วันเสาร์ที่ 10 พฤศจิกายน พ.ศ. 2555

131. ญัตติ 37 แพ้อำนาจเงิน แต่เป็นเพียงยกแรก



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”.

A statement by Food & Water watch declared
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”.
Published on Wednesday, November 7, 2012 by Common Dreams

"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...
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.
here are some starters: looking at "organic" industry labels: http://blissreturned.wordpress...
Cornucopia Institute with side-bar chart: http://www.cornucopia.org/
Here you go (courtesy of Ballotpedia, http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/in...
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.
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