Corporate campaigners, who are lobbying hard to kill off California’s proposition 37 labelling laws have been forced to pull a television advertising campaign opposing the labelling of genetically modified organisms. The ad was pulled just a week after it first aired when the claims of one of its featured ‘experts’ was brought into question.

image expired

Early next month, voters in California will go to the polls to decide whether or not compulsory labelling should be introduced to identify foods containing GM material. Although the ‘Right to Know’ campaign, which supports the bill, claims the vast majority of Californians are in favour of the measure, a massive PR backlash from food and agriculture corporations has seen $35 million (£22m) spent on efforts to stop the proposed labelling.

Under Proposition 37, retailers and manufacturers would have to label fresh produce or ingredients that contain GM material. Whilst supporters of the policy, under the ‘Right to Know’ banner maintain the public should be able to make an informed choice about the food they eat, large food businesses have claimed the labelling law will cause food prices to rise and fear they may lose out if consumers opt not to buy GM foods; between 40 and 70 per cent of foods on sale in California’s grocery stores are believed to have GM ingredients.

The ‘no on 37’ campaign’s advertisements claim that Californian agriculture will be put at a disadvantage if the bill is passed and that labelling is an unnecessary burden. However, concerns were raised and a new advertisement pulled this week when legal personnel from the Prop 37 campaign questioned the identity of one of the experts featured

No on 37 advert temporarily pulled

The advert, which first aired on Tuesday, featured Dr. Henry I. Miller M.D., Stanford University, founding dir. FDA Office of Technology. Dr Miller is heavily critical of the proposed labelling measures. However, the advert was removed after lawyers from the Prop 37 campaign complained to the university; they pointed out that University policy forbids the use of the university’s name by consultants and revealed Dr Miller is not, in fact, a professor, but a research fellow working at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank based on the Stanford campus.

This is not the first time Miller has publicly appeared in the debate over proposition 37. He has also written op-eds for the San Francisco Chronicle and Forbes.

The ‘Right to Know’ campaign, which has compiled a list of people it believes are working for transnational businesses aiming to derail the labelling law by posing as independent, third party academics and providing ‘expert opinions’ to influence the debate, has suggested Miller may have ties to industry front groups. http://www.carighttoknow.org/michele_simon

The film makers behind the advert have agreed to remove the University name and images of the campus from the video, at Stanford’s request. Instead Miller will be identified as a fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, though ‘No’ campaigners have been at pains to point out that his argument has not changed.

Although there are fears that large companies may be using their political and financial weight to influence debate in California, the ‘Yes’ campaign took a knock on Thursday (4th October). A French study, widely used by the Californian ‘Yes on 37’ campaign, which showed rats fed on GM material developed tumours at a much higher rate than control animals, was criticised by the EU’s health and safety watchdog.

The peer-reviewed Report was questioned this week by the European Food Safety Authority, following a period of scrutiny at the request of the European Commission. The EFSA said that, due to issues with methodology and reporting, it would be asking for further information from the report’s authors before considering the research admissible as evidence of potential health and safety risks in the maize tested.

EFSA said on Thursday, “The numerous issues relating to the design and methodology of the study as described in the paper mean that no conclusions can be made about the occurrence of tumours in the rats tested.”

Voting will take place on 6th November in California. The results will apply only to the state, but supporters of GM labelling have said that, if successful, the campaign could spark a groundswell of support and lead to similar consumer awareness campaigns elsewhere.

In Europe only one GM crop is cultivated commercially and any food or feed containing GM material must have the approval of the European health authorities and be labelled as GM before it is sold by retailers.

Tweet