PROP 37 SALON

WELCOMEThank you for choosing to be an agent of positive change. Proposition 37, which mandates the labeling of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and prohibits the misbranding of products as “natural” in California, is more than a measure on the ballot this November. It is a referendum on transparency in the food industry. Prop 37 highlights the importance of disclosure and shines a light on what it means when industries resist such disclosure. For us, this conversation is not about the potential health risks of GMOs. It is not about whether the supporters or the opponents of Prop 37 are right. For us, it is an opportunity to help inject transparency into the large-scale food industry, a category that is central to our society and wellbeing. The movement to mandate transparency in our food is one being aggressively fought by companies who prosper from the manufacturing and sale of GMO-based food products. The campaign "No to Prop 37," sponsored by companies including Monsanto and PepsiCo is spending more than $34M to persuade voters not to make them disclose their GMO products. Support for Prop 37 "Right to Know" has less than $5M. We are outgunned.

As a collection of like-minded individuals who share a vision of passing Prop 37, we thank you for taking the pledge to use your talents and creativity as a vehicle for change. It is upon us as Californians to make the first step and be an example for the rest of the US. Bringing this conversation to a national level will help accomplish our goal of bringing truth and transparency to the food industry. When consumers have knowledge and information, they have the power to steer the world.

1

Frank StrieflerOffice: 424.238.8044Cell: 310.804.6989fstriefler@dw-h.com

Lucas DonatOffice: 424.238.8011Cell: 310.901.3192lucas@dw-h.com

ABOUT PROP 37

Proposition 37 mandates the labeling of foods made from plants or animals with genetically modified materials, referred to as genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and prohibits the misbranding and marketing of foods processed with genetically modified ingredients as "natural."

2

COUNTRIES WITH EXISTING GMO LABELING LAWS65 COUNTRIES ACROSS THE GLOBE ALREADY ENFORCE GMO LABELING LAWS

ABOUT PROP 37

3

AustraliaAustriaBelgiumBeninBoliviaBosniaBrazilBulgariaCameroonChinaCroatiaCzech RepublicDenmarkEcuadorEl SalvadorEstoniaEthiopia

FinlandFranceGermanyGreeceGreenlandHerzegovinaHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIrelandItalyJapanJordanKenyaLatviaLithuania

LuxemburgMalaysiaMaliMaltaNetherlandsNew ZealandNorwayPeruPolandPortugalRomaniaRussiaSaudi ArabiaSenegalSerbiaSingaporeSlovakia

SloveniaSouth AfricaSouth KoreaSpainSri LankaSwedenSwitzerlandThailandTunisiaTurkeyUKUkraineVietnamZambia

AND YET… THE UNITED STATES HAS NO REGULATION OR LAWS REGARDING GMOS

4

GMO ARE PERVASIVE IN OUR FOOD SYSTEM

Between 60 and 70 percent of the processed foods on the U.S. market contain GMOs. (The Global Healing Center)

5

A Sampling of GMO Foods…CornSoy BeansSugar CaneSugar beetsTomatoesPotatoesSweet PeppersBananasStrawberries

ZucchiniPineapplesCocoa BeansYellow SquashPopcornCanola OilCottonseed OilSoy SauceFrozen Pizza

Frozen DinnersDry CerealBaby FormulaCanned SoupsCookiesIce CreamAspartame SweetenerYeast

6

BIG FOOD and BIOTECH COMPANIES HAVE A LOT TO LOSE IF GMOs ARE LABELED

WHAT THE OPPOSITION HAS TO LOSE

If consumers know that the food they eat contain GMOs, they may stop buying those products.

In order to appease customers, companies will start to make the switch to non-GMO ingredients

Food companies will have to reconfig-ure their supply chains and absorb higher costs. Biotech companies will have less opportunity to sell GMO seeds and can potentially lose their hold on the agriculture industry

$$

7

MOST OF THE FUNDING FOR NO ON PROP 37 HAS COME FROM THE BIG SIX PESTICIDE COMPANIES & MAJOR CONGLOMERATE FOOD COMPANIES

LEADING SUPPORTERS OF PROP 37

1. Mercola.com 2. Organic Consumers Fund

3. Nature’s Path Foods

4. Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps

5. Wehah Farms

6. Great Foods of America

7. Alex Bogusky

8. Amy’s Kitchen

9. Clif Bar & Co

10. Organic Consumers Association

$1,100,000

$984,639.25

$610,709.21

$358,882.70

$250,000

$102,000

$100,000

$100,000

$100,000

$78,828.36

LEADING OPPOSITION AGAINST PROP 37

1. Monsanto Company 2. Dupont

3. BASF Plant Science

4. Bayer Cropscience

5. DOW Agrosciences

6. PepsiCo

7. Nestle USA

8. Coca-Cola N. America

9. Conagra Foods

10. Syngenta Co

11. General Mills

12. Del Monte Foods

13. Kellogg Co

$7,100,500

$4,900,000

$2,000,000

$2,000,000

$2,000,000

$1,716,300

$1,169,400

$1,164,400

$1,076,700

$1,000,000

$908,200

$674,100

$632,500

TOTAL RAISED: $35MMTOTAL RAISED: $4MM8

FUNDING FOR PROP 37

CONSUMERS DEMAND GMO LABELINGIn a 2011 poll of over 45,000 voters, 96% believe that genetically modified foods should be labeled. (MSNBC)

As far back as 1992, 85% of respondents thought that labeling of GE food is “very important” (USDA).

GEFoodLabels.org has a collection of over 25 polls from the last 20 years that consistently show above 80% thresh-olds of consumers who believe that GMOs should be prop-erly labeled (Source: http://bit.ly/RTTbw4)

9

Prop 37 is the FIRST ballot initiative in the US trying to require the labeling GMOs. This direct democracy means Prop 37 will be voted on by the people, not by the legislature.

EARLY POLLS SHOW THAT PROP 37 TO BE OVERWHELMINGLY POPULARIn September, an LA Times poll showed that 61% of registered voters are for Prop 37, while the opposition had 25% of voters against the initiative. 14% of the voters were undecided or refused to answer. (Source: http://lat.ms/OYKuSR)

HOWEVER, SUPPORT FOR THE INITIATIVE IS SLIPPINGAn LA Times article from October 12th shows that support for the proposition has dropped in the wake of the opposition’s massive media campaign. Support for Prop 37 hovers around 48.2% while the opposition has grown to 40.2% with 11.5% of voters undecided. (Source: http://lat.ms/QW77Gc )

CONSUMERS WANT PROP 37 PASSED, BUT BIG ADVERTISING BUDGETS ARE SWAYING THEM

10

SUPPORTERS OF PROPOSITION 37 ARGUE THAT…

Prop 37 gives consumers the right to know if their food has been genetically engineered. It empowers people to make their own choices by providing a simple label to tell them if the food has been genetically engineered or not. Without proper labeling, it is impossible to know what is in the food being consumed.

We have a right to know what is in our food.

While there are numerous studies from either side whether GMOs are safe to consumer or if they are dangerous to human health, there has never been a consensus. Companies like Monsanto and DuPont have done their own research, however, they are inherently biased. Independent studies have been stifled by claims of “commercial confidentiality” and any findings are often dismissed. The United States FDA office does not require more than 90 days of testing, so the long-term health effects of GMOs are not known and are there-fore potentially dangerous.

GMOs have never been proven safe.

Marketers have long been misleading consumers by using “natural” in their labeling and marketing of products. The very definition of GMOs by the World Health Organization states that the organisms have been “altered in such a way that does not occur naturally.” Unscrupulous marketers play on the fact that “organic” sounds similar to natural and that the average consumer does not realize that “natural” holds no real value other than sounding positive.

Labeling a product as ‘natural’ when it contains GMO ingredients is misleading.

11

OPPONENTS OF PROPOSITION 37 ARGUE THAT THE INITIATIVE…

Opponents of Prop 37 use misleading language to trick consumers. Prop 37 does not ban any products, but merely requires a small label indicating the presence of GMOs in the food. Manufacturers can also choose to stop using GMOs in those products and re-make them with non-GMO ingredients if they are afraid of consumer backlash.

Bans the sale of tens of thousands of perfectly-safe, common grocery products unless they are specifically repackaged, relabeled, or made with higher food costs.

Prop 37 gives companies 18 months to change their labels. The industry standard is to change labels 1-5 times a year already, so they have ample opportunity. In addition, non-partisan economic studies show a one-time average per-product cost to manufacturers of $1,104 for proper labeling, which represents only 0.03% of annual per product sales. (Source: http://bit.ly/QSBqvM)

“When the current labeling regime (for GMOs) was introduced in 1997, it did not result in increased costs, despite the horrifying prediction of some interests.”

- David Byrne, European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection at the time of labeling in the EU

Forces farmers and food companies to implement costly new labeling…that will cost billions of dollars to implement.

Proposition 37 requires advance notice of intent to sue and requires a cooling-off period of at least 30 days during which an alleged violator can correct the alleged violation. If the violation is corrected, the court will not allow a lawsuit to proceed and no punitive damages may be awarded. In fact, Prop 37 has removed the monetary incentive to attorneys to file lawsuits in an attempt to extort large cash settlements, since corrective action is sufficient to halt the suit. (Source: http://bit.ly/VQfFRX)

Was written by trial lawyers for trial lawyers.

Dairy and meat products are exempt from Prop 37 because testing for the presence of genetically engineered ingredients isn’t feasible. Animals aren’t genetically modified and their by-products (dairy, eggs, meat, and poultry) are therefore not required to be labeled. By targeting these exemptions, the opposition draws attention away from their own special interests in preventing labeling of GMOs.

Is full of absurd, politically-motivated exemptions that make no sense.

No On Prop 37 directly funded the study (http://bit.ly/Oml3cu) that came up with these findings. The study incor-rectly bases its findings off of a failed Oregon measure and generates its $350 number from comparing costs of buying entirely GMO versus entirely organic. Under Prop 37, consumers still have the choice to buy GMO foods, so this number is invalid to cite as fact. An independent study found prices will only increase by an average of $1.27 per year if costs were passed on to consumers. However, this isn’t likely to happen because manufacturers are afraid to lose consumers to alternative products with lower prices. (Source: http://bit.ly/QSBqvM)

Means higher food costs, up to $350 per year.

12

GMO CONSUMPTION HAS YET TO BE PROVEN AS SAFE. POTENTIAL RISKS INCLUDE:

Toxicity: Each genetic insertion creates the

added possibility that formerly nontoxic

elements in the food could become toxic.

Allergic Reactions: Genetic engineering can

transfer allergens from foods to which people

know they are allergic, to foods that they think

are safe; and could create different and new

allergic responses.

Antibiotic Resistance: GE foods could make

disease-causing bacteria resistant to current

antibiotics, resulting in a significant increase

in the spread of infections and diseases in the

human population.

Also, according to The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM), "several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, Faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and gastrointestinal system."

Immune-suppression: Scientists have found

that animals consuming certain GE foods show

impaired organ development, body metabolism,

and immune function.

Cancer: Dairy products from cows treated with

the GE animal drug rBGH possess increased

levels of a hormone linked to the growth of

breast cancer, prostate cancer, and colon

cancer.

Loss of Nutrition: The genetic engineering of

foods can change their nutrient content, reduc-

ing nutritional value. Its own scientists warned

the FDA as far back as 1992 that genetic

modification could cause “undesirable altera-

tion in the level of nutrients.”

13 Source: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/issue_background.pdf

DEBUNKING BIOTECH’S CLAIMS ON GMO

1. Genetic engineering is precise and the modifications are isolated.

Truth: Genetic engineering is crude and imprecise. Genes interact with each other in a variety of ways and inserting new genes may cause unintended side effects.

2. Those who say GMOs are unsafe are being selective with the data, since many other studies validate their safety.

Truth: Studies that claim safety of GMOs are funded by interested parties and are there-fore biased. Independent testing of GMOs are suppressed by their manufacturers based on “commercial confidentiality.”

3. GMOs have been proven safe for human consumption.

Truth: No countries require long-term (over 90 days) studies. There are few studies that have been conducted on humans. Formal and informal studies of GMO effects on animals have shown major health problems including death and infertility.

Source: GMO Myths and Truths http://bit.ly/RS86Hk

4. GMOs are properly tested to not cause allergic reactions.

Truth: No thorough allergenicity testing is conducted on GMOs before they’re in the market. Inserting genes from foods with allergen into different organisms have been shown to produce adverse reactions. GM Insecticidal Maize created a new form of protein –zein, a known allergen. They also inserted brazil nut genes into soy, creating reactions in those with allergies.

5. GMOs decrease need for pesticides and herbicides.

Truth: Pests and insects develop resistance to the modified traits of GMOs, requiring more chemical use over time.

6. GMOs have economic benefits for farmers

Truth: GMO seeds are the Intellectual Property of the company that made them (e.g. Monsanto) and cannot be used again, so farmers must buy more every year. Short-term savings may occur, but costs increase over time because farmers cannot practice self-sustaining agriculture.

14Source: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/issue_background.pdf

ADDITIONAL RESOURCESCAMPAIGNS

CA Right To Know - www.carighttoknow.org No On Prop 37 - www.noprop37.com

Vote For The Dinner PartyNew York Times - http://nyti.ms/RDtNJ8 This article by Michael Pollan provides an educated look at the higher-level transparency issues surrounding Prop 37.

Campaign Finance: Prop 37 Opponents Leave Advocates in DustFood Product Design - http://bit.ly/UFlKkNDiscusses the funding differences between either side of Prop 37, especially how Yes On Prop 37 spent a lot of money getting the initiative on the ballot.

TV Ad Against Food Labeling Proposition Is PulledLA Times http://lat.ms/UIrieu No On Prop 37 was forced to recreate their advertisements after shooting them at Stanford without express permission of the University. One professor of a Stanford think tank has demonstrated his support in front of images of the school, implying the school’s support for the cause. This LA Times article discusses Stanford’s reaction.

Pesticide Use Ramping Up As GMO Crop Technology Backfires Reuters - http://reut.rs/UFeQMr Reuters highlights a study that shows an increase in pesticide use since the introduction of GMO crops, making the original intent of genetic engineering (chemical resistance) a null point.

GMO Debate Heats Up: Critics Say Biotech Industry Manipulating Genes, And ScienceHuffington Post http://huff.to/RuMsGZ This article on Huffington Post examines the issue of GMO labeling and addresses the criticisms of special interest bias in the science behind the debate.

Let’s Talk About GMOs At Whole FoodsWhole Foods - http://bit.ly/RuMbUqAfter a revealing video showed that Whole Foods employees didn’t know about GMOs in their products, the company came out with their official statement of support for Prop 37. However, they are criticized for voicing their support but refusing to give any money to the cause.

Prop 37: The Customer Is King, And Labels Need To Reflect ThatForbes - http://onforb.es/Tt1uRV Dean Crutchfield provides an ethical marketing and business take on the Prop 37 issue, highlighting the way opponents of the initiative would be wise to listen to their consumers.

Big Tobacco Shills Trying To Stop Labeling In CaliforniaAppetite for Profit - http://bit.ly/VMs0Xn This author took a deeper look into the firms behind No Prop 37 and found that the law firm representing the opposition has links to the controversial Big Tobacco groups that used astroturfing, corporate-funded ‘grassroots’ campaigns, and bogus

ARTICLES AND WEBSITES

15

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Conventional Farmer: Labeling is a Win-Win FixFood.org - http://bit.ly/PUHgdG Troy Roush, a well-known GMO farmer who appeared in the 2009 documentary Food, Inc., has stated that he has no problem with the labeling of GMOs. In his own words, the issue of labeling “is not a big deal” and provides a “win-win” for farmers and consumers.

Rat Study Sparks Furor over Genetically Modified FoodsScientific American - http://bit.ly/VMgPxW Highlights the renewed debate over GMOs after a controversial rat study was published that linked GM corn to cancerous tumors.

France Orders Probe After Rat Study Links GM Corn, CancerThe Journal - http://bit.ly/OmhenC Following the study that GMO corn causes cancer, France decided it was time to look into the GMO issue more closely. An important player in the EU, France’s decisions could affect many other countries.

Russia Suspends Import, Use of GMOs Fox News- http://fxn.ws/UFeqFK After France launched a probe into GMO foods because of the GM corn / cancer study, Russia took the situation one step further and completely suspended the import or use of GMOs in the entire nation.

EU rejects French scientist report linking GM corn to cancerNew York Daily News - http://nydn.us/PmqAkM The European Food Safety Authority said it cannot accept an "inadequate" report by a French scientist on a link between cancer and genetically modified corn when evaluating the risk. It found the "design, reporting and analysis of the study ... are inadequate," meaning it could not "regard the authors' conclusions as scientifically sound.”

Labeling Of Genetically Engineered Foods Is A Losing Proposition Forbes - http://onforb.es/VM2VM5 Written by the founding director of the FDA’s Office of Biotechnology, this article uses loose language to try and convince voters to cast a “No” against Prop 37. Henry Miller was also responsible for drafting the claims against Prop 37 that appears in the California Voter’s Pamphlets and is the main authority in No On Prop 37’s videos.

Are GMO foods safe? Opponents are skewing the science to scare people.Slate - http://slate.me/QSvS6a This article, written in Slate Magazine, has the subhead “Don’t Worry. Genetically Modified Corn Isn’t Going To Give You Cancer.” Kloor presents the debate over Prop 37 in a very contrarian manner, calling out “climate skeptics of the left.”

Editorial Boards Support No Prop 37

NoProp37.com - http://www.noprop37.com/media/editorials/ This page on No On Prop 37’s website lists out a series of editorials in California newspapers that encourage people to reject Prop 37. The campaign presents these editorials as “proof” that California newspapers are against Prop 37, when the articles are really editorials (opinions).

ARTICLES AND WEBSITES CONT.

DOCUMENTARIES

Genetic Roulette - http://geneticroulettemovie.com/ Seeds of Freedom - http://seedsoffreedom.info/ Food, Inc - http://www.takepart.com/foodinc

16

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Yes on 37 - We Have The Right To Know by carighttoknow.org http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SVCcs3H_Rw&feature=plcp

Yes on Prop 37 - California Right To Know by carighttoknow.org http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Szq2GFYktG8&feature=plcp

Yes on Proposition 37 to Label Genetically Engineered Food. We Have the Right to Know. by carighttoknow.org

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZCBIIFWGXk&feature=plcp

In the Dark about GE Food? Just Label It! http://youtu.be/C5W-5VzA2bM

Just Label It: Labels Matter to Moms http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1cJDHUZShw&feature=plcp

Just Label It: We Have a Right to Know http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ep4uxbhsvI&feature=plcp

Genetically Modified Food - The Right To Know by labelgmos.org http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XovV3yr5OyE&feature=plcp

Eat Food & Live in California? You Have a Right to Know by labelgmos.org

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOJmo8pIahU&feature=plcp

Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) - Myths and Truths by Mercola.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=M_ztZGbLEJ0

Mercola.com's Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x299MGx-JY0&feature=plcp

"Question What's Inside" music video on GMOs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nqz7Z9ixoQs&feature=relmfu

The Video Monsanto Does NOT Want You to See! By Nutiva & Elevate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lni6OAJz3sk

Right to Know: Vote Yes on Prop 37 by foodandwaterwatch.org

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RB1xHFwSYIg

Genetic engineering: The world's greatest scam? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H9WZGKQeYg

United States of GMOs TheFoodBabe’s YouTube - http://bit.ly/Pmn2yJ

PRO-PROP 37 VIDEOS

17