I recently wrote about how two reports out of the University of California at Davis made questionable claims regarding Proposition 37, a California initiative that would require GMO foods to be labeled. The author of the one of the articles, Colin Carter, wrote to inform me that his article “was an independent analysis” and that he “did not receive any funds from the No on Proposition 37 campaign.”
Archive for September, 2012
Even if you don’t live in California, you have probably heard of Proposition 37, which if passed in November, would require labeling of foods containing genetically engineered ingredients. The state-wide initiative has been causing quite a stir, in part because of the companies that are opposing the measure. Read rest at New Hope …
Last week I wrote about how the No on 37 campaign – the California ballot initiative that would require labeling of GMOs foods – is relying on experts with questionable credentials to do its bidding. Over the past few weeks, two expert reports have emerged from the No campaign that also warrant closer scrutiny.
Last month, I wrote about how the food industry has hired powerful consultants with ties to Big Tobacco to oppose California’s Proposition 37, which would require labeling of all genetically engineered foods. Now, the No on 37 campaign (ironically named the “Stop the Deceptive Labeling Scheme”) is putting up alleged scientific experts to do its bidding, once again taking a page from the tobacco industry playbook.
This week, the New York City Board of Health is expected to approve Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s proposal to limit the size of sugary soft drinks. Motivated by rising diet-related chronic diseases (along with healthcare costs), the mayor’s attempt to rein in out of control portion sizes caused quite a media firestorm. Predictably, the soda lobby has come out swinging, complete with an industry front group called, “New Yorkers for Beverage Choices.”
A better name would be, “Soda Pushers for Continued Profits.”