

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Once again, a state is putting forth a ballot measure to label genetically modified foods, and once again, a familiar cast of characters is spending millions to defeat the measure.
The battle this time is in Washington, which has on its ballot this November I-522. As MapLight summarizes, the initiative
would require most raw agricultural commodities, processed foods, and seeds and seed stocks, if produced using genetic engineering as defined, to be labeled as genetically engineered when offered for retail sale.
In the past week, Monsanto gave a $4.5 million dollar donation to the 'No' on 522 campaign, while DuPont gave $3.2 million. Other big donors hoping to defeat the measure are Bayer CropScience and the Grocery Manufacturers Association.
With these latest contributions, the No campaign has raked in over over $11 million in donations, compared to just under $3.5 million raised by the 'Yes' campaign.
Despite this outspending, a new poll shows 66% of voters in favor of the measure to label GMOs.
"It is the return of the big money, but we're not surprised," Katherine Paul, spokeswoman for Organic Consumers Association (OCA), told Politico.
OCA is among those supporting the 'Yes' campaign, which also includes Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps and Mercola.com.
In California's closely-watched battle last year over Prop. 37, another GMO labeling effort, the same large agribusiness powers now pouring millions into Washington's measure, spent millions and ultimately defeated the proposition.
_____________________
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. US voters have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. If you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
Once again, a state is putting forth a ballot measure to label genetically modified foods, and once again, a familiar cast of characters is spending millions to defeat the measure.
The battle this time is in Washington, which has on its ballot this November I-522. As MapLight summarizes, the initiative
would require most raw agricultural commodities, processed foods, and seeds and seed stocks, if produced using genetic engineering as defined, to be labeled as genetically engineered when offered for retail sale.
In the past week, Monsanto gave a $4.5 million dollar donation to the 'No' on 522 campaign, while DuPont gave $3.2 million. Other big donors hoping to defeat the measure are Bayer CropScience and the Grocery Manufacturers Association.
With these latest contributions, the No campaign has raked in over over $11 million in donations, compared to just under $3.5 million raised by the 'Yes' campaign.
Despite this outspending, a new poll shows 66% of voters in favor of the measure to label GMOs.
"It is the return of the big money, but we're not surprised," Katherine Paul, spokeswoman for Organic Consumers Association (OCA), told Politico.
OCA is among those supporting the 'Yes' campaign, which also includes Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps and Mercola.com.
In California's closely-watched battle last year over Prop. 37, another GMO labeling effort, the same large agribusiness powers now pouring millions into Washington's measure, spent millions and ultimately defeated the proposition.
_____________________
Once again, a state is putting forth a ballot measure to label genetically modified foods, and once again, a familiar cast of characters is spending millions to defeat the measure.
The battle this time is in Washington, which has on its ballot this November I-522. As MapLight summarizes, the initiative
would require most raw agricultural commodities, processed foods, and seeds and seed stocks, if produced using genetic engineering as defined, to be labeled as genetically engineered when offered for retail sale.
In the past week, Monsanto gave a $4.5 million dollar donation to the 'No' on 522 campaign, while DuPont gave $3.2 million. Other big donors hoping to defeat the measure are Bayer CropScience and the Grocery Manufacturers Association.
With these latest contributions, the No campaign has raked in over over $11 million in donations, compared to just under $3.5 million raised by the 'Yes' campaign.
Despite this outspending, a new poll shows 66% of voters in favor of the measure to label GMOs.
"It is the return of the big money, but we're not surprised," Katherine Paul, spokeswoman for Organic Consumers Association (OCA), told Politico.
OCA is among those supporting the 'Yes' campaign, which also includes Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps and Mercola.com.
In California's closely-watched battle last year over Prop. 37, another GMO labeling effort, the same large agribusiness powers now pouring millions into Washington's measure, spent millions and ultimately defeated the proposition.
_____________________