RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Broder reports: "The biggest pesticide and biotechnology companies in the world, led by Monsanto, have already spent $25 million to defeat California's groundbreaking Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) labeling initiative."

Polls show that 93 percent of Americans want GMO labeling. (photo: Friends Eat)
Polls show that 93 percent of Americans want GMO labeling. (photo: Friends Eat)



Monsanto and Dupont Spend Big to Fight GMO Labeling

By Ken Broder, AllGov

19 August 12

 

he biggest pesticide and biotechnology companies in the world, led by Monsanto, have already spent $25 million to defeat California's groundbreaking Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) labeling initiative on November's ballot. Most of the money has been contributed in the past month.

Proposition 37, one of 11 initiatives on the California ballot, would require labels on most processed food by 2014 identifying any ingredients from agricultural products with genetically altered DNA. Food and alcohol in restaurants would be exempt, as would food from animals that have been eating the modified ingredients.

No other state has such a law, but because Californians consume about 12% of all food in the country, passage of the law could have a profound affect nationally. About 20 other states are considering similar legislation and polls show that 93% of Americans favor GMO labeling. But the Senate, heavily influenced by lobbyists, trounced (73-26) a GMO amendment to the sprawling congressional farm bill last month.

In the United States, 95% of sugar beets are genetically engineered, as are 94% of soybeans and 88% of feed corn. The European Union and Japan already require that GMOs be labeled.

Supporters of the initiative say that transparency would engender trust in the food system among consumers and provide information for future discussion of technology that is still in its early stages. Critics of the labeling law say consumers are being unnecessarily alarmed about technology that has not proved harmful, the law would be costly to implement and it could generate expensive, time-consuming lawsuits.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has said GMOs pose no greater health risks than traditional foods.

According to the California Secretary of State, the top Prop. 37 contributors so far are:

  • Monsanto - $4.2 million
  • E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co. - $4.0 million
  • Pepsico, Inc - $1.7 million
  • BASF Plant Science - $1.6 million
  • Bayer Cropscience - $1.6 million
  • Dow Agrosciences LLC - $1.2 million
  • Nestle USA, Inc - $1.2 million
  • Coca Cola North America - $1.2 million
  • Conagra Food - $1.1 million

To Learn More:

Monsanto Gives $4.2 Million to Kill California GMO Labeling Initiative
(PR Newswire)

Agriculture Giants and Biotech Companies Spend Big to Defeat Prop. 37
(by Garance Burke, Associated Press)

List of Prop. 37 Contributors
(California Secretary of State)

Will Monsanto Win the Genetic Food Fight in California as It Did in Congress?
(by Ken Broder, AllGov)

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+11 # carp 2012-08-19 09:53
Whenever these corporations complain that a measure such as labeling GMO would be too costly to implement I wonder why they don't just use that $25 million that is spent to lobby against legislation and just do it. Is there a law that says NON GMO foods can be labeled?
 
 
+4 # orwell, by george 2012-08-19 10:18
we've gone a long way down the wrong road.
 
 
+7 # seakat 2012-08-19 11:37
If there is nothing wrong with GMOs, what do they stand to lose?
 
 
+3 # Bob P 2012-08-19 13:30
There are beneficial GMOs, but what looks like really bad stuff is very profitable. Labelling might be a lttle help, but what we really need is to determine what is good and what is bad and make the bad illegal like we do with most food and drugs already.
 
 
+7 # PABLO DIABLO 2012-08-19 11:47
Always the same list of "suspects". BOYCOTT those companies.
 
 
+2 # Street Level 2012-08-19 11:56
And the USDA and FDA are no better than the Federal Reserve.
Carp, I haven't heard of a law that food with conventional ingredients (non-GMO but not organic) can be stopped although I think it depends on which state the biochem industry wants to pick on.
I finally found a vinegar at Whole Foods (who, unfortunately, caved in their fight against GM alfalfa) labeled as being "derived from non-GM corn" but I had to look for it, it's not advertised but I'm in California where this fight is happening.
We don't have the millions in dollars that the Big 6 have but we have to make our voices count in the way of endorsements. Go to www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements and endorse in support.
 
 
+8 # Adoregon 2012-08-19 12:59
Critics of the labeling law say consumers are being unnecessarily alarmed about technology that has not proved harmful...

Whoa there, big fella, I think that's got it backward. Before something new, whether a food, a drug, or a way to produce electrical power (think nuclear power) can be released into the environment, doesn't it make more sense that it must be proved NOT to be harmful????

Remember the "Friendly Atom" nonsense of the 1950s? Now we have the "friendly GMOs" of the 2000s. Same old shuck and jive by the big money hucksters.

When it comes to what we eat, full disclosure/tran sparency is the only way.
 
 
+3 # KrazyFromPolitics 2012-08-19 13:05
Any doubt about corporate criminality and downright evil?
 
 
+1 # DurangoKid 2012-08-19 14:24
Check this out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6D3TUk-XX1o

It's an interview with Jeffrey Smith, an expert on GMO's and their health risks. Think GMO's are safe, think again.
 
 
+3 # oakes721 2012-08-19 19:30
Frackers have gotten away without labeling the "Secret Ingredients" in their Witches' Stews ~ Perhaps if Big Oil is declared safe to drink, and Big Pharma's toxic drugs are 'legally' defined as just a kind of candy...then this Biological Warfare against OUR OWN PEOPLE can end this Homeland Insecurity they've created.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN