Oct 6, 2012
In a bizarre development on the fight for Proposition 37 (the GMO labeling initiative) in California, the “No on 37” campaign, funded by Monsanto and other agribusiness giants, has been forced to pull one of its own television ads.
The ad featured an opinion from an individual identified on screen as “Dr. Henry I. Miller M.D., Stanford University, founding dir. FDA Office of Technology.”
But the title was a lie! Just like everything else about GMOs, it’s all truly a bunch of lies based on fraud and trickery. As it turns out, Dr. Henry Miller doesn’t work for Stanford University at all. He’s actually a “research fellow” at the Hoover Institution, which just happens to be physically located on the same plot of land as Stanford University.
And by the way, anyone named a “fellow” of any “institution” is often just a globalist eugenicist of some sort. In the case of Henry Miller, he’s predictably a front man for Big Tobacco and has pushed DDT and other toxic substances that threaten life on our planet. (Gee, is anyone surprised?) This guy even said Fukushima radiation might be GOOD for you! (Yeah, eat some GMOs and have a little radiation… what could be wrong with that?)
So according to the “No on 37” people, merely having an office on the Stanford campus is enough to make you a professor there. Since you’re physically located on campus, you must be a Stanford professor, right?
It’s the same logic with GMOs: They must be safe because we say they are! There’s no need to test anything! Just ignore all those deadly pesticides grown right inside the grains, because those won’t hurt you at all!
Total violation of Stanford University rules
Not only did the No on 37 campaign blatantly lie about Henry Miller’s title, they also blatantly violated Stanford University’s rules against taking sides on ballot measures. Stanford also prohibits any filming on its campus.
You see, the No on 37 campaign, just like Monsanto and the biotech industry, doesn’t care about any rules. They just run around violating everything — including Mother Nature — and they bully their way into the food supply where their products end up being sold by even “natural” grocers such as Whole Foods.
Stacy Malkan, spokesperson for the YES on 37 campaign, responded to all this by saying “The scandal over the Henry Miller ad is proof positive of the lack of credibility and lack of integrity of the No on 37 campaign.”
As YES on 37 now explains:
The ad, now re-edited and back on the air, presents Henry Miller as a scientific expert as he reads from talking points written by the No on 37 campaign, claiming the GMO labeling law makes no sense. Miller is well known to front for industry groups including Big Tobacco and Big Oil. He has argued for the re-introduction of the toxic pesticide DDT, attacked US Food and Drug Administration safety regulators, and claimed low levels of radiation can be beneficial to human health.
Who is Henry Miller, really?
Check out the real background on Henry Miller, the spokesperson for the Monsanto-driven NO on 37 campaign:
• Miller was a founding member of The Advance of Sound Science Coalition, a Phillip Morris backed front group that tried to discredit the links between tobacco products and cancer.
• In a 1994 PR memo recommending strategy to help Phillip Morris organize a worldwide effort to fight tobacco regulations, Henry Miller was referred to as “a key supporter.”
• In 2012, Miller wrote, “nicotine … is not particularly bad for you in the amounts delivered by cigarettes or smokeless products.”
• Miller has repeatedly argued for the re-introduction of DDT, a toxic pesticide banned in the United States since 1972, which has been linked to pre-term birth and fertility impairment in women.
• In 2011, after the Japanese tsunami and radiation leaks at the Fukushima nuclear power plants, Miller argued that “those … who were exposed to low levels of radiation could have actually benefitted from it.”
• Miller sits on the “scientific advisory board” of the George C. Marshall Institute, which is famous for its oil and gas industry funded denials of climate change.
• Miller has argued that the FDA should outsource more of its functions to private industries, and has publicly attacked the FDA for its efforts to ensure proper vetting and testing of new drugs:
Sources for this story include: