SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Here We Go Again: Monsanto Spends Millions to Defeat State's GMO Labeling Effort
Colorado's Proposition 105, like previous state efforts to label GMOs, faces well-funded corporate opposition
Oct 03, 2014
Monsanto has poured $4.7 million into the campaign to defeat an initiative to label genetically modified food in Colorado.
The funds went to the No on 105 Coalition, which hopes it can beat Proposition 105, one of four statewide ballot measures Colorado voters will see on their November ballots. If passed, the measure would require most food made with genetically modified material (GMOs) to be labeled "Produced With Genetic Engineering" starting July 1, 2016.
The GMO-labeling effort is backed by Right to Know Colorado, which says its "movement is built on the foundation that we have the basic right to know what is in our food and what we are feeding our families."
The campaign contribution continues a pattern of big spending to defeat state GMO labeling efforts, such as those in California and Washington, not only by by the St. Louis-based agribusiness giant but by other industry groups like the Grocery Manufacturers Association, ConAgra Foods and PepsiCo.
According to an analysis by the Environmental Working Group, industry groups disclosed $27.5 million of spending in the first half of 2014 towards lobbying expenditures that made reference to GMO labeling--a surge from such spending in 2013.
The Union of Concerned Scientists noted that Monsanto has frequently used its deep pockets for influence:
Monsanto consistently outspends all other agribusiness companies and interest groups to protect and maintain industrial agriculture's dominance over our food system.
But all the spending has apparently not been sufficient, as Monsanto Chief Executive, Hugh Grant said earlier this year, "There's a recognition we need to do more" to win in the GMO debate.
Despite the well-funded opposition, the pro-labeling effort is forging ahead.
In a recent op-ed published in the Denver Post, Right to Know Colorado co-chair Larry Cooper writes:
Over the last two years, the world's largest chemical and biotech seed companies and America's giant food manufacturers have spent nearly $70 million to defeat GMO labeling initiatives in California and Washington. In just three weeks, those opposed to Proposition 105 raised $1.4 million, dwarfing the $22,000 raised by Right to Know Colorado.
While these spending differences are staggering, Right to Know Colorado's statewide grassroots support will continue to fight for greater transparency in our food system through this GMO labeling initiative despite the well-funded corporate opposition.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Monsanto has poured $4.7 million into the campaign to defeat an initiative to label genetically modified food in Colorado.
The funds went to the No on 105 Coalition, which hopes it can beat Proposition 105, one of four statewide ballot measures Colorado voters will see on their November ballots. If passed, the measure would require most food made with genetically modified material (GMOs) to be labeled "Produced With Genetic Engineering" starting July 1, 2016.
The GMO-labeling effort is backed by Right to Know Colorado, which says its "movement is built on the foundation that we have the basic right to know what is in our food and what we are feeding our families."
The campaign contribution continues a pattern of big spending to defeat state GMO labeling efforts, such as those in California and Washington, not only by by the St. Louis-based agribusiness giant but by other industry groups like the Grocery Manufacturers Association, ConAgra Foods and PepsiCo.
According to an analysis by the Environmental Working Group, industry groups disclosed $27.5 million of spending in the first half of 2014 towards lobbying expenditures that made reference to GMO labeling--a surge from such spending in 2013.
The Union of Concerned Scientists noted that Monsanto has frequently used its deep pockets for influence:
Monsanto consistently outspends all other agribusiness companies and interest groups to protect and maintain industrial agriculture's dominance over our food system.
But all the spending has apparently not been sufficient, as Monsanto Chief Executive, Hugh Grant said earlier this year, "There's a recognition we need to do more" to win in the GMO debate.
Despite the well-funded opposition, the pro-labeling effort is forging ahead.
In a recent op-ed published in the Denver Post, Right to Know Colorado co-chair Larry Cooper writes:
Over the last two years, the world's largest chemical and biotech seed companies and America's giant food manufacturers have spent nearly $70 million to defeat GMO labeling initiatives in California and Washington. In just three weeks, those opposed to Proposition 105 raised $1.4 million, dwarfing the $22,000 raised by Right to Know Colorado.
While these spending differences are staggering, Right to Know Colorado's statewide grassroots support will continue to fight for greater transparency in our food system through this GMO labeling initiative despite the well-funded corporate opposition.
Monsanto has poured $4.7 million into the campaign to defeat an initiative to label genetically modified food in Colorado.
The funds went to the No on 105 Coalition, which hopes it can beat Proposition 105, one of four statewide ballot measures Colorado voters will see on their November ballots. If passed, the measure would require most food made with genetically modified material (GMOs) to be labeled "Produced With Genetic Engineering" starting July 1, 2016.
The GMO-labeling effort is backed by Right to Know Colorado, which says its "movement is built on the foundation that we have the basic right to know what is in our food and what we are feeding our families."
The campaign contribution continues a pattern of big spending to defeat state GMO labeling efforts, such as those in California and Washington, not only by by the St. Louis-based agribusiness giant but by other industry groups like the Grocery Manufacturers Association, ConAgra Foods and PepsiCo.
According to an analysis by the Environmental Working Group, industry groups disclosed $27.5 million of spending in the first half of 2014 towards lobbying expenditures that made reference to GMO labeling--a surge from such spending in 2013.
The Union of Concerned Scientists noted that Monsanto has frequently used its deep pockets for influence:
Monsanto consistently outspends all other agribusiness companies and interest groups to protect and maintain industrial agriculture's dominance over our food system.
But all the spending has apparently not been sufficient, as Monsanto Chief Executive, Hugh Grant said earlier this year, "There's a recognition we need to do more" to win in the GMO debate.
Despite the well-funded opposition, the pro-labeling effort is forging ahead.
In a recent op-ed published in the Denver Post, Right to Know Colorado co-chair Larry Cooper writes:
Over the last two years, the world's largest chemical and biotech seed companies and America's giant food manufacturers have spent nearly $70 million to defeat GMO labeling initiatives in California and Washington. In just three weeks, those opposed to Proposition 105 raised $1.4 million, dwarfing the $22,000 raised by Right to Know Colorado.
While these spending differences are staggering, Right to Know Colorado's statewide grassroots support will continue to fight for greater transparency in our food system through this GMO labeling initiative despite the well-funded corporate opposition.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.