the food chain and because "it is immoral that consumers be left in the dark about what is in their food." The national office of the Presbyterian Church has blogged about the ballot initiative and is urging members to support it. The church passed a GMO policy in 2006 calling on the federal government to include genetically modified food products under the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's jurisdiction for testing and approval.

The United Methodist Church, one of the largest Protestant denominations in the country, began to examine its policy on genetically engineered crops in the 1980s. In 2004, the church's highestgoverning body passed a resolution calling for labeling of all GMOs. In May, the body strengthened its GMO language.

"The responsibility of humankind to God's creation challenges us to examine the possibilities of genetic research and technology in a conscientious, careful and responsible way. Negative impacts on food and the environment must be strenuously avoided," reads the church's position on genetic technology. "Because of the effects of genetic technologies on all life, we call for effective guidelines and public accountability to safeguard against any action that might lead to abuse of these technologies. The risks of genetic technology that can hardly be calculated when breeding animals and plants and the negative ecological and social impact on agriculture make the use of this technology doubtful. We approve of modern methods of breeding that respect the existence of the natural borders of species."

Faith leaders note that the Bible contains numerous references to protecting creation. And that has guided some of the current concern about the modern phenomenon of genetic engineering in the lab.

"The No. 1 theological driver is that in Genesis 2 we're called to keep and tend God's creation," said Jaydee Hanson, secretary of United Methodist Caretakers of God's Creation, a nonprofit network of churches working on environmental stewardship issues. "That doesn't mean clear-cutting forests, wiping off the top of mountains or advocating pesticide-promoting plants that are genetically engineered."

In the Jewish tradition, kashrut laws spell out what foods Jews can and cannot eat and how the foods must be prepared and eaten.

Pigs are not kosher. Fish with fins and scales are, but shellfish like oysters, clams and crabs are forbidden.

"The essence of keeping kosher is being conscious of our food choices," said Rabbi Elihu Gevirtz of Los Angeles. "We can't make a choice about what we're going to eat if we don't know what's in it.

"Are they putting the genes of pigs into vegetables? I don't know, but that would be a concern."

Gevirtz said that the larger issue is that "the work of creating new beings is really God's work, not that of humans. Humans need to refrain from combining genetic material and creating new species."