Category Archives: GMO Articles


By Jon Rappoport
November 8, 2012

Read Full Article
Hold your horses.
On election night, not long after the polls closed in California, the announcement came out: Prop 37 was losing. A little while later, it was all over. 37 had gone down to defeat.
But is that the whole story? No.
As of 2:30PM today, Thursday, November 8th, two days after the election, many votes in California remain uncounted.
I tried to find out how many.
It turns out that the Secretary of State of CA, responsible for elections in the state, doesn’t know.
I was told all counties in California have been asked, not ordered, to report in with those figures. It’s voluntary.
So I picked out a few of the biggest counties and called their voter registrar offices. Here are the boggling results:
Santa Clara County: 180,000 votes remain uncounted.
Orange County: 241,336 votes remain uncounted.
San Diego County: 475,000 votes remain uncounted.
LA County: 782,658 votes remain uncounted.
In just those four counties, 1.6 million votes remain uncounted.
The California Secretary of State’s website indicates that Prop 37 is behind by 559,776 votes.
So in the four counties I looked into, there are roughly three times as many uncounted votes as the margin of Prop 37?s defeat.
And as I say, I checked the numbers in only four counties. There are 54 other counties in the state. Who knows how many votes they still need to process?
So why is anyone saying Prop 37 lost?
People will say, “Well, it’s all about projections. There are experts. They know what they’re doing. They made a prediction…”
Really? Who are those experts? I have yet to find them.
For big elections, the television networks rely on a private consortium called the National Election Pool (NEP). NEP does projections and predictions. Did NEP make the premature call on Prop 37? So far I see no evidence one way or the other.
NEP makes some calls for the television networks, but NEP is composed of CBS, CNN, FOX, NBC, ABC, and AP. It could hardly be called an independent source of information for those networks.
NEP has AP (Associated Press) do the actual vote tabulating, and NEP also contracts work out to Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International to do exit polls and projections based on those polls.
Edison Media Research did the exit polls in the state of Washington for this election. How? They surveyed 1493 people by phone. Based on that, I assume they made all the projections for elections in that state, even though there is no in-person voting in Washington, and voters can submit their ballots by mail, postmarked no later than election Tuesday. So how could Edison know anything worth knowing or projecting on election night?
Both Edison Research and Mitofsky were involved in the 2004 election scandal (Kerry-Bush), in which their exit polls confounded network news anchors, because the poll results were so far off from the incoming vote-counts.

Now You Know The Power of Corporations!

(This post is from


Now you know the power! The power of big corporations. Proposition 37 in California went down to defeat. The corporations spent somewhere around 45 million dollars to convince voters that they do not need to know what is in their food. It is unbelievable. We here at Yard Eats find it hard to fathom why people would not want to know that GMOs are in their food.

The defeat of Prop 37 makes it even more urgent that you should start your own backyard garden NOW! With no way to tell which products are genetically modified, consumers are now at the total mercy of corporate chemical warfare on their food. Be on the alert. Your life and health may be at stake!


P.S. A list of the corporations who financed the “No” on 37 is on the site WWW.You-Rant. Keep this in mind when you shop.


Food companies Monsanto, Dupont, Pepsico and Nestle spend $45 million to defeat California GM label bill Prop 37

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE – Food companies Monsanto, Dupont, Pepsico and Nestle spend $45 million to defeat California GM label bill Prop 37

The contentious measure would require labels on GM food sold in supermarkets, but would not cover restaurants

Monsanto and other agribusiness and food companies have spent more than $45m (£28m) to defeat a California ballot measure that would require labelling of some GM foods.

The measure, proposition 37, is one of the most contentious initiatives on California’s election ballot on Tuesday.

If it passes, it would require labels on GM food sold in supermarkets, but would not cover restaurants. It also has a number of gaping loopholes. For example, the law would not require labels on meat from animals that were fed GM corn.

Even with those caveats, the agribusiness and food companies have outspent the yes side by about five to one trying to kill the bill. Monsanto alone has spent more than $8m.

“I think it’s a David and Goliath story with the companies that manufacture or benefit from genetically engineered food being the Goliath,” said David Newman, president of Maplight, which tracks the influence of money in politics.

“When you see this lopsided spending it indicates that the measure is popular with voters and opponents think they need to spend a lot to defeat it. There is a lot at stake here not just in California but how it will trend in the rest of the country.”

California’s ballot initiatives often take on huge importance. Often they are seen as laboratories for new ideas, that are adopted later in the rest of the country.

The bill is mainly supported by organic food companies, although the actor Gwyneth Paltrow also contributed $15,000, according to campaigners.


by Jon Rappoport
November 5, 2012

Full Article
You can go into a market and pick out organic vegetables and fruit. This isn’t something you do through magic or secret divination with a special wand. There are labels that tell you the food is organic.
“Experts” claim organic food is no better or safer than food drenched with pesticides. But still, you can choose organic.
You have a right to know. And then, knowing, you have a right to make your choice.
You can go into a market, pick out a food product, and read a list of its ingredients as long as your arm. But you’ll find no mention of whether someone shot insect genes into it.
For some reason, you have no right to know about that.
It’s no accident. The powers-that-be want it that way.
On Tuesday, the voters of California will cast the die on Prop 37. Yes on 37 means GMO food will henceforth be labeled.
The idea behind 37 is simple. If you’re eating food, you have a right to know what’s in it and what’s been done to it. Government scientists and corporate scientists can claim GMO food is “the same in all aspects” as non-GMO, but you still have a right to know.
Monsanto and it allies claim that you knowing is unfair, because you might be swayed, by your own prejudice, to leave that GMO food on the market shelf, when in fact there is no reason to leave it there.
They are telling you the companies who are selling you food are more important than your own judgment about what to put in your body.
You would be impeding commerce if you believe GMO food is bad for you, and in order to protect GMO companies and the economy, you must go into a market blind, to keep things “honest.”
That’s what they think of you: you’re an idiot. You can’t make reasonable judgments. Therefore, you need to be blind.
Let me draw an exact parallel. Let’s suppose you were part of a group that was rallying for a particular political cause, and the government had planted an FBI agent in your midst.
Now, if exposed and questioned, this FBI plant would say, “I wasn’t there to disrupt or influence the group in any way. I was merely trying to protect good Americans. I was there to observe, nothing more.”
Would you nevertheless have the right to know he was there? Would you have the right to decide whether you wanted him there? Or are you too stupid to know that he should be there because America is in danger and we need people like him to spy on us without our knowing, to keep us safe?
It’s the same situation. They tell you the genes planted in your food are neutral in every sense. They affect nothing. They’re good genes and they do good work. But because you might not think so, because you’re too stupid to know the truth, you have to be blind about what’s in your food when you choose it and buy it and eat it.
That’s the argument.
YES ON 37=you have a right to know.
NO ON 37=you need to be protected against your own stupidity.
According to this logic, the NO ON 37 people have a right, even a moral duty, to lie to you, to say whatever they need to, in order to move you in the direction of giving up your right to know. They should lie, they have to lie, since their “truth” wasn’t doing the job.
And they have lied.

Genetically Modified Food – Panacea or Poison

A Dangerous Global Nutritional Experiment?

read full article

Published by Roshi Fugai
on Sep 2, 2012

The fact is, there has never been a single study on the human safety of these products. Any implication to the contrary is a pure fabrication. Make the corporate apologists produce a single study, and they can not.

The important point is this. Among scientists, the scientific community is deeply divided as to whether these foods are safe or not, so the burden of proof is on industry. And so far, the corporations have failed to demonstrate the safety of these foods on humans through a single study.

In the last thirty years global demand for food has doubled. In a race to feed the planet, scientists have discovered how to manipulate DNA, the blueprint of life, and produce what they claim are stronger, more disease-resistant crops.

However, fears that Genetically Modified Food may not be safe for humans or the environment has sparked violent protest. Are we participating in a dangerous global nutritional experiment? This informative film helps the viewer decide if the production of genetically modified food is a panacea for world hunger or a global poison.




By Jon Rappoport

November 4, 2012

The vote is two days away. In California, Prop 37 is on the ballot. It states that all GMO food should be labeled as such, so the consumer can decide whether to buy it and eat it.

The NO ON 37 forces have been caught in a deception. They used the official seal of the FDA in a mailer, and above that seal they attributed a quote to the FDA which was never made by that agency.

The quote was: “The US Food and Drug Administration says a labeling policy like Prop 37 would be ‘inherently misleading.’”

The FDA told KPBS they “never made such statements with respect to Prop 37.”

Here’s the capper. After receiving a complaint about all this, the US Attorney in Sacramento, who works for the US Dept. of Justice, said he would refer the whole matter to the FDA.



California Religious Leaders support Prop 37— Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods

LINKS HERE – California Religious Leaders support Prop 37— Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods

Christian, Jewish, and Hindu faith leaders are urging their congregations to vote for Proposition 37, which would require labeling of genetically modified foods sold in California. Several clergy appear in videotaped interviews There are many reasons why religious leaders support labeling.

Widespread religious enthusiasm for Prop 37 has been expected. Not only do 91% of Americans want GMOs labeled, religious bodies around the world have long supported mandatory labeling, which is already enjoyed by the people of about 50 countries. Some religious bodies go further. The current policy on genetics of the World Council of Churches, for example, calls on people to “Build partnerships with civil society, peoples’ movements, farmers and indigenous peoples to oppose genetic engineering in agriculture.”

Christian Faith Leaders

The United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church USA, and a study committee of the Evangelical Lutheran Church have all called for genetically engineered foods to be labeled. The California Council of Churches is an endorser to Prop 37. And the World Council of Churches, an ecumenical body made up of more than 300 denominations from around the world, warned that the failure to label is a special kind of lying. They write: “…the refusal to allow the labeling of GMOs is itself a hiding of the truth, but also makes it impossible to ensure the integrity of the trade in food.” In their 2006 statement on Caring For Life, the Council urged its members to fight for labeling for the health and well-being of this and future generations.

Rev. Lyndon Harris, the Los Angeles based Episcopal Priest who was in charge of St. Paul’s Chapel across the street from the World Trade Center, points out that “the Global Anglican Communion has come out against Genetically Modified Organisms.” The General Convention of the Episcopal Church “support(s) the rights of consumers to know the source and content of their food stuffs,” and Rev. Harris agrees. “We have a right to know. I am encouraging all involved to work to have GMOs labeled—Proposition 37 in the state of California.”

Rev. Harris, who ran a rescue operation after the World Trade Center attack, also has several concerns “about the proliferation about GMOs in our food supply.” He says, “If the science, as it indicates, is true, there are serious risks for consuming genetically modified organisms.” Rev. Harris avoids buying GMOs and shares his concerns with others, “especially people who are having illness and disease.”

He is concerned about the mixing of genes between plants and animals, and about the lack of safety studies conducted on GMOs before they are placed into our diet. “It’s one thing to experiment,” he says, but “quite another thing to introduce genetically modified organisms GMOs into the food supply without giving due lab testing.”

Rev. Dr. Dudley D. Chapman, pastor of the Greater Community Missionary Baptist church in Pacoima, California, doesn’t think it’s fair to give people food without disclosing what’s in it. He says, “I would vote for putting a GMO label on the can, the bottle, on whatever you are eating so you have a choice.” From a religious perspective, he says, “We definitely and positively want truth. And to be untrue to me, and not telling me what I’m eating, is definitely a sin.” Beyond labeling, Rev. Chapman, like many other Christian leaders, opposes the practice of genetically engineering our food from a religious perspective. “It’s abominable,” he says. “I like the way God made the stuff in the first place. It’s just right. … Everything is so well organized and so well fixed, that hey, why fix what’s already working.” To his congregation, he says, “if there’s any way possible, you should get there to vote to make sure food is labeled when they have GMO ingredients in it. I will vote YES on Prop 37.”

Reverend Peter H. Rood of the Holy Nativity Episcopal Church in Westchester, CA, says, “We have to be informed…. I intend to vote yes on Prop 37.” He invites those in his religious community to do the same. Rev. Rood is also concerned about the lack of awareness about GMOs in general, and is predisposed against the use of genetically engineered foods as a whole. “It takes my breath away when I think about how many folks in my congregation have no idea.” He adds, “It means as a pastor, I’m just going to have to educate all the more to raise consciousness and have folks be active in taking responsibility to stand against this practice.”

Jewish Faith Leaders

Rabbi Elihu Gevirtz says that when tomatoes, corn and other fruits and vegetables are produced with genes from pork or shellfish or scorpions, which are not kosher, he needs the foods labeled as GMO in order to avoid them. “If you can’t trust the food that you eat, how can you take care of your children? Labeling food as GMO enables us to make a conscious choice about the content of our food.” He also says, “The Torah tells us clearly not to put different species together. GMOs are dangerous spiritually. They are a symptom of a spiritual crisis for humanity in which we have overstepped our boundaries. It is not humanity’s role to create new species; it is God’s.”

Hindu Faith Leaders

Swami Ishwarananda, from Chinmaya Mission in Los Angeles, believes that genetic engineering interferes with the natural food that is made by God. As such, “It’s not good for the body.” The Swami says the ancient Vedic practice of Ayurvedic medicine “starts with the right kind of food.” But with genetic engineering, “when certain such modifications in the very structure of the food is done, we have no clue about whether it is the right thing to eat at all or not.” He considers GMOs to be dangerous to health and advises his congregation, “Please do not consume them.” For that,” he says, “labeling is a must. We should support that proposition[37].”

For original sources,

Media Contact: Laurie Cohen Peters
Institute for Responsible Technology Food Policy Fund

Thank you,
Institute for Responsible Technology Food Policy Fund

VOTE! To change American History! – The GMO abusers spending over $40 Mil to BS you!

The Government’s revolving door with Monsanto.

Why vote YES on 37? Empowering people!

Exercise your power to change American history. Defeat Monsanto,  the number one company set on global food production dominance, and other supporters of defeating GM labeling.

Yes on 37!

For the first time in your voting life, you can exercise true citizen power to take down one of the most evil corporations that has ever existed. While virtually all elections have you bellyaching over having to vote the lesser of two distinct evils, and you having to accept it. Here you can join *fifteen (15) other countries, who ban and label GMOs in various forms, by telling Monsanto “We will live in America KNOWING what we are eating and feeding our families!”, and denying their quest for world food production dominance.

Your actions, in CA, November 6th, can have us be the role model for food safety for our entire country. State after state, following our lead. First labeling, then smart purchase refusing to buy, ending the reign of GM/GE (genetically modified/engineered) food.

Why are they (Monsanto, Dupont, Pepsi-Cola {Pepsico}, Dow, Bayer, Kraft, etc.) spending over $40 million dollars to keep you in the dark about the food you eat? Try to find one company on this list that doesn’t sell products rife with the use of GM BT corn products like high-fructose corn syrup.,_Mandatory_Labeling_of_Genetically_Engineered_Food_%282012%29#Opponents

Supporters of ‘NO on 37’:

Monsanto $7,115,237

E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co. $4,900,000

Pepsico, Inc. $2,145,400

DOW Agrisciences $2,000,000

Bayer Cropscience $2,000,000

BASF Plant Science $2,000,000

Syngenta Corporation $2,000,000

Kraft Foods Global $1,950,500

Coca-Cola North America $1,465,500

Nestle USA $1,315,600

Conagra Foods $1,176,700

General Mills $1,135,300

Kellogg Company $790,000

Smithfield Foods $683,900

Del Monte Foods $674,100

Campbell’s Soup $500,000

Heinz Foods $500,000

Hershey Company $493,900

The J.M. Smucker Company $485,000

Bimbo Bakeries $422,900

Ocean Spray Cranberries $387,100

Mars Food North America $376,650

Council for Biotechnology Information $375,000

Grocery Manufacturers Association $375,000

Hormel Foods $374,300

Unilever $372,100

Bumble Bee Foods $368,500

Sara Lee $343,600

Kraft Food Group $304,500

Pinnacle Foods $266,100

Dean Foods Company $253,950

Biotechnology Industry Organization $252,000

Bunge North America $248,600

McCormick & Company $248,200

Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company $237,664

Abbott Nutrition $234,500

Cargill, Inc. $226,846

Rich Products Corporation $225,537

Flowers Foods $182,000

Dole Packaged Foods $171,261

Knouse Foods Cooperative $164,731


Other food companies who have contributed to the “no” campaign (but with checks of less than $150,000) include Sunny Delight Beverages, McCain Foods, Tree Top, Idahoan Foods, Richelieu Foods, Land O’Lakes, Hillshire Brands, Morton Salt, Clorox, Goya de Puerto Rico, Sargento and Godiva Chocolatier.