Big
Agriculture Bankrolls Defeat of California's Proposition 37
Proponents
remain positive about the future fight against GMOs
- Common Dreams staff
เกษตร
(พาณิชย์) ยักษ์ทุ่มเงินพิฆาต ญัตติ 37 ของแคลิฟอร์เนีย
ผู้สนับสนุนยังคงคิดบวกเกี่ยวกับการต่อสู้กับ
จีเอ็มโอ ในอนาคต
-
ทีมงานคอมมอนดรีมส์
ดรุณี
แปล
California's landmark Proposition 37
was soundly and sadly defeated on Tuesday by corporate interests and big money
politics. As of Wednesday morning, with more than 94 percent of the precincts
reporting, news outlets reported that the measure has been rejected.
ญัตติ
37 ของแคลิฟอร์เนีย ถูกกระหน่ำให้พ่ายแพ้เรียบร้อยและอย่างน่าเศร้าเมื่อวันอังคาร
โดยกลุ่มผลประโยชน์ของบรรษัทและการเมืองเงินตรามหาศาล. ดังปรากฏในเช้าวันพุธ, รายงานข่าวกว่า 94% ประกาศว่า มาตรการถูกปฏิเสธ.
Opposition of Proposition 37 was
spearheaded by large agribusiness and chemical companies—such as Monsanto and
Dow—and big food manufacturers—including PepsiCo, Nestle, and Conagra—who
dumped more than $45 million into the fight. Monsanto, a leading maker of
genetically engineered seeds, contributed $8.1 million alone against the
measure which would have required labeling on genetically modified food.
ฝ่ายตรงข้ามของญัตติ
37
มีเกษตรพาณิชย์และบริษัทสารเคมีขนาดใหญ่เป็นหัวหอก—เช่น มอนซานโต และ ดาว—และอุตสาหกรรมอาหารขนาดใหญ่—รวมทั้ง
เปปซีโค, เนสเล่, และโคนากรา—ผู้ทุ่มกว่า 45
ล้านดอลลาร์ในศึกครั้งนี้. มอนซานโต, ผู้นำการผลิตเมล็ดจีเอ็ม,
ลงขันตามลำพังถึง 8.1 ล้านเหรียญ เพื่อต่อต้านมาตรการที่จะมีผลบังคับให้ตีตราอาหารจีเอ็ม.
As of early October, a USC/ Los
Angeles Times poll announced that the measure was leading by a large margin, "with
59 percent of voters in favor versus 28 percent who are opposed."
ในตอนต้นตุลาคม,
การสุ่มเสียงโดย USC/ Los Angeles Times
ได้ประกาศว่า มาตรการนี้ได้รับการสนับสนุนนำลิ่ว, “ผู้มีสิทธิ์ลงคะแนน 59% เห็นชอบกับมาตรการนี้ เมื่อเทียบกับ 28%
ที่ไม่เห็นด้วย”.
However, nearly $27 million was
spent by the "highly organized" No campaign on radio, television and
Internet advertising to spread myths about increased bureaucracy and higher
food costs.
แต่,
เกือบ 27 ล้านเหรียญได้ถูกใช้ไปในกิจกรรมที่ “มีการจัดกระบวนอย่างยอดเยี่ยม” การรณรงค์
“ไม่เอา” ทางวิทยุ, โทรทัศน์ และโฆษณาทางอินเตอร์เน็ต เพื่อกระพือกระจายเรื่องหลอกลวงเกี่ยวกับการเพิ่มความยุ่งยากและต้นทุนของอาหาร.
In contrast, the yes campaign raised
$9.2 million, relying primarily on social media and grass-roots initiatives.
Supporters include the organic industry, consumer groups, and alternative
medicine organizations. Proposition advocates believe that consumers have the
right to know whether food has been genetically altered, particularly because
long-term affects are yet unknown. Consumer groups estimate that about 70 to 80 percent of processed foods currently
sold in the US are made with GM ingredients such as corn, soybeans, sugar beets
and cottonseed oil.
ในทางตรงข้าม,
การรณรงค์ “เอา” ระดมทุนได้เพียง 9.2 ล้านเหรียญ,
ได้แต่พึ่งสื่อสังคมและการริเริ่มระดับรากหญ้า. ผู้สนับสนุน มีอุตสาหกรรมอินทรีย์,
กลุ่มผู้บริโภค, และองค์กรยาทางเลือก. ผู้สนับสนุนญัตติ
เชื่อว่า ผู้บริโภคมีสิทธิที่จะรู้ว่าอาหารได้ถูกแปรเปลี่ยนทางพันธุกรรมหรือไม่,
โดยเฉพาะอย่างยิ่ง เพราะผลกระทบระยะยาวนั้น ยังไม่เป็นที่รู้กัน. กลุ่มผู้บริโภคประเมินว่า ประมาณ 70-80% ของอาหารแปรรูปที่ปัจจุบันขายอยู่ในสหรัฐฯ มีส่วนผสมของจีเอ็ม เช่น
ข้าวโพด, ถั่วเหลือง, บีทน้ำตาล และน้ำมันเมล็ดฝ้าย.
Despite the loss, proponents of this
first-of-its-kind initiative remain optimistic that the conversation about the dangers
genetically modified foods will continue.
ทั้งๆ
ที่พ่ายแพ้, ผู้สนับสนุน การริเริ่มที่ไม่เคยมีมาก่อนกลุ่มนี้
ยังคงมองโลกในแง่ดีว่า การสนทนาเกี่ยวกับภยันตรายจากอาหารจีเอ็มจะยังคงดำเนินต่อไป.
"Whatever happens tonight, this
is a win," Grant Lundberg, CEO of Lundberg Family Farms and co-chair of
Yes on 37, said Tuesday while waiting for polls to close. "Never
before have millions of Californians come together to support giving consumers
a choice about genetically engineered foods."
“ไม่ว่าอะไรจะเกิดขึ้นในคืนนี้,
นี่เป็นชัยชนะแล้ว”, แกร๊นท์ ลุนด์เบิร์ก, ซีอีโอ ของฟาร์มครอบครัวลุนด์เบิร์ก และ
ประธานร่วมของ “เอา” ญัตติ 37, กล่าวในวันอังคารในขณะที่รอการปิดกล่องลงคะแนน.
“ไม่เคยมีมาก่อนนี้
ที่ชาวแคลิฟอร์เนียได้ออกมาจับมือร่วมกัน สนับสนุนให้ผู้บริโภคมีทางเลือกเกี่ยวกับอาหาร
จีเอ็ม”.
แถลงการณ์โดย
กลุ่มเฝ้าระวังอาหารและน้ำ ประกาศว่า.
One bought election does not change
the fact that more than 90 percent of Americans want to join the more than 60
other countries around the world in knowing whether or not their food has been
genetically engineered with a simple label.
การเลือกตั้งที่ถูกซื้อหนึ่งครั้ง
ไม่ได้เปลี่ยนข้อเท็จจริงที่ว่า กว่า 90% ของชาวอเมริกัน
ต้องการจับมือกับกว่า 60 ประเทศอื่นๆ ทั่วโลก ในการรู้ว่า
อาหารของพวกเขามี จีเอ็มปนเปื้อนหรือไม่ ด้วยการติดป้ายง่ายๆ”.
"Thanks to all who have
supported us," wrote the Yes on 37 campaign in a concilliatory tweet shortly
before 1 a.m. "This is the first round of many!"
“ขอบคุณทุกท่านที่ได้ให้การสนับสนุนพวกเรา”, กลุ่มรณรงค์ “เอา” ญัตติ 37 เขียนใส่ ทวิตเตอร์ก่อนตีหนึ่ง. “นี่เป็นยกแรกของหลายๆ
ยก”.
"One bought election does not
change the fact that more than 90 percent of Americans want to join the more
than 60 other countries around the world in knowing whether or not their food
has been genetically engineered with a simple label."
But it's not just one bought
election. Prop 8 against legalizing gay and
lesbian marriage was also one. With lots of outside money influencing our
election. Then consider the recall of Gray Davis after he had been reelected
and installing Arnold. Go back a little ways and you'll find the deregulation
of utilities and the Enron mess. It's a pervasive trend.
Outside money from outside interests
is a far bigger threat to our democracy than the state of Wall St. and our
phony "economy".
One
of the unfortunate points that didn't seem to get through, I'd guess, is that
these same interests that say that labeling would increase food costs already
are making the kind of profits that enable this level of expenditure into the
political process.
Still,
it is troubling to note that so many fall for the propaganda.
yes.
they spent $40 million dollars for God's sake.
And
the $47 million spent to defeat Prop 37 will be passed on to the consumers by
higher food prices. A win-win for big bad agribusiness.
We
had all wish Prop 37 would have passed in California, beginning the requirement
that any food containing GMOs was properly labeled so that if you wanted GMOs
you could eat only them and those of us that wish to not eat GMOs, we would kno
w which chips, packaged foods, etc not to eat. The major food companies spent millions to block that voter initiative. Therefore I want to keep letting our grocery stores know that we are the paying consumers and we want to know. Please share this petition with your friends.http://www.change.org/petitions/to-my...
w which chips, packaged foods, etc not to eat. The major food companies spent millions to block that voter initiative. Therefore I want to keep letting our grocery stores know that we are the paying consumers and we want to know. Please share this petition with your friends.http://www.change.org/petitions/to-my...
This amazes me. Who in their right
mind votes against labeling what's in food?? I understand that Monsanto et al
out spent the Prop 37 folks but do people just believe every bit of propaganda
that's put before them? :::shaking head:::
Not
everyone does. Only about 51+%...
It's
mind-boggling to me too. Probably the most intimate act that human beings
engage in is what we put in our mouths to become a part of us. And, somehow, a
majority of people in California don't get that!? It's not just amazing, it's
revolting.
Californians don't want to know what
they're eating? Unbelievable - to the point where I don't believe it.
I
watch a bit of television here and there and - here in southern CA- in the last
month I saw one ad for Yes ( to label) and umpteen for NO - and when the big
lie gets repeated again and again, especially when it says to people who are
barely making it that it will cost you $400 more per year - people will vote
NO.
The
easiest way to control people is to scare them.
I've
not seen any of the NO ads. What could they say to convince voters labeling is
a bad idea????
If
you are truly curious, just google 'aaas gmo labeling' and you will learn why
the nation's largest scientific organization came out in opposition to prop 37.
Because I could not refute the facts and logic of the AAAS statement, I had to
agree with it.
Do
we then have permission from the AAAS and Monsanto, etc. to label non-GMO goods
so we can tell the difference?
Although
you felt you had to agree with the statement many scientists did not:
"The
Board asserts that “Civilization rests on people’s ability to modify plants to
make them more suitable as food, feed and fiber plants and all of these
modifications are genetic.” However, civilization also rests on the confidence
that an individual’s basic human rights will be respected by his or her fellow
citizens and by the government, including the ‘right to know.’
The
AAAS statement notes that “GM crops are the most extensively tested crops ever
added to our food supply.” The statement should have included the fact that the
Food and Drug Administration’s testing program is voluntary. Our experience
with other well-studied consumer products (tobacco, asbestos, bisphenol A,
phthalates) demonstrates that a large number of tests provide no guarantee of
safety. Typically, evidence of harm has only emerged when testing has been
conducted independently of those who benefit from the product or practice.
Unfortunately, years of manufactured doubt by those with a vested interest have
and continue to slow public health decisions that rightfully should be based
solely on science."
I
am always a little leary to believe posters that post under full names. They
tend to be conservative leaning and possible sock puppets.
Monsanto
publishes test results for only three months. What happens after that? The
French study showed kidney damage, liver damage, and tumors. The study has, of
course, been damned by those who produce and promote GMOs. But, where are their
long-term studies? No, GMOs are not well tested.
The
"facts and logic" in the AAAS statement all surround the issue of GMO
food safety - which is a red herring and irrelavant. The issue was not one of
food safety, it was the right for an individual to know and choose what they
eat, for any reason or no reason at all, rational, or irrational. This is
called "a free society". I for one, am skeptical about GMO's being
unsafe, but do not want to eat it for political-economic reasons.
It
is the height of vile arrogance to say the public must be kept ignorant for
their own good!
You
can trust Monsanto in their guinea-pig experiment if you want but, the fact
that you voted to deny other people the right to not participate, shows a
callousness bordering on psychopathy.
The
sad thing is that most people wouldn't know what they're eating regardless of
what's on the label. IOW, they don't know where their food comes from, just
that it magically appears in their supermarkets all shiny and shrink wrapped.
This
is true in most non-rural places now, all over the world.
I lived in Ca for a while and I
voted to stop spraying people , neighborhoods, etc with malathion, a pesticide.
i was shocked it lost and never believed that people voted to be sprayed with
poison. Just don't believe it.
I also don't believe they voted to
be kept in the dark about their food either. Why would anyone vote to have
things censored from them, It doesn't add up.
I don't buy into the erroneous
belief that money trumps all. I believe it is a con to keep people from
questioning ridiculous thefts of election like this. There nothing for the
people what so ever to be gained by not knowing what's in their food. This is
not even remotely believable.
I
couldn't believe it when they voted to not require big companies like walmart
to give people health insurance or a decent wage so that they did not have to
be on welfare. Now those same people that voted against it are saying they
don't want their taxes paying for the poor's health care or food. Idiots. I
thought 37 would pass with a huge majority. Idiots.
These
elections are fixed. How long will people just stand there while they are told
that everyone **wants** to live in poverty , making minimum wage, and no access
to health care. Now we're suppose to believe that people don't want to know if
their are questionable chemicals in their food so much so they got out in
droves to vote for censorship.
Total
absurd lie. Not even remotely believable as are so many of these things that we
supposedly vote for. We're being conned like small children.
Well
the spraying stopped when they ran out of money. Too many tax breaks for the
top 01% and multinational corporations.
Its relatively easy to spot a lot of
gmo stuff - if it has corn or soy in it and it comes from the us or canada,
it's gmo so I don't buy it.
Yep,
and that's really the kicker, isn't it? I would imagine that folks who are
aware of the prevalence of GMO in soy and corn will simply choose to avoid
products with these ingredients now, regardless of whether they're actually
GMO. And everyone else will continue on their merry way.
Don't
forget canola. 93% of all canola is GMO
This election was fraudulently
manipulated, People have nothing to gain by voting to stop labeling and
everything to lose. This was fixed. Don't believe for a minute people actually
wanted dangerous aspects of their food hidden from them. And I don't believe
enough people cared about the GMO backers to vote in droves to protect their
scam on the people.
It is completely illogical. Not a
chance in hell this was not a stolen election. Im sorry people had nothing to
lose by vetoing Yes and everything to gain.
This
is a really important point. I want to believe the vote was stolen. The
prevalence of chemicals already on the labels and declining health of children
in general do, however, indicate that many can't be bothered with good
nutrition.
Maybe
someone can challenge the vote and get it counted a hundred ways till Sunday.
Also, anonymous sure needs to get deep into the corporate data and expose their
crimes.
When people are sheep they fear the
corporations will raise their prices instead of saying 'F-you, raise your
prices and we don't buy from you' then the people will cower and shovel the
poison into their stupid heads.
This
is supposedly the whole premise of the "free market" the Ayn Rand
cults shove down our throats every day.
Boy was I wrong. Un-frickin'-believable.
its
gonna be long slog but the work on the learning curve is well underway
I
guess so, but so disappointing coming from California and by that wide a
margin.
You can pin this loss squarely on
the shoulders of the corpress, who shilled for these corps in their editorials,
and obfuscated in their coverage.
It was truly a triumph for "all
the news that's printed to fit".
How do you go from 58% for, 28%
against, to a win for the against? I don't know anyone who voted no on this
bill. I think there is some funny business going on with this count. Somone
paid somone off, to miss count. Who votes against knowing what's going into
their food? We need to demand a recount.
I'd like to see a list of brands of
the companies that spent the $$ and defeated right to know measure in order to
try to avoid them
Here
you go (courtesy of Ballotpedia):
Monsanto $8,112,867
E.I.
Dupont De Nemours & Co. $5,400,000
Pepsico,
Inc. $2,145,400
Grocery
Manufacturers Association $2,002,000
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 $1,700,500
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
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
Thanks
for this list--the usual culprits of course. The best way to avoid GMOs is to
eat organic whenever possible. I'm not rich--just barely making it
actually--but I feel it's money well spent because I hardly ever get sick, so I
don't have to spend money on doctors.
Too
bad they can't or won't pay their taxes as easily.
And
this is also why they have so much cash to use for so much mischief.
They
don't have to 'use' any of their cash. It's all tax deductible for them.
oceanstater
- the LA Times posted a link to the Prop 37 results as well as names of the
largest donors... http://graphics.latimes.com/20... click on the link 'follow the money' there which provides
about 3 pages of the largest donors and their contributions. For those of you
not aware of the flood of No against 37 lies hitting our media, i.e. TV, radio,
our mail boxes, I will just say a million $ a day hit every hour on the hour
all over California. The opponents went so far to illegally include statements
in our home mailers that said the FDA opposes Prop 37 with the government's
official FDA stamp. They also included home mailers imitating in design with
every aspect 'Official "Democrat" and "Green" Voters
Guides' promoting NO on Prop 37. When CARIGHTOKNOW addressed this to the 'gov't
powers that be', they were told that if the opposition did not include the word
"Party", as in Official Democratic "Party" Voters Guide, nothing
could be done about it.
There
once was a time people were actually prosecuted for false advertising, lying to
the public. Like banksters were actually prosecuted for fraud, etc.
Corporations and banks (Wall St.), can do anything they want now. If ever
actually prosecuted (and they all should be), it's a small, slap on the wrist
fine, and laughing all the way to the bank with their profits. Of course,
nothing is ever done to correct the malfeasance or repair the damage. It's
win-win for them when the deck is stacked, even when they're caught fixing vote
tallies.
We
both know times will never be what they once where. Never has it hit home with
such force than during this entire election year. When Presidential candidates
can stand on the platform and lie through their pearly white teeth...then
receive standing ovations from the crowd.. it boggles the mind. But back to
labeling genetically engineered food...Know Your Enemy. The list of donors who
fight against our rights are listed. STOP handing over hard earned money to
support their wrongs against the people. During the Prop 37 campaign a real
clear picture became evident to everyone who had eyes to see it. But far too
many didn't unfortunately. So, it's time for We The People to do some grunt
work. See what needs doing and DO IT. For me this involves continued dialogue
with anyone and everyone about genetically engineered food. I truly believe if
people had more information about food they are feeding their family, to know
what the biochem corps are doing to their food, they would want to know.
Hopefully Prop 37 cracked that door open. Now we just need to take it off the
hinge. You can't get potatoes unless you pick up a hoe....
i live in LA and have been
absolutely shocked at the amount of people who (still!) have never heard of the
term GMO! my 8 yrs old daughter was a "tomato fish" GMO for halloween
and people did NOT know what a GMO was!! they just stared at us when we
explained what "genetically modified organism" means. it was
disheartening. there were hardly any YES on 37 signs in the streets, hardly any
cars had bumper stickers, it was a sad campaign. all people learned about prop
37 on TV and from fraudulent mailer after mailer: there was going to be an
"increase in food cost and confusion" if they would vote YES on
37...they didn't even bother to ask more - like who is funding this NO campaign
and why they would do it... so what these people voted down was the perceived
increase of food prices and confusion, not the actual issue of GMOs in their
food. education is the key to enlightenment of a society. a vast amount of
people here is into the short term satisfaction lifestyle - think disneyland
etc.
I
guess next time (because there will be a next time) the campaign will have to
be very grassroots and very widespread, so people can resist the predictable
propaganda they will be bombarded with.
When you think how stupid the
average American is; then you stop and realize that half of them are stupider
than that. (apology to Carlin)
Stupid was useful, until corporations realized there are millions in China etc. that will work for less than peanuts.
Republican voters: sun revolves around the earth, god is against abortion, god hates gays, no blacks in the white house, global warming is a liberal conspiracy, kill the sand niggers and take the oil, America is the chosen nation, Romney want's to make everyone rich, 2 more wars -- for now, the population bomb and peak oil, more liberal lies to force socialism on Americans, deregulation will make everyone prosperous (well, unless you die from from fungal meningitis, pollution, unsafe at any speed cars, junk food, cigarettes etc. OR unless predatory banks take your house, or Wall Street takes your pension)
Hobbs had something to say about deregulation:
"Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withall. In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short."
Funny how concerned "good Americans" get about immorality, but never even notice amorality. And even more funny that they are incapable of making rational civilized plans for a future 10, 25, or 100 years from now.
Stupid was useful, until corporations realized there are millions in China etc. that will work for less than peanuts.
Republican voters: sun revolves around the earth, god is against abortion, god hates gays, no blacks in the white house, global warming is a liberal conspiracy, kill the sand niggers and take the oil, America is the chosen nation, Romney want's to make everyone rich, 2 more wars -- for now, the population bomb and peak oil, more liberal lies to force socialism on Americans, deregulation will make everyone prosperous (well, unless you die from from fungal meningitis, pollution, unsafe at any speed cars, junk food, cigarettes etc. OR unless predatory banks take your house, or Wall Street takes your pension)
Hobbs had something to say about deregulation:
"Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withall. In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short."
Funny how concerned "good Americans" get about immorality, but never even notice amorality. And even more funny that they are incapable of making rational civilized plans for a future 10, 25, or 100 years from now.
Californians are supposed to be
among the healthiest in the US. The mild climate invites people to spend time
out of doors. Being exposed to so many people, Californians take great pride in
trying to stay trim and fit. They seem to be intelligent consumers. After all,
the organic/health food revolution got its greatest support in the early days
from Californians. California is also home to many progressive agendas,
including equal rights, gay-marriages, pollution regulation, ending prohibition
of marijuana, etc.
So how does a big thumbs down on 37
square with the image of healthy, knowledgeable, progressive Californians? 37
was stolen!
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น