Yes on Proposition 37 to Label Genetically Engineered Food. We Have the Right to Know.

Vote Yes on Proposition 37 for our right to know what's in our food. Join our campaign: http://www.carighttoknow.org

Big agrichemical corporations have produced genetically engineered corn that includes insecticides.

Not on the corn. But in the corn.

A new study links genetically engineered corn to tumors and organ damage.

And the big agrichemical corporations also say Bt-toxins are safe for us to eat.

We shouldn't be forced to gamble with the health of our families.

We have the right to know what's in our food. Vote Yes on Proposition 37.

Join us at www.CArighttoknow.org - and please remember to vote on November 6!

• Category

  News & Politics

[rebeccasaysrelax]

Yea the no on prop 37 ads are terrible, made by the devil himself. How could anybody in their right mind support GMOs? Fucking assholes.

[jadasmiles]

please win so we dont have to eat poison

[nbarca]

I could be wrong but I thought the study size was way too small. number of rats, I mean.

[A. Antoine]

" they used the toxicity protocol because that was what the experiment had been designed to do, and which actually made it less likely to detect carcinogenesis "

Still, his paper is mostly about the TUMORS. He was "surprised" by those.

Shameful.

[A. Antoine]

And did Russia conclude the Séralini study was sound, at last?

[A. Antoine]

" It's interesting to read Seralini's response to the criticisms levelled against him "

It's interesting if you are a psychiatrist and want to study Séralini case of "the world hates me".

If not, then it is a waste of time from the scientific POV.

[A. Antoine]

"they were not sound either"

Why?

[A. Antoine]

" Every single one of their critiscisms have been successfully countered. "

False.

Not ONE criticism of the study has been refuted.

[A. Antoine]

SIX (6) academies in France made a joint statement stating the Séralini study was so badly designed and analysed that it was unless.

[Peter Maguire]

That's not the way small control groups work. With a small control group you have more difficulty showing that your data isn't simply random chance. It's basic statistics, which I would implore you to look into because you genuinely seem interested in finding things out. I would recommend googling why small control groups aren't used in studies; I am certain plenty of sites will have some great information for you. There is a reason the scientific community is in an uproar, we don't stand liars.

[Peter Maguire]

It wasn't peer reviewed, and the publication paper it was published in is a joke. I have a question for you, is it your opinion that vaccines cause autism?