The Biotech Goliath Roars: Monsanto’s Gang Dumps $25 Million into NO on 37 Campaign to Label GMOs

Organic Consumers

Yesterday it was revealed that the biotech industry and Big Ag have already dumped $25 million - $4.2 million from chemical and seed giant Monsanto alone - into the campaign to defeat Proposition 37 in California, the November 6 citizens ballot initiative that will require genetically engineered foods to be labeled and put an end to the deceptive industry practice of marketing GMO-tainted foods as “natural” or “all natural.”

The California Secretary of State just released the latest Who’s Who of donors to the NO on 37 and YES on 37 campaigns. Topping the list of donors to the NO on 37 anti-labeling campaign is Monsanto and the rest of the Biotech agri-toxics gang, aided and abetted by processed food manufacturers and supermarket chains. As of Aug. 15, they’ve raised more than $25 million to keep you from knowing what’s in your food. And of course the November 6 election is still more than two months away. On our side, YES on 37, we’ve raised $2.7 million with several million more in pledges.

Who are the top donors on our side, calling for truthful labels on GMOs? The top two donors are Mercola.com, the nation’s largest network of natural health consumers, and the Organic Consumers Fund (OCF), the allied grassroots lobbying arm of the Organic Consumers Association. Mercola.com has already donated $800,000 to the cause, while the OCF has donated approximately $700,000 so far, almost all of which has come in the form of small donations from organic food consumers. Other large donors to the YES on 37 campaign so far include Nature’s Path, Dr. Bronner’s, Lundberg Family Farms, Eden Foods, and Organic Valley, leading brands in the organic industry.

It’s clear that the NO on 37 folks have a lot at stake – namely, grotesque profits. After Monsanto, the top donor is DuPont Pioneer, at more than $2.4 million. Pepsi/Frito Lay has moved into the no. 3 spot, at more than $1.7 million. In all, nine companies have pitched in more than $1 million each – most of them biotech and pesticide companies, along with Pepsi, Nestle and Coca-Cola.

Total number of major donors so far to the NO on Prop 37 campaign? 45 – all with ties to the biotech, pesticide and Big Food industries. Total number of major donors to the YES campaign? 18 – none with ties to biotech, pesticides or Big Food.

Goliath has indeed roared, but the food fight of our lives has just begun. Goliath has more money, but David, our champion on the battlefield, has truth and grassroots power backing him up. How much more will the Biotech Bullies and Big Ag spend to keep voters in the dark about chemical and energy intensive GMO food? Please stay tuned from now until Nov. 6. We’ll keep you informed and motivated to join OCA, OCF, and our allies in this historic battle that will determine the future of food and farming, not only in North America, but across the world.

See the chart here

Health Canada Admits Studies on Cell Phones Convincing Enough to Promote Limited Use

Food Consumer
Dr. Mercola

Health Canada is proposing to adopt a precautionary approach and guidelines for limited cell phone use.

Canadians are being encouraged to limit cell phone call length and to text message or use a hands-free device whenever possible.

Other countries have already adopted this precautionary approach.

Russian officials have issued the recommendation that all children under the age of 18 should avoid using cell phones entirely.

The UK, Israel, Belgium, Germany, India and Finland also urge citizens to err on the side of caution with respect to their children's use of cell phones.

Last year, France set the following recommendations:

1) All cell phones must be sold with a device limiting head exposure to EMF.

2) Any advertising campaign promoting the use of cell phones by children below 14 years is banned.

3) Providing radio equipments designed for children under 6 may be banned by ministerial order.

4) In kindergarten, primary school and junior high, the use of cell phones is banned for kids during all teaching activities in locations listed in School rules.

5) For all cell phones sold on the French territory the SAR must be indicated clearly and in French.

Possible risks resulting from excessive use must also be mentioned.

Cell Phone Radiation Classified as 'Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans'

As the use of cell phones and other wireless technologies have exponentially exploded over the past couple of decades, concerns about the health effects of such technology has increased as well. Today, we're at a point of no turning back, as cell phone subscriptions are now estimated at 5 billion globally—that's the majority of people on the planet!
A growing body of researchers has spoken out against the technology, warning that it may have serious biological side effects. On May 31 this year, the World Health Organization (WHO)/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) issued a report admitting cell phones might indeed cause cancer, classifying radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" (Class 2B). The classification came in part in response to research showing wireless telephones increase the risk for brain cancer.

According to the press release:

"Dr Jonathan Samet (University of Southern California, USA), overall Chairman of the Working Group, indicated that "the evidence, while still accumulating, is strong enough to support a conclusion and the 2B classification. The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk."

"Given the potential consequences for public health of this classification and findings," said IARC Director Christopher Wild, "it is important that additional research be conducted into the long?term, heavy use of mobile phones. Pending the availability of such information, it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands?free devices or texting. "