To League of Women Voters

Re: Industry Biased Presentation on Prop 37

by Jan Dietrick, below

How to evaluate a propositon, points

by Gayle David

Background

The League of Women Voters normally promotes unbiased information on ballot initiatives. Understaffing prevented research about Proposition 37 to label genetically engineered food giving the local chapter the opportunity on October 7 to inform voters. Since the presenter was biased and unprepared, corrections should have been allowed. The presenter omitted highly relevant information about backers and money, distortion tactics and false ads. She speculated erroneously about the Attorney General's role, impact on retailers, and made no mention of public benefit relative to a negligible one-time $1.27/household labeling cost and four cents per person for administration and enforcement--the same trivial costs of labeling in over 50 other nations. Truth about Prop 37 is facing a $5 million weekly tsunami of slick expensive lies. Read the bill to see for yourself how it achieves our right to know. It is beautifully written on a single issue as legally required, with workable exemptions necessary to make it practical and fair. It is backed by real people and varied businesses representing the 90% who want GE food labeled. Lawmakers lack capacity to write a better bill than Proposition 37. Don't fall for nonsense and falsehoods from mega-corporate advertisers. Vote Yes on 37.

I appreciate hearing back. I don't imagine there is anything the group can do to correct what happened. We felt a need to alert you that from our thorough knowledge of the Prop 37 bill and why it is written the way it is written, and in light of the $5 million weekly very clever and very deceptive advertising by the opposition funded by pesticide and processed food giants, it is easy for anyone, even the Judges, to be confused. League members who were in attendance may also have difficulty sorting out the distortion tactics and half-truths on TV and in mass mailers. Confusion is the objective of a multimillion dollar distortion tactics and confused voters vote no. The program Sunday was videotaped. Who taped it? Has it been made available? To whom? The video would be a more objective witness than questioning members who were present who may not be familiar with the proposition and the attacks being made on it.

Our urgent request is that people who are knowledgeable enough to be able to be speak without confusion or bias about this proposition at your meetings.  I heard that the League member who presented at one of the meetings in TO made an informed and unbiased presentation, for which we are grateful. 

The incident renews a very deep disappointment to us that many advocates for GMO labeling have been sharing for months with the League state representatives. The CA LWV apparently did not feel it had the human resources to research and lead an evaluation process about this issue. This stone wall seemed to have been firmly in place early last spring and has remained inexplicable and sickenly tragic to local and state leaders of the Prop 37 campaign throughout the state. 

It should concern every League member that while over 90% of the public in many polls say they want GMO food labeled that has been impossible to achieve after 12 years of bills submitted by Sen Barbara Boxer in Congress and other advocates in California, the polls are showing a stunning negative effect. Do members realize that Monsanto and other pesticide companies and Coca-cola and many other processed junk food giants are investing at present $35 million in distortion tactics and (at best) half-truths that has caused the Yes on 37 lead to decline in the past 3 weeks from 67% to 48%? All the while the League of Women Voters remains "neutral". To not act is a form of action and, in this case, the consequences could be that corporations win and people lose.

I am not saying that a more proactive and socially responsible stand by the League would have stopped this perverse influence of the big monied interests, but that is the League's  core mission  as I read it, to try to help voters not be swayed by deceptive and distorting advertising.

I also understand that environmental and consumer protection have neither of them been priority issues for the CA LWV. It says on the website that anyone interested in working on issues related to Natural Resources should volunteer. There is also no appearance of priority given by the state league on the issues webpage to consumer protection or truth in labeling. I wonder why. You are all deliberating about corporate personhood while your families are eating the toxic products of those corporations and you can't recognize that Prop 37 is the most effective action any group has yet taken in this country to stand up to the corporatocracy. This is about busy mothers and grandmothers and students and small business owners and farmers and a few very caring men of all walks of life stepping up to wrest control of their food supply from the profit-driven corporations.

Nonetheless, truth in electoral ads is a core issue for the league, and, as an organization of primarily women, somehow one expects that issues related to health and food would find room on the agenda when any well-read woman knows how much is at stake with the invasion of GMOs in agriculture and food and how the US and Canada lag behind much of the world in protecting this human right. The brick wall erected by the State League representatives has been so solid against studying this issue for what may be as long as a year. Many of us are wondering if someone at the state level was pressured or frightened or has a conflict of interest or all of the above. 

The public health risks from eating genetically engineered food are as alarming as FDA scientists warned 15 years ago as explained in the new documentary,  Genetic Roulette, that you can watch on-line at  geneticroulette.com. Or you can study the take-over of the FDA by Monsanto in Altered Genes; Twisted Truth by Steven Druker whose public interest law firm obtained massive damning evidence of the corruption of the FDA through internal memos obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. Here also is the link to the presentation last Monday night at a Ventura College sponsored educational forum by Dr. Robin Bernhoft, MD, former president of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBgiGOV-Q-A.  Also, see  http://aaemonline.org/gmopost.html for their strong call to BAN GMOs and for all doctors to prescribe nonGMO diets for all patients. This is an extremely serious issue and every institution in our society appears to be under Monsanto's influence and unable to tell the truth.

Are the LWV members concerned about the strong implications related to the astonishing increase in autistic spectrum disorder and the myriad other diseases that are rising in an upward J curve that matches the introduction of GM foods into the American diet? This hypothesis is well presented by Robyn Obrien in her TedX Austin talk Patriotism on a Plate  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixyrCNVVGA.  

How can the LWV not invoke its higher mission to assure that voters have correct information under these circumstances. The truth on this issue is so important for the protection of public health and for the genetic integrity for future generations. Truth about this simple labeling law is being outrageously perverted by those who would make many more billions of dollars if they can confuse voters enough to keep it from passing.

Yours,

Jan Dietrick

League presentation Ventura Oct 7 about food labeling initiative misinformed and biased

by Jan Dietrick, MPH Nutrition

The mission of the League of Women Voters is to foster an informed electorate preparing to go to the polls, but last Sunday's presentation at the  First  United  Methodist  Church  in  Ventura  fell short during the evaluation of Proposition 37. Judge Melinda Johnson who presented the evaluation of the Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act failed to follow each of the League's five guidelines for evaluating a ballot proposition. She said she had not had time to study the proposition. This was obvious to those of us familiar with the bill. There was no comment/question/answer time organized in the program so nobody was able to correct her or add information necessary for an objective evaluation of the proposition.

A key question the California League of Women Voters recommends on its webpage on How to Evaluate a Proposition is whether the policy goal and proposed changes will make things better. Judge Johnson did not look at the proposition from this fundamental criterion of public benefit, social need, timeliness, or usefulness.

Second, the League has us ask, "Who are the real sponsors and opponents of the measure? Check where the money is coming from." The Judge, in fact, repeated a lie from the opposition to Prop 37 about the origination of the initiative designed to unfairly discredit the initiative. Then she amazingly failed to even obliquely mention the fact that $33 million dollars is being spent to defeat Proposition 37 (over $20 million from pesticide companies and over $10 million from the largest corporations in the world that produce processed foods, i.e. Pepsico, Nestle, CocaCola, Conagra, Del Monte, etc.

The League's third question in evaluating a proposition concerns how well it is written to solve a single problem by yes or no. Judge Johnson's criticism about the foods exempted from the proposed law revealed a failure to research why each clause and sentence is in the bill exactly the way it is. She again parroted the opposition's TV ads rather than understanding that, for example, the exemption of animal foods is precisely in order to meet the legal necessity that initiatives address a single problem. Had THIS ballot initiative included labeling of meat, milk, farm raised fish and eggs that are FED genetically engineered feeds, it would have been crushed by Monsanto later in the courts for addressing two problems instead of one. Would the Judge have really thought that the law would be better written if it had required that animal products, alcoholic beverages and restaurant food be labeled along with the bulk of food in stores containing GMOs?   

Every point in the bill has a clear legal and practical necessity. The exemptions in particular follow logical priorities based on the bulk of food consumption, practicality for food manufacturers and retailers, and an understanding of the food manufacturing and distribution system. If that wasn't apparent, the presenter could have asked someone to explain it.    

Judge Johnson's criticism of the law further touched on costs with an erroneous comment that it would be burdensome to the Attorney General. Law professor Joanne Shepherd-Bailey makes it clear in her Economic Assessment paper that the Attorney General and local District Attorneys will not be involved in the enforcement of this proposition other than in occasional and minor instances and that the cost to the courts will amount to less than one cent per person. Shepherd-Bailey provides detailed industry and financial analysis to show that compliance with labeling food accurately is already being done, is simple and the costs are trivial.

Judge Johnson shared her belief that the bill was too hard for average voters to understand. Over 90% of people say in polls that they want labeling of GE food. This bill is written with extreme care to provide a mandatory labeling law for GMOs in food. It covers unavoidable legal necessities and enforcement practicalities that are sensible and not difficult to explain. If the judge is right about the limited intellectual capacity of the average voter, then it is the task of the League to provide an open forum with questions and answers discussing why this is a good law that people want and is written the way it is.

Another completely erroneous statement by Judge Johnson was that retailers will be burdened. This did not happen in the other 50 countries that label the food. Furthermore, it is obvious that the point of purchase is the only point in the food system where the food coming from all states and nations can be efficiently monitored. The burden is on the consumer who cares enough to have food tested and take simple local action if it is untruthfully labeled to get an injunction during which the retailer simply replaces the mislabeled food.

If a supplier delivers mislabeled food to a retailer and it is brought to their attention through a court injunction, the retailer has more than ample time to ask the food manufacturer to send honestly labeled food. It seems like a judge would be able to foresee how this process will be easily managed by retailers without going to court.

Judge Johnson did nothing to address the continuing litany lies being broadcast by the opposition regarding monitoring and enforcement. With a $33 million disinformation campaign by the vested interests opposing this initiative primarily on these grounds, she might have chosen to reassure voters. A careful reading of the law shows what   law professor Shepherd-Bailey explains that there is "clear legal certainty of compliance", "absolute defense by simple sworn statement from the supplier of the food in question", and "precise safe harbor based on product composition rather than public exposure". This simply means that it is simple and involves little or no cost to show compliance and there is no incentive to sue the retailer, because there are no damages allowed in the law. Not only  do  50 other countries label the food (and more have laws in the works), but retailers were not burdened in those countries. All the biggest manufacturers of most GMO brands already label GMOs in their products for those countries. They provide consistently truthful labels.   Compliance and consumer satisfaction has been a natural result of labeling laws in other countries at no increased cost.

Last but not least among the League of Women Voter's criteria for evaluating a proposition is to beware of distortion tactics and half-truths. Judge Johnson's bias against this proposition is based partly on falsehoods promoted by the opponents of Prop 37. The negative campaign is not just rife with distortion tactics and half-truths, they have eleven times more money to spend pushing their lies on voters.

Justice is only achievable through access to knowledge . Many news outlets have either swallowed the opposition's lies or perceive a conflict of interest leading them to compromise in reporting the truth. One of the core aims of the League of Women Voters is to help voters sleuth out the lies and who is paying to spread them.   Why isn't the League of Women Voters stepping up to fill the vacuum? The proponents of this initiative do not have tens of millions to spend on TV ads.   

Judge Johnson made two statements about Proposition 37 that can be interpreted as favorable to the initiative. First she said essentially that as a concept and title of a law "The Right to Know" is good. Secondly, she agreed fairly strongly with the finding in the initiative that GMO food is grown with more toxic pesticides than nonGMO food. They cause damage to land, impair drinking water and pose health risks for farm workers and consumers. Judge Johnson seemed to agree that being able to identify polluting food in stores makes sense. 

Jan Dietrick

Dear Ventura County League of Women Voters,

From Gayle David

I am writing to express my disappointment regarding Judge Johnson’s misinformed ballot evaluation of proposition 37 last Sunday. Her evaluation supported “no” on the proposition and included many falsities and nuances with no factual evidence to support them. Furthermore, she proceeded without following your five-point protocol for evaluating a proposition. We do not see any discourse supporting proposition 37 which would be responsible. Through the years, your group has consistently made very reasonable and unbiased decisions on issues based on sound evidence from both sides. Is this no longer how you conduct business? Do you let one person of high-status, such as a judge, influence the entire group in spite of her admission that she was not prepared on the matter?

As a mother and teacher who has been working with the Right to Know Campaign for the last nine months, I would like to offer some facts and research-based evidence which will help you make an informed decision on this matter. The proposition is about truth in labeling and about a very basic human right, neither of which was brought up in Sunday’s meeting. Here are some real statistics on this issue:

* This right--the right to choose and to know what is in our food-- is exercised in fifty countries who have current GMO labeling laws. This includes ALL of the European Union, China, Japan and Russia. Thus, gmo labeling laws are not a radical, new idea.

* The opposition have spent 34 million on a campaign riddled with disinformation and gross exaggerations. The opposition are biotech corporations with Monsanto, the developer of gmo seed, as leader. These corporations include Dupont, DOW Agrisciences, Cropscience, BASF and Bayer. Opposition also includes the largest of food companies who happen to also be the largest producers of processed foods: Pepsico, Nestle, Coca Cola North America, Conagra, Del Monte and General Mills.

* The proposition is one of the most straightforward I have ever read. Please read the initiative yourself: www.carighttoknow.org/read_the_initiative

* The initiative will not burden the Attorney General. Law Professor Joanne Shepherd-Bailey makes this clear. Food manufacturers already label for 3,000 other ingredients, so it is expected they will also label for GMO’s. In addition, there is no lawsuit incentive since there is a 30 day cooling off period to rectify any mislabeling problem before a lawsuit can proceed.

* European labeling of GMO’s "did not result in increased costs, despite the horrifying (double-digit) prediction of some interests," according to David Byrne, former European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection.

* Numerous studies done on animals raise health alarms. The first long term, peer reviewed health study on GMO corn was released this month, published in the peer-reviewed journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology, linking Monsanto’s GMO corn to mammary tumors, kidney and liver damage and premature death.

With such a large sum thrown at advertising, it not surprising that many are hearing the barrage of negative ads and parroting their untruths. This type of hearsay communication is not expected from members of the judicial system and should be of great concern to many.

Next time you see an advertisement opposing 37, note how it doesn’t get to the heart of the matter: that gmo foods have been in processed foods for twenty-some years without your knowledge or consent and that you have probably been eating them without any knowledge of possible health consequences to you or your family. We must wait for more independent studies, and while we wait let’s label GMO foods so we have the right to choose whether to take those risks.

Thank you for taking this letter to your league.

Most sincerely,

Gayle David