Deceptive advertising is nothing new in political campaigns, sure. But let’s point out some of the problems: the farmer in this video would not have been affected at all by the proposition — the labeling burden was placed on retailers. The scientist in this video, Henry I. Miller, is a fellow at the right-wing thinktank Hoover Institute, which is located on Stanford’s campus. Before the ad was pulled at the request of lawyers, Miller was given the credential of, “Stanford University, founding dir. FDA Office of Technology.”
Another issue? Monsanto’s campaign claimed that the food labels would cause the price of groceries to soar — perhaps the biggest clincher in changing the minds of voters. The problem, though? Well, we have plenty of case studies, to compare it to. The European Union’s food prices never went up as a result. Independent research, not funded by the deep pockets of Monsanto, saw no projected increase. The study they cited was not even performed by economists, but big-industry consultants.
The only donations to the “No on 37′ campaigns came from corporations. And, in the end, the corporate interests, not the interests of the people, won out in California. The “Yes on 37″ campaign was outspent 5-to-1. But there’s always next time — efforts are underway to put a similar measure on the ballot in Washington state.