No on Prop. 37: French Rat Study Author Made Reporters Sign Confidentiality Agreements Prohibiting them from Consulting Independent Scientific Experts Attempted Manipulation of Media Proof that Authors Were Concerned Study Would Wither Under Scrutiny. Yes on 37 Partnered with Discredited Authors in Attempt to Push Flawed Study as a Means of Pushing Flawed Ballot Initiative.
SACRAMENTO, Calif., Sept. 21, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- According to new reports in the New York Times, BBC, Reuters and other publications, the authors of the highly controversial French study of rats and biotech foods forced reporters to sign non-disclosure agreements prohibiting journalists from validating the report's findings with independent scientists. Clearly, its authors were concerned that the now-debunked study would wilt under scientific scrutiny, which is exactly what has happened now that the report has been reviewed by independent scientific experts.
According to the BBC:
"In a move regarded as unusual by the media, the French research group refused to provide copies of the journal paper to reporters in advance of its publication, unless they signed non-disclosure agreements. The NDAs would have prevented the journalists from approaching third-party researchers for comment."
The New York Time's Dot Earth blog was even more blunt:
"I have to place it in a big bin of suspect studies "done by people out to prove something rather than investigate something," as the evolutionary biologist Michael Eisen said in a late update to my previous post on this work."
The Yes on Prop 37 campaign was coordinating with the French authors from the very beginning. In fact, within a few hours of the study release, Yes on 37 issued a media advisory announcing a press conference with the study's authors.
"It is clear that this so-called study is nothing more than a propaganda piece intended to create false fear and misinformation to help support the flawed Prop 37 campaign," said No on 37 campaign spokesperson Kathy Fairbanks. "After just a few hours of scrutiny, respected scientists and medical reviewers thoroughly discredited the study, its methodology and the authors. Yes on 37 can't sell their flawed measure based on the facts, so they're forced to result to cheap tricks and junk science."
Paid for by No on 37: Coalition Against the Deceptive Food Labeling Scheme, sponsored by Farmers, Food Producers, and Grocers. Major funding by Monsanto Company, E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) and more than 40 food company members. For a full list of donors visit www.NoProp37.com/donors. - 1-800-331-0850 - www.NoProp37.com
About Prop. 37
Proposition 37 would ban the sale of tens of thousands of perfectly-safe, common grocery products only in California unless they are specially repackaged, relabeled or remade with higher cost ingredients. Prop 37 is a deceptive, deeply flawed food labeling scheme that would add more government bureaucracy and taxpayer costs, create new frivolous lawsuits, and increase food costs by billions — without providing any health or safety benefits. That's why Prop 37 is opposed by a broad coalition of family farmers, scientists, doctors, business, labor, taxpayers and consumers.
SOURCE No on Prop. 37