PAUL TOWERS: Californians must be allowed to know what's in their food
In a few weeks, California voters will decide a question that impacts our lives every day: Who gets to choose what's in our food? Do we the people have the right to select what we eat and feed our families? Or should we leave it up to the world's largest pesticide companies to make those decisions for us?
A "yes" vote on Proposition 37, the California Right to Know initiative, is a vote for our right to know what's in our food.
The overwhelming majority of people in California and across the nation say genetically engineered foods should be labeled. Also called GMOs, these foods are created by forcing the genetic material from one species into the DNA of another species, in ways that don't occur in nature.
Concerned about the health risks of GMOs, the huge increases in pesticide use, the genetic contamination of organic farms and other problems associated with GMOs, millions of Americans have lobbied the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and state governments to require mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods -- labels that 50 other countries already require.
Yet despite this groundswell of support, and despite 20 years of effort by America's most respected food safety organizations, our government has refused to label genetically engineered food because of the enormous influence of Monsanto and the pesticide industry.
Those same pesticide companies are now spending tens of millions of dollars on a cynical, dishonest ad campaign to confuse voters about Prop. 37. The dishonesty and lack of integrity of the anti-consumer No on 37 campaign was exposed at the outset, when they were forced to yank their first television ad off the air because it misrepresented Stanford University.
The ad was reshot and put back on TV, but its credibility problems keep getting worse. Every hour of every day, television viewers across the state heard Henry Miller making false statements about Prop. 37.
Who is Henry Miller? Although emails from the No on 37 campaign touted him as a trusted scientific source that people should believe over their friends and families, Miller has a long history of making dubious scientific claims and opposing the public interest -- for example, defending the tobacco industry's claims that cigarettes aren't harmful, arguing to dismantle FDA's drug safety assessment system, and campaigning to bring back the notoriously toxic pesticide DDT.
Miller epitomizes the lack of credibility of the campaign against our right to know what's in our food. Who are they going to trot out next -- the president of the Flat Earth Society?
The only honest thing about the No on 37 ads is the disclaimer at the bottom that tells us who's funding this campaign of deception: Monsanto and DuPont, the same companies that told us DDT and Agent Orange were safe.
When you hear their stories that labeling will increase costs or mobilize "shakedown" lawyers, please consider the source and look into the facts. Food costs didn't go up in any of the other countries that implemented GMO labeling, and they won't go up here; and the only people getting "shaken down" with lawsuits are the thousands of farmers that Monsanto is suing for patent violations after Monsanto's GMO seeds drifted accidentally into their fields.
The decision about Prop. 37 comes down to who should we trust -- the special interests that have lied to us before, or the nation's leading health, faith, labor and consumer groups?
Stand together with the American Public Health Association, the California Council of Churches, United Farm Workers, Consumers Union, Public Citizen, the Center for Food Safety and more than 2,000 other organizations that are saying yes on 37; and the millions of moms, dads and consumer advocates who are demanding the right to know what's in our food.
Join the people's movement at www.Yeson37.org for our right to know what's in our food. Please vote yes on Proposition 37 this November.
Paul Towers is the organizing and media director at Pesticide Action Network North America, and a new father. He works with farmers, farmworkers and rural residents to reduce pesticide use and support healthy agriculture.






Most CommentedMost Popular
About two dozen protesters stood in front of Kern County Superior Court next to the Liberty Bell Thursday morning to make a statement about police brutality.
The death of a man in custody following a prolonged struggle with Kern County Sheriff's deputies and CHP officers and the subsequent fracas over confiscated witness cellphones have gained international attention and raised concerns here that the incidents could tarnish the county's emerging...
Sheriff’s investigators served a search warrant on Kern Medical Center and the Mary K. Shell Mental Health Center seeking medical records to find possible reasons for David Sal Silva’s behavior prior to and during his encounter with law enforcement, The Californian learned Friday.
The Kern County Sheriff's Office is out of control. That's one conclusion many people will draw based on the events of the past two weeks and in the context of recent years.
Blood stains are still visible on the sidewalk at the corner of Flower Street and Palm Drive, where a Bakersfield man struggled with as many as nine officers and later died this week.
Responding to what he called a case that “has consumed the media and our community,” Kern County Sheriff Donny Youngblood said Tuesday he has asked the FBI to conduct a “parallel” investigation into the death of Bakersfield father of four David Sal Silva, who died May 8 after he was beaten by deputies.
Classes were canceled at Bakersfield High School Monday after three small bottle bomb explosions struck campus, authorities said.
Two cellphones confiscated last week from witnesses to the in-custody death of David Sal Silva were returned Wednesday to the attorney representing the witnesses.