Bought The Movie - GMOs, Big Pharma, Vaccines

Bought Movie | Jeff Hays FilmBought Movie | Your Health Brought To You By Wall Street:

Yekra Player

Yekra is a revolutionary new distribution network for feature films.

Bought

The hidden story about vaccines, autism, drugs and food… Americas health has been BOUGHT. Your health, your family’s health. Now brought to you by Wall Street… “If you thought they hurt us with the banks, wait till you see what they’re doing to health care.” Vaccines. GMOs. Big Pharma. Three big, BIG, okay… HUGE topics in one film. Why? Why not 3 films, why put all this in one movie? Great question, 2 answers. 1st and most importantly: We need to band together. We need a mainstream film, not another radical movie that only interests the “already converted”. Over 5 million people supported Prop 37 in CA. Reportedly, over 2 million w...ndustrialized food, our insane vaccine expansion, and our love affair with pharmaceuticals- it’s the same villain. It’s a risky story to tell, but would be a tragedy to passively consent to with silence. There is something horribly wrong with health care today. Huge money, billions and billions of dollars flowing into the same pockets. Meanwhile, MD’s aren’t being allowed to actually practice the art of medicine and anyone who questions vaccination safety, pharmaceuticals, factory farms, etc. is ridiculed and belittled. Meanwhile, the billions keep flowing, carried on a river of pain and anguish. Huge corporations funded by individual misery, one broken life at a time. Three huge stories, each worthy of multiple films, but each brought together by one staggering fact: it’s the same villain. These three story lines converge on Wall Street, in a tale of corruption, greed and shocking lack of conscience.

Bought is a film about the issue of health being sold out from underneath individuals through big pharmaceutical companies (Big Pharma), dangerous vaccinations and a food supply chain contaminated by the use of GMO’s. This film has the support of some of the world’s most acclaimed experts in research, medicine, holistic care and natural health. Based upon the film’s trailer, it has been dubbed controversial by media outlets even though it focuses on educating the public and arming people globally with the truth and facts about Big Pharma, vaccines and the food supply.

Film backers believe each person has a right to be informed about the truth and empowered by the
facts in order to make educated decisions about their own health, food and medicine. Bought – a film about how Americans’ health, food and our children’s health have been sold out from underneath of us.

John A. Green, III, MD

I grew up in Colorado and Idaho, graduating from the University of Idaho in 1970 with majors in Psychology, Spanish and Chemistry. Medical school at the University of Utah was next, and then Family Practice training at the University of New Mexico. This was followed by eight years of work as an emergency room physician with a part-time family practice ongoing.

John A. Green, III, MD:

Lessons learned from the Washington state I-522... - GMO FREE Farmers & Friends

Lessons learned from the Washington state I-522... - GMO FREE Farmers & Friends:



Lessons learned from the Washington state I-522 campaign for GMO food labeling

We now have even more ammunition. Attorney Ellen Brown has written an article, “Monsanto's Global Food Dominance and the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” printed in the January 2014 Carotec Health Report.

In the article she says – “In September 2013, the National University of Rio Cuarto, Argentina, published research finding that glyphosate enhances the growth of fungi that produce aflatoxin B1, one of the most carcinogenic of substances.”

See Barberis, et al, “Influence of herbicide glyphosate on growth and aflatoxin B1 production by Aspergillus section Flavi strains ...” Journal of Environmental Science And Health, Part B (2013), vol. 48, pp. 1070-1079.

Bingo! This explains why Seralini's rats at the end of a lifetime feeding trial (“Food And Chemical Toxicology,” September 2012) on RoundUp Ready GMO corn had tumors coming out of their necks the size of golf balls. There is even more confirmation about the harm from GMO glyphosate sprayed crops in the scientific paper – “Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?”, Michael Antoniou, et al, 2011, earthopensource.org.

This is the kind of factual ammunition that we need to use to win the GMO food labeling campaigns. 

But here is why the Yes Committee on I-522 in Washington state, and their political consultants Moxie Media, misinterpreted the meaning of their focus groups and surveys and went down the road to defeat with a weak “right to know only” campaign.

Standard politics in America is conducted by political consultants who use focus groups to find out what the voters already believe. Then the political consultant crafts a campaign whereby the candidate tells the voters what they want to hear. 

This is done regardless of whether the campaign message has any basis in reality and regardless of whether the candidate actually intends to follow through on the campaign rhetoric. The classic example would be Barack Obama whose administration (wars, drone assassinations, spying) is a total disconnect from his campaign rhetoric.

But standard politics does not work with a GMO food labeling initiative. 

Yes, the voters already believe that they have a right to know what is in their food. But they do not hold this belief deeply. Any potent practical argument (true or not such as, “cost more, cost more”) coming against “right to know only” will cause “right to know” to crumble. Hence the results of the I-522 campaign.

If “right to know” and “freedom of choice only” campaigns could win elections, then the Libertarian Party would be the majority party, Ron Paul would be president, and the foreign wars, drug war, police state, and income tax would be history.

A GMO food labeling campaign must be a Paul Revere campaign (“the British are coming, the British are coming!” – “the GMOs are coming, the GMOs are coming!”).

“Right to know” is a good opening, but it must be followed up with scientific facts as to why people should want to know what is in their food. Without the “why” the abstract principle fails.

The GMO food labeling campaign must be prepared to tell people what they don't already know and what they may not want, at first, to believe. Advertising researchers tell us that people have to hear a new message at least 7 times before it starts to sink in.

But this can be done. The smaller alternative media such as health newsletters, documentary movies, the American Free Press newspaper, and Jeffrey Smith's tireless campaign have already convinced a significant share of the public that GMOs are harmful and that they must be labeled.

But this is a bigger and more thought-intensive task than what Moxie Media wanted to take on. 

Moxie Media sent the pro I -522 farmer, Seth Williams, into a 3 hour radio interview on KXLY in Spokane with a hostile talk show host, Mike Fitzsimmons, with little to no preparation. Just the vague “right to know” message. This turned out very badly. Spokane, the second largest city in Washington, was a place where we very much needed to garner more votes and Moxie Media threw away a valuable opportunity by failing to prepare.

“The general who wins a battle makes many calculations in his temple ere the battle is fought. The general who loses a battle makes but few calculations beforehand. Thus do many calculations lead to victory, and few calculations to defeat: How much more do no calculation at all pave the way to defeat!
It is by attention to this point that I can see who is likely to win or lose.”
– Sun Tzu, The Art of War, chapter one

Yours,

Tom Stahl, Treasurer
Farmers and Friends of I-522
PO Box 296
Waterville, WA 98858

Lessons Learned: Advice For Oregon Leadership

Donna Martz :
So glad you asked! Use early money to educate the public. Make it real, not polite. Don't worry about being politically correct or being sued. The public is not stupid, give them real information. Give them links to look up information on their own, independently. By giving them the resources to research you won't have to pay to get them all the facts. The voting public is the campaign, they not separate from it.

It would a really interesting bit, if someone came up with a graphic timeline on the CA and WA campaigns revealing the monetary contributions to the NO side and those to the YES side, and other pertinent details and the public poles and ending votes.

The MOST important factor for Oregon to win, is to be rid of the isolated leadership group deciding how to spend the money and what direction the YES campaign should go in.

The WA leadership did not allow any input from anyone. When the campaign started to go downhill, they did not listen. When we tried to tell them the ads were too soft, they did not listen. There had even been conjecture that they were failing on purpose, at one point before voting day.

The leadership group should be transparent, and hold public meetings. What is there to be kept secret?

There is nothing to hide about telling the public the truth about the Big 6, gmo's and the money. Do not let a few people decide the future for your children.

Allowing a small leadership group to run the whole campaign, wastes the resource of a lot of talented people.

Allowing a small isolated leadership group to dictate the campaign without input from the volunteers, is no different than allowing Monsanto to decide what you are having for dinner.

Iowa farmer visits Southern Oregon to discuss GMO-related health concerns | DailyTidings.com

Howard Vlieger's presentation "excerpts" in Seattle, WA Sept. 2013. (Presentation Playlist)

An Iowa farmer who claims pigs exposed to genetically modified organisms suffer more ailments than other animals will speak in Ashland next week in support of a local campaign to ban GMOs here.

Howard Vlieger, of Maurice, Iowa, conducted experiments in which a group of pigs was fed corn and grain treated with GMO herbicides and a control group wasn't. The pigs exposed to GMOs showed digestive, immunity and reproductive problems, while the control group didn't, he said.

As a result, the GMO group needed more antibiotics for E. coli and botulism, he added.
Vlieger, who has conducted studies over the past 20 years, will give presentations Tuesday and Wednesday, Jan. 28-29, throughout the Rogue Valley. He is being sponsored by GMO-Free Jackson County, a campaign to support a May ballot measure that would mostly ban GMOs locally.

Read More: Iowa farmer visits Southern Oregon to discuss GMO-related health concerns | DailyTidings.com




Sacramento Grange meeting Wednesday January 22


Howard Vlieger's CA/OR Event List

• Wednesday, January 22, 7 p.m. - Sacramento
• Thursday, January 23, 7:30 p.m. - Roseville
• Friday, January 24, 6:30 p.m. - Fair Oaks
• Saturday, January 25, 10 a.m. - Sebastopol
• Saturday, January 25, 3 p.m. - Santa Rosa
• Sunday, January 26, 2 p.m. - Windsor
• Sunday, January 26, 7 p.m. - Petaluma
• Monday, January 27, 1 p.m. - Fortuna
• Monday, January 27, 6 p.m. - Eureka
• Tuesday, January 28th, 2pm, Plaisance Ranch, Williams
• Tuesday, January 28th, 7.30pm, Student Union - Rogue River Room, Southern Oregon University, Ashland
• Friday, January 29th 3pm, RCC Campus, Grants Pass
• Friday, January 29th, 7.30pm, Medford Public Library, Medford 
• Thursday, January 30, 10 a.m. - Yreka
• Thursday, January 30, 4 p.m. - Chico
• Thursday, January 30, 7:30 p.m. - Oroville
• Friday, January 31, 6 p.m. - Laguna Woods
• Saturday, February 1, 11 a.m. - Redlands

Lessons Learned: Steve Hallstrom's Letter To Scott Bates (I-522 Assessment)

Letter Excerpts:

Spring 2012.

Legislative hearings held on bills to label.  Packed halls with strong citizen support against a few professional lobbyists.  Clearly the bills would die in committee.

I suggested an initiative was in order, someone connected me to Trudy Bialic, Director of Public Affairs for PCC,  and the discussions started.  Trudy and I agreed to proceed, win or loose, the cause was too important.  We were forming a strategy when Chris McManus filed.  He filed an old version of the bill which had errors.  Trudy worked with Center for Food Safety (CFS) and Tom Stahl to get an improved version.  At this time the schism between a professional and a volunteer effort became clear.  Chris had some experience in campaigns and Trudy argued that we would need paid signatures, I wanted more volunteer involvement.  Chris it turns out wanted to advance his business opportunities, both in managing future initiative signature efforts and his media business.

Summer 2012

At this time Chris and Leah (his wife) had legal control of the PAC including all funds and expense decisions.  This was a concern to me and volunteer organizations and a meeting was held at Lori Lively’s work....

....The signature phase ended in debt.  David Bronner paid the bills.

Winter 2012

David Bronner laid down some expectations.  Hold a summit, get commitments of $3M and he was in.  

The summit was a success, close to $3M of which $750K was Bronners.  The SC now includes Bronner, OCA, FDN, EWG, CFS… as well.  The decision is made to proceed and Bronner brings in Bob Meadows, a consultant to Prop37.....

Read More: Steve Hallstrom's Letter To Scott Bates

Ronnie Cummings, Director Organic Consumers Association, talks about Steve's letter and the I-522 campaign: Download MP3 (17+ mins)

Lessons Learned: OR Conference Call - Talking Points

(14) Weekly Women's GMO Free News:

Example: Mother and child - strong image that provides a reason to label. 

1) Strong Leadership (consult with Pamm Larry ASAP)
2) Strong relationship with organic food stores, manufactures, consumers (start ASAP)
3) Build Social Networks ASAP, keep them updated, cross-referenced and don't give up control (never, ever)
4) Events with Food Companies - David's Killer Bread (Safeway, Fred Meyers, Costco, natural food stores)
5) Farmers Markets - State Associations
6) Olympic Peninsula Clallam (Senior, Republican), Jefferson, Kitsap Counties voted Yes On 522
7) Megan Roosevelt, RD, LD, Healthy Grocery Girl, Portland TV Personality. Weekly YouTube Food Show - (Nutritionist, Nurses, Doctors)
8) PDC - revenue/expenses

The History Of The GMO Awareness Group (GAG) of the North Olympic Peninsula

Photo Credit: Diane Urbani de laPaz, Peninsula Daily News

The GMO Awareness Group (GAG) of the North Olympic Peninsula was started in the spring of 2011 by Kia Armstrong (Photo) from Nash's Organic Produce (Video). She had organized several rallies previously, protesting GMOs and Monsanto. 

She made up small flyers and placed them in various businesses as well as sending invitations through email for the first meeting. I volunteered to be the facilitator of the group at that first meeting and another person offered to keep meeting notes.

We met at a regularly scheduled time every month, had an agenda (sent out ahead of each meeting) and stuck to a time frame. This is important to keep people engaged. We shared information and began to develop educational materials.

Our first event was the Lavender Farm Fair. By then we had created a tri-fold poster of information about GMOs, had printed educational materials, and gave away GMO shopping guides. We also held a bake sale to raise funds to pay for the materials we were giving away. We continued these efforts through Farm Day October 2013, sponsoring a booth at community events and outreach. We also participated in Millions Against Monsanto rallies twice a year. When the initiative was filed, we helped gather signatures. Efforts in 2013 continued to include education about GMOs as well as information about I-522.

A van load of folks went to Olympia for hearings of House and Senate bills.

We collected email addresses at events and used a listserv to keep the list private. We only shared information about GMOs and avoided requests for other subjects.

GAG also developed a mission statement. This helped to keep the group focused.Through a facilitated process, we identified our priorities which resulted in the formation of three sub-committees. 

They were a committee that collected and created educational materials, another that collected scientific research (peer reviewed and edited) and a legislative/legal committee. 

These functioned successfully for awhile and provided reports to the group. However, for various reasons people left, others joined and the groups gradually stopped meeting. We also had people available to speak to groups and wrote articles for newsletters of local natural foods markets.

NOTE: GAG is based in Clallam County that has a strong Republican lean and a large senior population. According to "Yes On 522" campaign exit polls, these two groups voted against I-522 in the 2013 election. Three Olympic Peninsula counties, Clallam, Jefferson and Kitsap, voted Yes On 522

What works:

1. EDUCATION, EDUCATION, EDUCATION! People on the peninsula didn't know anything about GMOs or had mis-information about them. Develop and distribute eye-catching, informative brochures and pamphlets. Here's what we used from (with permission from Nature's Path Organics). Let people know where to go if they want to learn more. Talk to them in person. Create interesting tri-fold posters. Then get out into the community to share the information. Hosting a booth at large events works well. We also created a food game, using packaged foods. People were asked to guess if the food contained GMOs or not. A "yes" or "no" sticker was on the bottom. Great learning tool!

2. Regular meetings, agendas and sticking to time limits.

3. Write articles for newsletters, letters to the editor and other media. 

4. Setting up a Facebook page. A website would be good too, but costs money. Other social media tools. 

5. The film series in Port Townsend was an excellent way to generate interest. People then could get involved. This was a highly successful tactic. 

What didn't work:

I think overall in the state, we had the cart before the horse. We had an initiative asking people to label something they knew nothing about, which neatly paved the way for a fear and intimidation strategy by the No campaign. People need information. The YES campaign didn't address any reason why we should know what is in our food.

Dr. Beverly Goldie

GMO Awareness Group, North Olympic Peninsula

Sequim, WA

Lessons Learned: Clallam, Jefferson, Kitsap Counties

Initiative to the Legislature 522 Concerns labeling of genetically-engineered foods:

Clallam, Jefferson and Kitsap counties won the I-522 vote with minimal support from the Yes On 522 campaign.

Clallam County has a strong Republican lean with a large senior population. Internal 522 campaign polling showed "Yes Voters" were primarily Democrat and under 60 years old.

All three Olympic Peninsula counties had strong grassroots leadership:

Clallam: Beverly Goldie Facilitator GMO Awareness Group (GAG) of the North Olympic Peninsula and Dr. Frank Springob
Jefferson: Judy Alexander and Dr. Richard Doherty, GMO Jeff Co
Kitsap: Laurie Olsen and Jennifer Newell

In 2010, Beverly Goldie organized the GAG Group and helped Jefferson an Kitsap counties develop their grassroots outreach programs in 2013 that included:

Events
Letters to the editors
Organic Food Store Support
Regular Meetings


With support from the Port Townsend Food Coop, Judy Alexander organized a GMO Film series from August-September that had good community attendance.

PBS Boycott: Zen Honeycutt Moms Across America

Photo: Zen Honeycutt, Kathleen Hallal , MAAM co-founders, our families and the MAAM Team

Moms Across America is extremely disappointed in the Seattle PBS station's choice to air a pro GMO piece twice before the WA ballot election for 522.

It is irresponsible to attempt to sway public vote or give the pro GMO side a venue to explain how "great" their products are. (Article: Did Seattle PBS Station Sway Voters To Reject GMO Labeling Initiative?)

The fact is that Moms all across America have seen their children's health issues skyrocket since GMOs were sucked into our food and we see our kids get better when we take GMOs out of their diet and eat organic.

We have testimonials from hundreds of Moms that autism, allergy, asthma, IBS, excema, stomach aches and auto immune disorders have gotten better or symptoms have disapeared completely after going GMO free.

Until further testing is done PBS has no right to suggest GMOs are safe.

There has never been any long term human study testing on the safety of GMOs.

We ask PBS to right this wrong to the public by producing a piece in which you capture the stories of the Moms whose children have gotten better off GMOs. Tell the real story about GMOS and America's children.

- Zen Honeycutt, Founder Moms Across America

Did Seattle PBS Station Sway Voters To Reject GMO Labeling Initiative?

       
              

Next Meal: Engineering Food was posted on YouTube May 7, 2013 and premiered six days later in the San Francisco Bay Area on KQED Channel 9. Originally, the thirty-minute special report was scheduled to air on PBS stations nationwide, after the Nov. 5 Washington State election, Nov. 13.

Randy Brinson, Executive Director of KCST Programming, decided to broadcast the QUEST science program on the Seattle PBS station with a viewing audience of almost two-thirds of Washington's population, a couple of days before the end of the election because it was "timely".

On the Washington State ballot was Initiative 522, a bill that would require genetically engineered foods to be labeled.

TV Guide states the premise of the show is "an examination of genetically engineered crops, including how they're created; their pros and cons; and what the future might hold for research and such regulations as labeling."


Photo:  Grassroots Volunteers for I-522, Spokane, WA

Upon learning of the re-scheduling of "Next Meal" on KCST, Washington State grassroots volunteer supporters of I-522 sent e-mails and made phone calls to the station in an attempt to prevent the program from airing days before the end of the election. Since the program, funded by the National Science Foundation, heavily featured the pros of genetically engineered crops and did not fully explore the cons that it could sway voters to reject the ballot initiative.

When the program was shown in May, audience members posted comments on the KQED website and the KQED Science YouTube page regarding the biased bio-tech slant.

KQED member "Jenny" posted the comment below 5 months ago that represents viewer back lash:

"In your description of this piece, you state:
'Are the benefits of genetically engineered foods worth the risks?'

"I heard a lot of talk about the benefit, but I didn't hear anything about the risks.
"Where are the scientists on the other side of the argument?
"This special doesn't even try to be serious.
"I am amazed that KQED would put something like this on the air."

The day after "Next Meal" was first shown on KCST October 30, two articles were published regarding the show:

Steven Peters, Natural Revolution, stated in his article, "PBS to Air Pro-GMO Film in Washington Days Before Vote on Labeling Initiative,"

"This film Next Meal: Engineering Food is little more than a commercial for the biotech industry. It’s a shame that public broadcasting has been co-opted by big corporations. The airing of the documentary film, Next Meal: Engineering Food is indeed not an impartial look at both sides of the GMO controversy. The undertones are very much Pro-GMO; not showing both sides equally, but in favor of GMOs 'and the chemicals used to grown them being safe'."

Retired US Navy staff scientist Dr. Nancy Swanson wrote in her Seattle Examiner article, "Et Tu, PBS?" that:

"This program looks like the propaganda put forth by the chemical industries who are promoting GMOs. On the program, they trotted out an array of plant biologists, all singing the praises of GE crops and how they are environmentally friendly and are going to feed the world."

Last week, the Yes On 522 campaign conceded the election. Washington State voters failed to pass I-522, the initiative that would have labeled genetically engineered foods, by the narrow margin of 39,000 votes (49%-51%).

In her letter to supporters, Trudy Bialic, Co-Chair of Yes On 522 and PCC Natural Markets director of consumer affairs, did not mention the Seattle PBS stations broadcast. Instead she focused on the 22 million dollars spent by the opposition: "As we continue to push for labeling, we also must work to reverse the perversion of our democratic election procedures with unlimited corporate spending."

Did the four broadcasts of Next Meal between Oct. 30 and Nov. 5 sway voters? Did it, in fact, influence the outcome of the Washington State election?

If so, it is a huge slap in the face to several KCST donors:


PCC Natural Markets is a KCST local programming underwriter. The certified organic retail cooperative that operates nine stores serving 46,000 active members, spent over $250,000 to collect signatures to put the initiative on the ballot last year and to fund the "Yes On 522" campaign this year.

The Newman's Own Foundation is a KCST matching fund donor. Royalties paid by Newman's Own Organics for use of the Newman name help support foundation activities. Nell Newman, the oldest daughter of Joanne Woodward and Paul Newman and founder of Newman's Own Organics, states on the company website: "GEs have no place in organic agriculture and [we] are calling for a moratorium until more scientific research has been done on the safety of this technology."
                           
Both organizations were asked if they would support a boycott on PBS, along with Grassroots Volunteers for I-522, GMO Awareness Group (GAG) of the North Olympic Peninsula, the Organic Consumers Association, Moms Across America and GMO Free USA, by withdrawing their financial support to the Seattle station.


The Seattle based PCC replied with this e-mail:

"At this time, PCC does not plan a boycott of KCTS for the airing of this show.

"It would be unfair to boycott KCTS for airing this show even with the assumption (and it is an assumption) that they aired it to persuade public opinion to vote No on this initiative.

"The Seattle Times editorial board chose to support No on 522 but we did not pull our advertising from their papers.

"We honor and agree with freedom of the press and free speech.

"We plan to continue to support KCTS with underwriting of local programming.

"Sincerely, Laurie Albrecht Director of Marketing / PCC Natural Markets"

The News's Own Foundation Response:

"Newman’s Own Foundation turns all royalties and profits from the sale of Newman’s Own products into charitable donations.  To date, Paul Newman and Newman’s Own Foundation have given over $380 million to thousands of charities around the world.  

It is the Foundation’s policy not to comment on individual grantees. However, we do review each organization prior to awarding grants, to determine its fit within the Foundation’s priorities. Further information about our grant making policies is available on the Foundation’s website at www.NewmansOwnFoundation.org.

We greatly appreciate your interest in the foundation."

In a statement sent to KCST members before the first broadcast of the program, Brinson, a 35-year public broadcasting veteran, defended his decision to protesting members that "Next Meal" was "a journalistic piece that explores the science behind genetic engineering while including multiple perspectives on the issue."

Photo: UC Berkeley biologist Peggy Lemaux is genetically engineering sorghum to make it more easily digestible. Sorghum, a cereal related to corn, is a staple food for 300 million people in Africa. Credit: Arwen Curry, KQED

Is Next Meal objective journalism or an infomercial for the biotech industry?

Charles Mish, a retired journalism, English and film professor, looked up the Society of Professional Journalists "Code of Ethics.”   Here's what he found in  Section 4: Accuracy and Objectivity:

"Good faith with the public is the foundation of all worthy journalism.

"1. Truth is our ultimate goal.

"2. Objectivity in reporting the news... serves as the mark of an experienced professional. It is the standard of performance towards which we strive. We honor those who achieve it.

"3. There is no excuse for inaccuracies or lack of thoroughness."

According to Wikipedia,  Journalist ethics and standards comprise principles of "truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability-- as these apply to the acquisition of newsworthy information and its subsequent dissemination to the public."

To answer the "journalistic" question, this survey was sent to journalists across the county to get their perspective regarding the controversy.

Research Notes

• Next Meal: The First Five+ Minutes (GMO Skeptics air time 0:31 seconds)
• Next Meal: Complete Log/Rating (GMO Skeptics total air time: 1:50 minutes)

Lessons Learned: Brandi Gibson

(48) Photos of Yes on 522 - Weekly Women's GMO Free News:

Brandi Gibson Start earlier!! I didn't get involved until Sept when Pamm Larry came to Oly. We fought hard here, but I think had we empowered more folks earlier, & gotten to the moms via MAA or school PTAs, we may have made a bigger impact. However, looking at re voter turnout, it may have just been our timing. So proud of all the 522 volunteers!! We made a difference & our voice IS being heard!!

Next Meal: Engineering Food Survey

In this half-hour special, QUEST Northern California explores genetically engineered crops in the wake of Proposition 37, the 2012 ballot initiative that would have required foods containing genetically engineered ingredients to be labeled in California.

1. Is the "Next Meal" a journalistic piece that explores the science behind genetic engineering while including multiple perspectives on the issue? 
2.  What are the multiple perspectives "Next Meal" delves into regarding GMO food and the impact it has on the environment, animals, farmers, children and people? 
3. Are the benefits of genetically engineered foods worth the risks? 
4. What are the risks of GMO foods that are explained in "Next Meal"? 
5. What does the future hold for research and regulations such as labeling? 
6. Do you believe that the viewpoint of farmers who grow GM crops were evenly represented?
7. Do you believe that people with no background in the GMO issue would have a positive or negative view of Bio-Technology after watching this informational report? 
8. If the "Next Meal" was shown days, hours before the end of an election (like in WA), do you believe the 30-minute program would persuade public opinion to vote in favor or against GMO food labeling? 
9. As defined on Wikipeda, did "Next Meal" follow Journalism ethics and standards of truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability? If your answer is "no", please elaborate.

 Please post your answers in the comments below.

Notes: Write or call Michael Getler, PBS Ombudsman, at 703-739-5290.

Lessons Learned: Grassroots Supporter

What lessons did you learn from the I-522 campaign?

I really think Oregon needs to wait until 2016 and in the mean time to the real ground work to gain the broad base support from farmers and unions, and educate and inoculate voters.

More food and consumer advocacy groups would definitely be able to support a longer term campaign building toward a ballot initiative we know will pass.

 In my opinion not only is 2014 too soon but I don't think there's any money out there. I doubt Dr. Bronner's can throw another $3 million into another campaign. Especially after pouring major money into two back to back failures in California and Washington.

We need the extra time to also do the fundraising so the ballot can succeed. If we move ahead with a 2014 ballot initiative it will be not only underfunded but we will not have the resources to reach enough voters and build enough political support to combat the millions that the GMA and Monsanto will throw down.

I don't see how a lot of key food and consumer advocacy groups will be able to support a ballot measure in 2014. There's just no way that's winnable with the current or foreseeable resources we have or will have at our disposal.

While these groups may support the ballot initiative process they also recognize that we have to put in the real work and time to ensure it will succeed - which is the lesson we seem to have not yet learned from CA and WA.

I really think Oregon needs to wait until 2016 and in the mean time to the real ground work to gain the broad base support from farmers and unions, and educate and inoculate voters. We would definitely be able to support a longer term campaign building toward a ballot initiative we know will pass.

What is your 2 cents regarding how the Yes on 522 campaign operated?

I think they didn't have the best grasp of how to utilize or support the grassroots.

That said, the grassroots wasn't what is should have been because we didn't take the solid year or two to build it up.

They also got a late start, which isn't necessarily their fault, Moxie Media wasn't hired until March, and it took a bit to get off the ground. I think we all-around just jumped the gun.

The Yes on 522 campaign would probably have been enough as it was if we'd had a solid year or two of building up union and ag support as well as done adequate voter education and inoculation.

I don't think they did so poorly that we can 100% blame them. We didn't put in the longer term base building necessary to ensure that the initiative would pass.

The Koch brothers and other conservatives spent unprecedented amounts of money to stop Obama's reelection. His message to Americans was strong enough to enough voters that the money spent by the opposition wasn't able to sway the electorate.

Lessons Learned: Jeri Weinhold

My observations on the GMO Labeling Initiative

By Jeri Weinhold, GMO Awareness Group (GAG) of the North Olympic Peninsula

Things to be considered for future campaigns.

The NO campaign did many things right:

1. They started the paid website advertising first and under many different search words and removed those that didn’t get hits early in the game—spending a little more in the beginning, but reducing costs as they went on.  Our paid ads were a quick let’s get things up with a request to contribute rather than any facts.

2. They sent out multiple post card mailings.  They may not have had to send out as many, but getting them out early on was a good strategic plan and having one arrive on the same day as the voter pamphlets was an excellent idea.

3. They stated their information on their TV ads as facts.  Albeit, it was misinformation, but the audience didn’t know it.  Our response to those ads was simply they are giving you misinformation and go to our website to see the truth.  Our ads needed to state facts.  Our “We have a right to know” stance did not win over those who listened to vote No misinformation: it only impacted people who felt like their choice was somehow compromised.  The fear and confusion the NO ads generated turned undecided voters who did not know the whole story or saw choice as less important to them into NO votes. (Many believe that if the FDA or USDA have blessed GMO’s, they can’t be bad!)

4. They had people on their ads who lent credibility to the NO position, including an organic female farmer with a PHD.  Finding out why these people did not agree with our YES position would help future initiatives understand and create a better model.

5. Their main spokeswoman was articulate and confident in her position.  Having a professional public speaker who can distance themselves from emotions and appear factual is a plus. Objectively review the I522 debate.  From the perspective of an uninformed viewer, who appeared to be the most convincing speaker?  Although our speakers were passionate and articulate, they didn’t command the space in the same way.  It is not a criticism, but simply an observation.  Sometimes when you are too close to a situation, the arguments are tinged with the emotions you feel and may appear radical rather than fact.

WHAT WE CAN DO BETTER

6. I know it was decided to stick to the simple “we have a right to know” slogan, but most people do not know why. The fear of the impact of eating GMO foods and the threat to our environment needs to be communicated. The fear is real and it is not running a negative campaign.                                      

A.    Have a veterinarian talk about the damage to the animals that directly eat the GMO grains.  Have them also talk about the still births and problems they have seen with fertility.  

B.     Have someone talk about the difference in using BT organically and the way it is being used by the chemical companies.

C.     Address the fact that there has never been any long term testing to humans by GMO seed companies so any health issues may take centuries to expose just like tobacco and asbestos.

D.    Talk about the need for labeling because there are no potential issues that can ever be proven because we do not know what we are eating in our food.

E.     Have someone from the organic seed companies talk about who owns the seeds, how cross-pollination is impacting organic seed and the diversity of local seed and how soon we can not go back to normal seed becoming dependent on the drug and chemical companies.

 7.  Talk to the small businesses.  I know of one grocery that had their supplier tell them they wouldn’t    deliver to them if I522 passed.  Have some meetings or go to the small groceries ahead of time to talk about the empty threat of suppliers.  Talk to the small businesses that create a food product.  Let them know ahead of time what impact the initiative will or won’t have on them.

    

       8.  Ask farmers which portion of the initiative created a problem for them and try to address the problem before it is submitted as an initiative for signatures. This may get more small farmers on our YES side. Read the Capital Press (or whatever agricultural newspaper in the area) to gain insights into what the farmers are being told to know how to approach the farmers.   The organic label is a paperwork nightmare and small farmers, I believe, saw their time being spent on perceived paperwork required for labeling which made a YES vote a bad choice for them.

9.      Get people from different political backgrounds to do an ad together showing that this is not just a     liberal issue.  Have people contact their respective political parties and talk to neighbors to let them know their position so we gain more political allies.  Many people saw this initiative as liberal activism.

    10.   Review all the newspaper articles that favored a No vote to find out the improvements that need to be   made to the initiative or to better inform the papers to the history of why we need to label.

    11.   Talk to everyone on the same side.  Informal groups were formed due to lack of communication.  We could have been much more powerful if we weren’t trying to reinvent the wheel.  Simple things like how to get yard signs, posters, car stickers and what should be the cost.  Different answers, different people—be more organized, define areas, communicate and mobilize the volunteers to carry out the agenda!!

12.    When the Washington State November 5^th Ballot voter handbook came out, they valued state costs over the next six years for the I522 initiative to be 3.3 million dollars.  Those who were undecided based on the “fight for right to know” then became swayed by the implementation cost to the state.

13.    Do we have any study of the real costs for labeling?  What it costs companies to put Natural on their label or gluten free?  Anything to combat the concept that labeling will cost the consumer.  What is the cost to use sugar vs corn syrup—many companies have voluntarily done that. What is the cost for a NON-GMO label to the manufacturer and do they pass that cost on to the public?  Use these facts as well as convincing the audience there is nothing to fear.  Help them to realize what the consumer wants the consumer gets!

14.    Is there any way to separate out chemically treated or cross species GMO’s from perceived healthy GMO’s for the sake of the labeling issues?  It was never mentioned that long term test of the chemical GMO’s should be required to bypass the need for labeling.

  15.     Is there any way to know whether the chemical companies rank and file eat GMO foods?

Lessons Learned: Nancy Botta

Yes On 522: Lessons Learned

• Got off message by always trying to prove GMO's harmful. It was not our place to do that. They've got scientists, medical personnel and moms and so do we. Arguing back and forth just took up valuable time. It should have been about LABELING
• Websites are not where it's at. FaceBook is. Activists need to join the FB world. Listservs or email for private conversations, FB for the public.
• Teach people how to use FB effectively. It's no good just "liking" posts but you need to "share" and ask your friends to share.
• Contributors trying to send info to email addresses get messages asking you to fill out a form  or responses like "who are you?"
• Take the gloves off.
• The person who has campaign materials, bumper stickers, signs, etc. has to be  more "available." 
• Be more on top of what's being said on FaceBook and be ready to jump in and counter. Ex. KCTS's page got way more public scrutiny than an email or a phone call to the station. If you comment on a corporation's FB page hundreds see that comment.

Volunteers for I-522 Post Election Survey

Home | Volunteers for I-522:

Yes on 522: Lessons Learned

Yes on 522: The campaign to label genetically engineered foods in Washington state:

If I-522 winds up not passing, which looks like will be the case, I don’t think you can blame it all on the money.

Yes, a lot of money was spent on the campaign – by both sides. The No campaign spent over $22 million, and the Yes campaign spent over $8 million. Of the combined total, only 8% came from within Washington. This race was funded by outside corporate interests because they saw it as a proxy vote for nation that is growing more concerned about where its food comes from and is conflicted over labeling GE food.

I think the poll conducted by Stuart Elway in October is worth thinking about. He found that people who saw only Yes ads overwhelmingly planned to vote yes. People who saw only No ads overwhelmingly planned to vote no. People who saw no ads were slightly more inclined to vote yes. But of the people who saw both types of ads more planned to vote no than yes.
I think this last point is key. Both sides ran ads that were inaccurate and misleading, but I believe the ads from the No side were far more effective and aimed at some of the key issues that most voters care about – food prices, jobs, and government overreach.

I believe the Yes side ran a poor campaign. This began several years ago during the signature gathering phase when they opted for paid signature gatherers rather than building a vigorous grassroots campaign. They also made the decision early on to concentrate their efforts in King County/Central Puget sound, with most of the signatures gathered in those areas. In fact a high percent were gathered at PCC markets in Seattle and co-ops and other natural food markets, people who were most inclined to vote for the initiative.

I was invited to one of the early strategy meetings, and it was obvious to me that the folks behind the initiative, though well intention, had no experience with political campaigns and were not thinking strategic ally about how to build a strong statewide network of support via the signature campaign, which would then serve as a base for a strong statewide campaign to pass the initiative the following year.

In fact, there was sort of the sense that once the signatures were collected they could rest easy, and some of the key folks involved in the signature effort, including the person who filed the initiative, stepped aside once the signatures were gathered.

After seeing where things were headed I declined the Yes campaign’s invitation to become more involved in the summer of 2012, as I did not think the initiative would pass based on where things were headed, and they were not interested in hearing the perspective that I or others were sharing.

The county level results are interesting.&nb sp; The initiative seems to only be passing in 4 counties:

1) San Juan, which already had voted in place a local ban on GMOs last year
2) Whatcom, which the state’s largest number of certified organic farms’
3) Jefferson, which has for years been building a vigorous grassroots local/organic food movement
4) King, where the vast majority of initiative signatures were collected

The fact that the initiative failed in every other county ties back to the decision to not build a vigorous statewide grassroots campaign, beginning with the signature drive.

I really hope progressives will look at the results of this election and not simply point to the big bad corporations and outside money to explain the results. Yes, these are big factors. But equally important is the weak campaign and lack of strategic political thinking by the Yes folks.

Those of us with progressive political instincts need to sharpen our strategic thinking and be much smarter about how we pursue realization of our goals through the electoral process. Progressives have the big hearts and good values, but sometimes we lack the brains to match.

Yes on 522: Lessons Learned - Glen Anderson

Yes on 522: The campaign to label genetically engineered foods in Washington state:

Strategies for a 2016 initiative about GMOs

Some friends are discussing I-522’s campaign. I offered these insights and want to share them with you. I hope you’ll be able to pass them along to the I-522 campaign’s top people and others who can help us make progress:

1. Broad public education is a necessary part of a grassroots movement, such as shifting public opinion to oppose (or even label) GMOs. Without the vigorous grassroots movement-building early (as TJ points out), much of the “YES” campaign had to focus on merely educating voters about what GMOs are. Educating the public consumes a lot of time and effort, because they need to understand the issue BEFORE they can consider whether to vote for it.

2. Therefore, if we hope to label GMO foods in the future, the grassroots movement to educate the public must occur early, so the ground will be fertile for an initiative ballot campaign.

3. I urge doing this grassroots public education now and then running another initiative for the November 2016 general election when a larger number of liberals and progressives are likely to vote.

4. The “YES” campaign strategically to focus just on labeling (consumers’ right to know what’s in our food) rather than banning GMOs. Requiring a label is probably more practical and more electorally winnable than imposing a total ban. But this electoral strategy largely removes the scientific and health and environmental risks from the debate, and those are the main reasons why we oppose GMOs. We were left with a campaign only about our right to know, but without the context of WHY we need to know.

5. The remedy for this is to broadly educate the public so the public will learn WHY to oppose GMOs. Then – in 2016 – when we run another initiative, people will be ready to vote “YES.”

6. When a progressive issue is on the ballot, the Establishment that wants to maintain the status quo tries to confuse the public as well as misinform the public. PSE did this to defeat our public power initiative in 2012. This is really one of the Establishment’s main strategies. When voters are confused, they simply vote “NO” to avoid taking a risk that they don’t understand, because voting “NO” seems safest.

7. If we educate the public about GMOs BEFORE running a 2016 initiative campaign, we will inoculate the voters against the confusion and disinformation.


Thanks!

Glen Anderson
Date: November 7, 2013 at 11:57:38 AM PST

Yes On 522 Campaign 26 Hour Goal - $20,000

Dear Supporter, There is a lot of work to do before tomorrow night, but we are so close to winning this thing. There are still thousands of voters who need to get their ballots in and we have hundreds of volunteers making calls and knocking doors reminding them to vote Yes on I-522. Help with our GOTV Fund goal of $20,000 by donating $5.22 right now. We are in the final sprint before we can declare victory over Monsanto and their corporate cronies. Our Get Out the Vote Fund is almost full. We are just $5,000 away. Give $5.22 now to help. From our table to yours, Delana Jones Campaign Manager Yes on 522 P.S. We need the GOTV Program fully funded by tomorrow afternoon, so w’ll be asking for money again in the morning. If you give $5.22 tonight I will take you off that list (I promise).         Yes on 522 | (206) 432-9170 | 2233 1st Ave S, B-102, Seattle, WA 98134