ARE BIOTECH GMO CORPORATIONS PLOTTING TO STEAL THE ELECTION ON PROPOSITION 37?

PART ONE

:ARE BIOTECH GMO CORPORATIONS PLOTTING TO STEAL THE ELECTION ON PROPOSITION 37?

Mike Adams
Natural News

October 26, 2012

I’m hearing grumblings through the grapevine that an effort may be underway to steal the election against Proposition 37. So far, these are just rumors, but knowing how these evil corporations trying to defeat the ballot measure really operate, there is NOTHING they won’t do to protect their dirty little (agricultural) secrets.

Including stealing the election.

Stealing elections is only really possible in close elections, but that’s exactly where Proposition 37 is right now. It’s just barely ahead in the polls: 44% to 42%, with the remainder undecided or neutral. This means Prop 37 is well within the “stealing” range.

How do you steal an election? Use electronic voting machines, of course. And then hack the crap out of them until the numbers come out the way you want. That’s how most clinical trials are conducted, of course, so fudging the numbers is nothing new to the kind of evil corporations that dominate the GMO hellscape.

Electronic voting is a total fraud

Electronic voting machines are being rolled out all across California right now. These machines, as we’ve seen in past elections, are full of bugs and backdoors that allow your vote to be altered at will by whoever owns or influences the voting machine engineers. There is no paper trail, so your electronic vote goes into a vast black hole where it is easily and invisibly altered.

The entire purpose of using electronic voting machines is, of course, to eliminate accurate vote tracking of any kind, thereby allowing elections to be manipulated at will. And if you think evil globalist corporations wouldn’t stoop to this kind of behavior, think again: The “No on 37″ campaign has already been caught violating federal law by quotes and mailing them out to California voters.

Truthfully, knowing what really goes on behind the scenes, I wouldn’t put it past these people to engage in vote fraud, death threats, extortion, bribery or whatever it takes to defeat Proposition 37. This is the way they routinely conduct business, folks.

We are talking about the most evil cabal of demonic, destructive corporations on the planet. Absolutely nothing is out of bounds for them. Think Al Capone… criminal mafia… death threats and professional hackers. That only scratches the surface!

After all, the very products they sell

~ GMOs, pesticides, Agent Orange ~

are nothing short of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Stealing an election doesn’t even rank at any level worth noting in their dark, smoky rooms where global domination schemes are hatched and plotted through the use of every evil tactic that has ever been invented.

HOW YOU CAN HELP PREVENT 

PROPOSITION 37 VOTE FRAUD

Stealing elections is only possible when the vote results are close, so the best way to ensure evil forces don’t steal the outcome on Proposition 37 is to help us achieve a wide margin of victory at the polls.

This means spreading the word on GMOs and Proposition 37.

Visit the YES on 37 website, watch the videos, donate funds and share knowledge with your family and friends.

Check out the new music video We Have the Right to Know about GMO, featuring top celebrities and health experts, all commenting on GMOs and singing the song, too. (I contributed background vocals to this song, in case you were curious.)

If you know someone who is into healthy living, honest food and grassroots activism, make sure they get to the polls in California and vote! And make sure they vote YES on 37!

A GRASSROOTS VICTORY IS WITHIN REACH

In fact, I personally think the way Californians vote on Prop 37 is far more important than the way they vote for President. Because both Romney and Obama are pro-GMO sellouts who are in bed with big business.

Only the People are truly anti-GMO,

and that’s why this ballot measure

is such an important expression of people power!

Your vote on Proposition 37 is more important than ever! With the biotech criminals running a steady stream of LIES on television, all funded by Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, DuPont and all the other usual suspects, they are managing to trick or confuse a large number of California voters who know nothing about food labeling or GMOs.

WE’VE GOT TO FIGHT BACK WITH SHEER NUMBERS!

Together, we can win this vote for food freedom and honest food. It’s the home stretch, folks, and every bit of your effort, donations, activism and good will is needed right now.

We are facing off against a terrible, destructive monster, and we are in a position where we can sever its head on November 6th and put an end to its rampage of death and destruction. 

We must take every opportunity available to achieve victory right now, because another such opportunity may not come along for years.

Spread the word: Vote YES on 37

if you live in California.

Defeat GMOs now, at the ballot box, and help overwhelm any attempt by malicious forces to steal the election results via black box voting.

  *

  PART TWO:

COULD PROP. 37 KILL MONSANTO'S GM SEEDS?

Big Ag is spending millions to keep labels off genetically modified foods in California—and with good reason.

By Tom Philpott

You'd be forgiven for not noticing ~ unless you live in California, where you've likely been bombarded by geotargeted web ads and TV spots ~ but this election could spur a revolution in the way our food is made.

Proposition 37, a popular Golden State ballot initiative, would require the labeling of food containing genetically modified (GM) ingredients. 

The food and agriculture industries are spending millions to defeat it, and with good reason: As we've seen with auto emissions standards and workplace smoking bans, as California goes, so goes the nation.

At least 70 percent of processed food in the United States contains GM ingredients. Eighty-eight percent of corn and 93 percent of soybeans grown domestically are genetically modified. Soda and sweets are almost guaranteed to contain GM ingredients, either in the form of corn syrup or beet sugar. Canola and cottonseed oils also commonly come from GM crops.

But if those stats make you want to run and examine the labels on the boxes and cans in your pantry, you're out of luck. Unlike the European Union, the US government doesn't require food manufacturers to disclose their use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Californians appear ready to change that:

An August poll found voters in the state favoring Prop. 37 by a margin of 3-to-1. And if they do approve the measure, food companies might well start disclosing GMOs nationwide, since it would be expensive and cumbersome to produce one set of labels for California, home to 12 percent of the nation's population, and another for the remaining 49 states.

California voters already have a record of being leaders in food reform: When they passed a ban on tight cages for egg-laying hens in 2008, the egg industry initially fought it. But by 2011, it had begun working with animal welfare groups to take the California standards national.

Why the push to label GMOs? 

After all, these crops have been marketed as environmental panaceas, and some prominent greens have been convinced.

By opposing GMOs, environmentalists have

"starved people,

hindered science,

hurt the natural environment,

and denied our own practitioners a crucial tool,"

Stewart Brand wrote in his 2009 book, Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto. So far, biotech giants like Monsanto, DuPont, and Syngenta have commercialized two main GM "traits," engineering crops with the bug-killing gene from the insecticide Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) and crops that can withstand Monsanto's Roundup and other herbicides.

Yet GM crops' herbicide resistance has caused a 7 percent net increase in pesticide use in the United States since 1996, according to a recent paper by Washington State University researcher Charles Benbrook.

The industry swears genetically engineered foods are safe even though their potential risks have not been fully studied. Back in 1992, the Food and Drug Administration declared GM foods essentially equivalent to foods derived from non-GM plants, and it has implemented no requirements for safety testing. GMOs have been in the food supply since 1996, which isn't long enough to tell whether they are having subtle negative effects on our health.

Plus, as the advocacy group Food & Water Watch recently reported (PDF), long-term safety studies have been limited because the biotech industry uses its patent power to prevent independent scientists from cultivating GM seeds for research purposes.

In the EU, where labeling has been required since 1997,

most consumers have rejected GMOs.

No wonder the GM seed industry 

has been shoveling cash into fighting Prop. 37.

Some independent, peer-reviewed research has suggested trouble, however. GMOs are capable of creating novel proteins that can turn out to be allergenic, as Australian scientists found when they tested a pea variety that had been engineered to express an otherwise harmless protein from the common bean.

A 2009 study by French researchers found that rats fed Bt and Roundup-tolerant corn for three months showed declines in kidney and liver function. While such findings don't establish that GMOs are unsafe, they do leave the question wide open ~ and validate demands for labeling.

GMOs are a "massive experiment on the American people," says Stacy Malkan, media director for the pro-labeling group Yes on 37 for Your Right to Know If Your Food Has Been Genetically Engineered.

"We absolutely have a right

to know and choose for ourselves

if we eat genetically engineered foods."

If Prop. 37 wins and the food industry eventually takes labeling nationwide, will it present a serious challenge to GMOs?

One possibility is that consumers will simply ignore the labels and continue shopping as usual.

Or not:

A 2010 Thomson Reuters poll (PDF) found 93 percent of respondents in support of labeling; 40 percent indicated they wouldn't choose to eat genetically engineered vegetables, fruits, or grains.

In the European Union,

where labeling has been required since 1997,

most consumers have rejected GMOs,

essentially killing the market for them.

Hostility toward the technology is so strong that the German chemical giant BASF recently announced it would stop producing GM seeds for the European market.

No wonder the GM seed industry has been shoveling cash into the No on 37 Coalition Against the Deceptive Food Labeling Scheme. 

*

As of early fall, it had raised $32 million, eight times as much as the pro-labeling group. Its list of funders reads like a Big Food and Ag trade group:

Major donors include Monsanto ($7.1 million), DuPont ($4.9 million), Dow ($2 million), and PepsiCo ($1.7 million).

The parent companies of major organic brands have also lined up against Prop. 37, including

Coca-Cola (Honest Tea),

General Mills (Cascadian Farm),

Kellogg (Kashi), and

Dean Foods (Horizon Organic).

The No on 37 campaign's treasurer is Thomas Hiltachk, a prominent Republican lawyer and former tobacco industry lobbyist who has served as outside counsel to Philip Morris and helped lead the failed 2010 ballot initiative to repeal California's climate law.

The group's main strategy has been to portray the labeling measure as a needless burden and waste of money. An image on its website shows a farmer with his mouth taped shut and his body crisscrossed by red tape ~ never mind that the proposal imposes no requirements on farmers.

The group has funded studies purporting to show that Prop. 37 would impose an additional $1.2 billion in annual production costs on California food processors and would increase household food prices by as much as $400 a year.  

Please enlarge: