As an agency, we believe in consumers’ right to information and making industries more truthful and transparent. To this end, we support Prop 37, which will mandate the labeling of genetically modified foods in California. Inspired by The Feast Worldwide, we recently hosted a pop-up dinner and salon in Venice for a small gathering of a dozen like-minded marketers and creatives. At the Salon, we came together to discuss the challenge, draw up a plan, and activate a campaign to help accomplish our vision of passing Prop 37 on November 6th. To find out more about the issue, and find out how you can help pass Prop 37, please visit www.CARightToKnow.com

1. PROP 37
SALON

2. WELCOME
Thank you for choosing to be an agent of positive change.
Proposition 37, which mandates the labeling of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and
prohibits the misbranding of products as “natural” in California, is more than a measure on
the ballot this November. It is a referendum on transparency in the food industry. Prop 37
highlights the importance of disclosure and shines a light on what it means when industries
resist such disclosure.
For us, this conversation is not about the potential health risks of GMOs. It is not about
whether the supporters or the opponents of Prop 37 are right. For us, it is an opportunity to
help inject transparency into the large-scale food industry, a category that is central to our
society and wellbeing.
The movement to mandate transparency in our food is one being aggressively fought by
companies who prosper from the manufacturing and sale of GMO-based food products. The
campaign "No to Prop 37," sponsored by companies including Monsanto and PepsiCo is
spending more than $34M to persuade voters not to make them disclose their GMO products.
Support for Prop 37 "Right to Know" has less than $5M. We are outgunned.
As a collection of like-minded individuals who share a vision of passing Prop 37, we thank
you for taking the pledge to use your talents and creativity as a vehicle for change. It is
upon us as Californians to make the first step and be an example for the rest of the US.
Bringing this conversation to a national level will help accomplish our goal of bringing truth
and transparency to the food industry.
When consumers have knowledge and information, they have the power to steer the world.
Lucas Donat Frank Striefler
Office: 424.238.8011 Office: 424.238.8044
Cell: 310.901.3192 Cell: 310.804.6989
lucas@dw-h.com fstriefler@dw-h.com
1

3. ABOUT
PROP 37
Proposition 37 mandates the
labeling of foods made from
plants or animals with
genetically modified materials,
referred to as genetically
modified organisms (GMOs), and
prohibits the misbranding and
marketing of foods processed
with genetically modified
ingredients as "natural."
2

4. COUNTRIES WITH
EXISTING GMO
LABELING LAWS
65 COUNTRIES ACROSS THE
GLOBE ALREADY ENFORCE
GMO LABELING LAWS
Australia Finland Luxemburg Slovenia
Austria France Malaysia South Africa
Belgium Germany Mali South Korea
Benin Greece Malta Spain
Bolivia Greenland Netherlands Sri Lanka
Bosnia Herzegovina New Zealand Sweden
Brazil Hungary Norway Switzerland
Bulgaria Iceland Peru Thailand
Cameroon India Poland Tunisia
China Indonesia Portugal Turkey
Croatia Ireland Romania UK
Czech Republic Italy Russia Ukraine
Denmark Japan Saudi Arabia Vietnam
Ecuador Jordan Senegal Zambia
El Salvador Kenya Serbia
Estonia Latvia Singapore
Ethiopia Lithuania Slovakia
3

5. AND YET…
THE UNITED STATES
HAS NO REGULATION OR
LAWS REGARDING GMOS
4

6. GMO ARE
PERVASIVE IN
OUR FOOD SYSTEM
Between 60 and 70 percent of the processed foods on the
U.S. market contain GMOs. (The Global Healing Center)
5

7. A Sampling of GMO Foods…
Corn Zucchini Frozen Dinners
Soy Beans Pineapples Dry Cereal
Sugar Cane Cocoa Beans Baby Formula
Sugar beets Yellow Squash Canned Soups
Tomatoes Popcorn Cookies
Potatoes Canola Oil Ice Cream
Sweet Peppers Cottonseed Oil Aspartame Sweetener
Bananas Soy Sauce Yeast
Strawberries Frozen Pizza
6

8. WHAT THE OPPOSITION HAS TO LOSE
BIG FOOD and BIOTECH
COMPANIES HAVE A LOT TO
LOSE IF GMOs ARE LABELED
If consumers know that the food they eat
contain GMOs, they may stop buying
those products.
In order to appease customers,
companies will start to make the
switch to non-GMO ingredients
Food companies will have to reconfig-
$
ure their supply chains and absorb
higher costs. Biotech companies will
have less opportunity to sell GMO seeds
and can potentially lose their hold on
the agriculture industry
7

9. FUNDING FOR PROP 37
MOST OF THE FUNDING FOR NO ON
PROP 37 HAS COME FROM THE BIG
SIX PESTICIDE COMPANIES & MAJOR
CONGLOMERATE FOOD COMPANIES
LEADING SUPPORTERS OF LEADING OPPOSITION
PROP 37 AGAINST PROP 37
1. Mercola.com $1,100,000 1. Monsanto Company $7,100,500
2. Organic Consumers $984,639.25 2. Dupont $4,900,000
Fund
3. BASF Plant Science $2,000,000
3. Nature’s Path Foods $610,709.21
4. Bayer Cropscience $2,000,000
4. Dr. Bronner’s Magic $358,882.70
Soaps 5. DOW Agrosciences $2,000,000
5. Wehah Farms $250,000 6. PepsiCo $1,716,300
6. Great Foods of America $102,000 7. Nestle USA $1,169,400
7. Alex Bogusky $100,000 8. Coca-Cola N. America $1,164,400
8. Amy’s Kitchen $100,000 9. Conagra Foods $1,076,700
9. Clif Bar & Co $100,000 10. Syngenta Co $1,000,000
10. Organic Consumers $78,828.36 11. General Mills $908,200
Association
12. Del Monte Foods $674,100
13. Kellogg Co $632,500
TOTAL RAISED: $4MM TOTAL RAISED: $35MM
8

10. CONSUMERS
DEMAND GMO
LABELING
In a 2011 poll of over 45,000 voters, 96% believe that
genetically modified foods should be labeled. (MSNBC)
As far back as 1992, 85% of respondents thought that
labeling of GE food is “very important” (USDA).
GEFoodLabels.org has a collection of over 25 polls from
the last 20 years that consistently show above 80% thresh-
olds of consumers who believe that GMOs should be prop-
erly labeled (Source: http://bit.ly/RTTbw4)
9

11. CONSUMERS WANT
PROP 37 PASSED,
BUT BIG ADVERTISING
BUDGETS ARE
SWAYING THEM
Prop 37 is the FIRST ballot initiative in the US trying to require the
labeling GMOs. This direct democracy means Prop 37 will be voted
on by the people, not by the legislature.
EARLY POLLS SHOW THAT PROP 37 TO BE OVERWHELMINGLY POPULAR
In September, an LA Times poll showed that 61% of registered
voters are for Prop 37, while the opposition had 25% of voters
against the initiative. 14% of the voters were undecided or refused
to answer. (Source: http://lat.ms/OYKuSR)
HOWEVER, SUPPORT FOR THE INITIATIVE IS SLIPPING
An LA Times article from October 12th shows that support for the
proposition has dropped in the wake of the opposition’s massive
media campaign. Support for Prop 37 hovers around 48.2% while
the opposition has grown to 40.2% with 11.5% of voters undecided.
(Source: http://lat.ms/QW77Gc )
10

12. SUPPORTERS OF PROPOSITION 37
ARGUE THAT…
We have a right to know what is in our food.
Prop 37 gives consumers the right to know if their food has been genetically
engineered. It empowers people to make their own choices by providing a
simple label to tell them if the food has been genetically engineered or not.
Without proper labeling, it is impossible to know what is in the food being
consumed.
Labeling a product as ‘natural’ when it
contains GMO ingredients is misleading.
Marketers have long been misleading consumers by using “natural” in their
labeling and marketing of products. The very definition of GMOs by the World
Health Organization states that the organisms have been “altered in such a way
that does not occur naturally.” Unscrupulous marketers play on the fact that
“organic” sounds similar to natural and that the average consumer does not
realize that “natural” holds no real value other than sounding positive.
GMOs have never been proven safe.
While there are numerous studies from either side whether GMOs are safe to
consumer or if they are dangerous to human health, there has never been a
consensus. Companies like Monsanto and DuPont have done their own
research, however, they are inherently biased. Independent studies have been
stifled by claims of “commercial confidentiality” and any findings are often
dismissed. The United States FDA office does not require more than 90 days of
testing, so the long-term health effects of GMOs are not known and are there-
fore potentially dangerous.
11

13. OPPONENTS OF PROPOSITION 37
ARGUE THAT THE INITIATIVE…
Bans the sale of tens of thousands of perfectly-safe, common grocery products
unless they are specifically repackaged, relabeled, or made with higher food costs.
Opponents of Prop 37 use misleading language to trick consumers. Prop 37 does not ban any products, but merely
requires a small label indicating the presence of GMOs in the food. Manufacturers can also choose to stop using
GMOs in those products and re-make them with non-GMO ingredients if they are afraid of consumer backlash.
Was written by trial lawyers for trial lawyers.
Proposition 37 requires advance notice of intent to sue and requires a cooling-off period of at least 30 days during
which an alleged violator can correct the alleged violation. If the violation is corrected, the court will not allow a
lawsuit to proceed and no punitive damages may be awarded. In fact, Prop 37 has removed the monetary incentive
to attorneys to file lawsuits in an attempt to extort large cash settlements, since corrective action is sufficient to
halt the suit. (Source: http://bit.ly/VQfFRX)
Is full of absurd, politically-motivated exemptions that make no sense.
Dairy and meat products are exempt from Prop 37 because testing for the presence of genetically engineered
ingredients isn’t feasible. Animals aren’t genetically modified and their by-products (dairy, eggs, meat, and poultry)
are therefore not required to be labeled. By targeting these exemptions, the opposition draws attention away from
their own special interests in preventing labeling of GMOs.
Forces farmers and food companies to implement costly new labeling…that will
cost billions of dollars to implement.
Prop 37 gives companies 18 months to change their labels. The industry standard is to change labels 1-5 times a
year already, so they have ample opportunity. In addition, non-partisan economic studies show a one-time average
per-product cost to manufacturers of $1,104 for proper labeling, which represents only 0.03% of annual per
product sales. (Source: http://bit.ly/QSBqvM)
“When the current labeling regime (for GMOs) was introduced in 1997, it did not result in
increased costs, despite the horrifying prediction of some interests.”
- David Byrne, European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection at the time of labeling in the EU
Means higher food costs, up to $350 per year.
No On Prop 37 directly funded the study (http://bit.ly/Oml3cu) that came up with these findings. The study incor-
rectly bases its findings off of a failed Oregon measure and generates its $350 number from comparing costs of
buying entirely GMO versus entirely organic. Under Prop 37, consumers still have the choice to buy GMO foods, so
this number is invalid to cite as fact. An independent study found prices will only increase by an average of $1.27
per year if costs were passed on to consumers. However, this isn’t likely to happen because manufacturers are
afraid to lose consumers to alternative products with lower prices. (Source: http://bit.ly/QSBqvM) 12

14. GMO CONSUMPTION
HAS YET TO BE PROVEN
AS SAFE.
POTENTIAL RISKS INCLUDE:
Toxicity: Each genetic insertion creates the Immune-suppression: Scientists have found
added possibility that formerly nontoxic that animals consuming certain GE foods show
elements in the food could become toxic. impaired organ development, body metabolism,
and immune function.
Allergic Reactions: Genetic engineering can
transfer allergens from foods to which people Cancer: Dairy products from cows treated with
know they are allergic, to foods that they think the GE animal drug rBGH possess increased
are safe; and could create different and new levels of a hormone linked to the growth of
allergic responses. breast cancer, prostate cancer, and colon
cancer.
Antibiotic Resistance: GE foods could make
disease-causing bacteria resistant to current Loss of Nutrition: The genetic engineering of
antibiotics, resulting in a significant increase foods can change their nutrient content, reduc-
in the spread of infections and diseases in the ing nutritional value. Its own scientists warned
human population. the FDA as far back as 1992 that genetic
modification could cause “undesirable altera-
tion in the level of nutrients.”
Also, according to The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM), "several animal
studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility,
immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, Faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major
organs and gastrointestinal system."
13 Source: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/issue_background.pdf

15. DEBUNKING BIOTECH’S
CLAIMS ON GMO
1. Genetic engineering is precise and the 4. GMOs are properly tested to not cause
modifications are isolated. allergic reactions.
Truth: Genetic engineering is crude and Truth: No thorough allergenicity testing is
imprecise. Genes interact with each other conducted on GMOs before they’re in the
in a variety of ways and inserting new market. Inserting genes from foods with
genes may cause unintended side effects. allergen into different organisms have been
shown to produce adverse reactions. GM
2. Those who say GMOs are unsafe are Insecticidal Maize created a new form of
being selective with the data, since many protein –zein, a known allergen. They also
other studies validate their safety. inserted brazil nut genes into soy, creating
reactions in those with allergies.
Truth: Studies that claim safety of GMOs are
funded by interested parties and are there- 5. GMOs decrease need for pesticides and
fore biased. Independent testing of GMOs herbicides.
are suppressed by their manufacturers
based on “commercial confidentiality.” Truth: Pests and insects develop resistance
to the modified traits of GMOs, requiring
3. GMOs have been proven safe for human more chemical use over time.
consumption.
6. GMOs have economic benefits for farmers
Truth: No countries require long-term (over
90 days) studies. There are few studies that Truth: GMO seeds are the Intellectual
have been conducted on humans. Formal Property of the company that made them
and informal studies of GMO effects on (e.g. Monsanto) and cannot be used again,
animals have shown major health problems so farmers must buy more every year.
including death and infertility. Short-term savings may occur, but costs
increase over time because farmers cannot
practice self-sustaining agriculture.
Source: GMO Myths and Truths http://bit.ly/RS86Hk 14

16. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
CAMPAIGNS
CA Right To Know - www.carighttoknow.org
No On Prop 37 - www.noprop37.com
ARTICLES AND WEBSITES
Vote For The Dinner Party
New York Times - http://nyti.ms/RDtNJ8
This article by Michael Pollan provides an educated look at the higher-level transparency issues surrounding Prop 37.
Campaign Finance: Prop 37 Opponents Leave Advocates in Dust
Food Product Design - http://bit.ly/UFlKkN
Discusses the funding differences between either side of Prop 37, especially how Yes On Prop 37 spent a lot of money getting
the initiative on the ballot.
TV Ad Against Food Labeling Proposition Is Pulled
LA Times http://lat.ms/UIrieu
No On Prop 37 was forced to recreate their advertisements after shooting them at Stanford without express permission of the
University. One professor of a Stanford think tank has demonstrated his support in front of images of the school, implying the
school’s support for the cause. This LA Times article discusses Stanford’s reaction.
Pesticide Use Ramping Up As GMO Crop Technology Backfires
Reuters - http://reut.rs/UFeQMr
Reuters highlights a study that shows an increase in pesticide use since the introduction of GMO crops, making the original
intent of genetic engineering (chemical resistance) a null point.
GMO Debate Heats Up: Critics Say Biotech Industry Manipulating Genes, And Science
Huffington Post http://huff.to/RuMsGZ
This article on Huffington Post examines the issue of GMO labeling and addresses the criticisms of special interest bias in the
science behind the debate.
Let’s Talk About GMOs At Whole Foods
Whole Foods - http://bit.ly/RuMbUq
After a revealing video showed that Whole Foods employees didn’t know about GMOs in their products, the company came out
with their official statement of support for Prop 37. However, they are criticized for voicing their support but refusing to give
any money to the cause.
Prop 37: The Customer Is King, And Labels Need To Reflect That
Forbes - http://onforb.es/Tt1uRV
Dean Crutchfield provides an ethical marketing and business take on the Prop 37 issue, highlighting the way opponents of the
initiative would be wise to listen to their consumers.
Big Tobacco Shills Trying To Stop Labeling In California
Appetite for Profit - http://bit.ly/VMs0Xn
This author took a deeper look into the firms behind No Prop 37 and found that the law firm representing the opposition has
links to the controversial Big Tobacco groups that used astroturfing, corporate-funded ‘grassroots’ campaigns, and bogus
15

17. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
ARTICLES AND WEBSITES CONT.
Conventional Farmer: Labeling is a Win-Win
FixFood.org - http://bit.ly/PUHgdG
Troy Roush, a well-known GMO farmer who appeared in the 2009 documentary Food, Inc., has stated that he has no problem
with the labeling of GMOs. In his own words, the issue of labeling “is not a big deal” and provides a “win-win” for farmers
and consumers.
Rat Study Sparks Furor over Genetically Modified Foods
Scientific American - http://bit.ly/VMgPxW
Highlights the renewed debate over GMOs after a controversial rat study was published that linked GM corn to cancerous
tumors.
France Orders Probe After Rat Study Links GM Corn, Cancer
The Journal - http://bit.ly/OmhenC
Following the study that GMO corn causes cancer, France decided it was time to look into the GMO issue more closely. An
important player in the EU, France’s decisions could affect many other countries.
Russia Suspends Import, Use of GMOs
Fox News- http://fxn.ws/UFeqFK
After France launched a probe into GMO foods because of the GM corn / cancer study, Russia took the situation one step
further and completely suspended the import or use of GMOs in the entire nation.
EU rejects French scientist report linking GM corn to cancer
New York Daily News - http://nydn.us/PmqAkM
The European Food Safety Authority said it cannot accept an "inadequate" report by a French scientist on a link between
cancer and genetically modified corn when evaluating the risk. It found the "design, reporting and analysis of the study ...
are inadequate," meaning it could not "regard the authors' conclusions as scientifically sound.”
Labeling Of Genetically Engineered Foods Is A Losing Proposition
Forbes - http://onforb.es/VM2VM5
Written by the founding director of the FDA’s Office of Biotechnology, this article uses loose language to try and convince
voters to cast a “No” against Prop 37. Henry Miller was also responsible for drafting the claims against Prop 37 that
appears in the California Voter’s Pamphlets and is the main authority in No On Prop 37’s videos.
Are GMO foods safe? Opponents are skewing the science to scare people.
Slate - http://slate.me/QSvS6a
This article, written in Slate Magazine, has the subhead “Don’t Worry. Genetically Modified Corn Isn’t Going To Give You
Cancer.” Kloor presents the debate over Prop 37 in a very contrarian manner, calling out “climate skeptics of the left.”
Editorial Boards Support No Prop 37
NoProp37.com - http://www.noprop37.com/media/editorials/
This page on No On Prop 37’s website lists out a series of editorials in California newspapers that encourage people to
reject Prop 37. The campaign presents these editorials as “proof” that California newspapers are against Prop 37, when the
articles are really editorials (opinions).
DOCUMENTARIES
Genetic Roulette - http://geneticroulettemovie.com/
Seeds of Freedom - http://seedsoffreedom.info/
Food, Inc - http://www.takepart.com/foodinc
16

18. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
PRO-PROP 37 VIDEOS
Yes on 37 - We Have The Right To Know by carighttoknow.org http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SVCcs3H_Rw&feature=plcp
Yes on Prop 37 - California Right To Know by carighttoknow.org http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Szq2GFYktG8&feature=plcp
Yes on Proposition 37 to Label Genetically Engineered Food. We Have the Right to Know. by carighttoknow.org
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZCBIIFWGXk&feature=plcp
In the Dark about GE Food? Just Label It! http://youtu.be/C5W-5VzA2bM
Just Label It: Labels Matter to Moms http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1cJDHUZShw&feature=plcp
Just Label It: We Have a Right to Know http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ep4uxbhsvI&feature=plcp
Genetically Modified Food - The Right To Know by labelgmos.org http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XovV3yr5OyE&feature=plcp
Eat Food & Live in California? You Have a Right to Know by labelgmos.org
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOJmo8pIahU&feature=plcp
Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) - Myths and Truths by Mercola.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=M_ztZGbLEJ0
Mercola.com's Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x299MGx-JY0&feature=plcp
"Question What's Inside" music video on GMOs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nqz7Z9ixoQs&feature=relmfu
The Video Monsanto Does NOT Want You to See! By Nutiva & Elevate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lni6OAJz3sk
Right to Know: Vote Yes on Prop 37 by foodandwaterwatch.org
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RB1xHFwSYIg
Genetic engineering: The world's greatest scam? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H9WZGKQeYg
United States of GMOs TheFoodBabe’s YouTube - http://bit.ly/Pmn2yJ
17