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
Drive to Label GMO Food Battered by Industry's Big Bucks
Nov 05, 2012
A state ballot initiative in California with big implications for the nation's food system has seen massive opposition by industrial agricultural corporations in the final weeks, and an infusion of nearly $46 million dollars may just be enough to thwart the grassroots effort demanding that consumers get the right to know exactly what's in the food they're buying.
"A growing body of research links GMO foods to potential health risks," writes Zack Kaldveer of the Yes on 1 campaign in California, which is leading the charge to label all foods that contain genetically modified food in the state.
Though Kaldveer says that "poll after poll showed 90% of Americans (and Californians) favored labeling foods that have been genetically engineered (GMOs)," a recent campaign push by the The No on 37 campaign--whose two largest contributors are pesticide giants Monsanto ($8.1 million) and Dupont ($5.4 million)--has not only narrowed a two to one advantage by the Yes Campaign, but is now leading in some state polling.
"Four weeks ago," reports Reuters, "the labeling initiative was supported by more than two-thirds of Californians who said they intended to vote on November 6, according to a poll from the California Business Roundtable and Pepperdine University's School of Public Policy. On Tuesday, their latest poll showed support had plummeted to 39 percent, while opposition had surged to almost 51 percent."
Reuters continues:
The swing in sentiment in the final weeks was predicted by pollsters, based on the power of a $46 million "No on 37" campaign, one of the best-funded for a California ballot measure fight. The ads claim the "badly written" initiative would increase the average family's grocery bills by $400 annually and hobble California farmers. Opponents also take aim at what they call "special interest exemptions" for restaurant food and products from animals fed with grain containing genetically modified organisms, popularly known as GMOs.
Backers of the labeling initiative say consumers have the right to know what is in the food they eat. They dispute opponents' cost projections and say labeling would not be burdensome to families or businesses.
They could still prevail on Tuesday if the polling turns out to be wrong, or if a last minute push by grassroots supporters takes root.
Kaldveer writes: "The No On 37 campaign knows that the less you know about your food, the more money they are likely to make. Their goal is literally that simple, even though their campaign of deception is far more elaborate." He continues:
They've set up phony AstroTurf groups, misrepresented spokespeople and embellished their credentials, and misrepresented leading science, government, professional and academic organizations-including (but not limited to) the National Academy of Sciences, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics,US Food and Drug Administrationand World Health Organization. They've bankrolled demonstrably phony "economic studies," made repeated false statements in advertisements, deceived voters with mailers sent by obvious front groups, and repeated one falsehood after another---hoping somehow that no one would ever notice.
Organic food proponents and consumer advocates Frances Moore Lappe and Anna Lappe explain: "Sixty-one countries already require such labeling. But here in the U.S., GMOs took off in the 1990s with no public debate, and today they're in most processed foods, making Americans the world's GMO guinea pigs."
Arguing that Question 1 is as much about democracy as it is about labeling GMO's food, Kaldveer writes: "Prop. 37 is about one and only one thing-- our right to know what's in our food, and make an informed choice about what we eat and feed our children."
"We can't allow our democracy to be hijacked by unscrupulous corporate interests willing to say and spend anything to protect their profits at the expense of real people, and our rights as free citizens," he said.
# # #
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.
A state ballot initiative in California with big implications for the nation's food system has seen massive opposition by industrial agricultural corporations in the final weeks, and an infusion of nearly $46 million dollars may just be enough to thwart the grassroots effort demanding that consumers get the right to know exactly what's in the food they're buying.
"A growing body of research links GMO foods to potential health risks," writes Zack Kaldveer of the Yes on 1 campaign in California, which is leading the charge to label all foods that contain genetically modified food in the state.
Though Kaldveer says that "poll after poll showed 90% of Americans (and Californians) favored labeling foods that have been genetically engineered (GMOs)," a recent campaign push by the The No on 37 campaign--whose two largest contributors are pesticide giants Monsanto ($8.1 million) and Dupont ($5.4 million)--has not only narrowed a two to one advantage by the Yes Campaign, but is now leading in some state polling.
"Four weeks ago," reports Reuters, "the labeling initiative was supported by more than two-thirds of Californians who said they intended to vote on November 6, according to a poll from the California Business Roundtable and Pepperdine University's School of Public Policy. On Tuesday, their latest poll showed support had plummeted to 39 percent, while opposition had surged to almost 51 percent."
Reuters continues:
The swing in sentiment in the final weeks was predicted by pollsters, based on the power of a $46 million "No on 37" campaign, one of the best-funded for a California ballot measure fight. The ads claim the "badly written" initiative would increase the average family's grocery bills by $400 annually and hobble California farmers. Opponents also take aim at what they call "special interest exemptions" for restaurant food and products from animals fed with grain containing genetically modified organisms, popularly known as GMOs.
Backers of the labeling initiative say consumers have the right to know what is in the food they eat. They dispute opponents' cost projections and say labeling would not be burdensome to families or businesses.
They could still prevail on Tuesday if the polling turns out to be wrong, or if a last minute push by grassroots supporters takes root.
Kaldveer writes: "The No On 37 campaign knows that the less you know about your food, the more money they are likely to make. Their goal is literally that simple, even though their campaign of deception is far more elaborate." He continues:
They've set up phony AstroTurf groups, misrepresented spokespeople and embellished their credentials, and misrepresented leading science, government, professional and academic organizations-including (but not limited to) the National Academy of Sciences, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics,US Food and Drug Administrationand World Health Organization. They've bankrolled demonstrably phony "economic studies," made repeated false statements in advertisements, deceived voters with mailers sent by obvious front groups, and repeated one falsehood after another---hoping somehow that no one would ever notice.
Organic food proponents and consumer advocates Frances Moore Lappe and Anna Lappe explain: "Sixty-one countries already require such labeling. But here in the U.S., GMOs took off in the 1990s with no public debate, and today they're in most processed foods, making Americans the world's GMO guinea pigs."
Arguing that Question 1 is as much about democracy as it is about labeling GMO's food, Kaldveer writes: "Prop. 37 is about one and only one thing-- our right to know what's in our food, and make an informed choice about what we eat and feed our children."
"We can't allow our democracy to be hijacked by unscrupulous corporate interests willing to say and spend anything to protect their profits at the expense of real people, and our rights as free citizens," he said.
# # #
A state ballot initiative in California with big implications for the nation's food system has seen massive opposition by industrial agricultural corporations in the final weeks, and an infusion of nearly $46 million dollars may just be enough to thwart the grassroots effort demanding that consumers get the right to know exactly what's in the food they're buying.
"A growing body of research links GMO foods to potential health risks," writes Zack Kaldveer of the Yes on 1 campaign in California, which is leading the charge to label all foods that contain genetically modified food in the state.
Though Kaldveer says that "poll after poll showed 90% of Americans (and Californians) favored labeling foods that have been genetically engineered (GMOs)," a recent campaign push by the The No on 37 campaign--whose two largest contributors are pesticide giants Monsanto ($8.1 million) and Dupont ($5.4 million)--has not only narrowed a two to one advantage by the Yes Campaign, but is now leading in some state polling.
"Four weeks ago," reports Reuters, "the labeling initiative was supported by more than two-thirds of Californians who said they intended to vote on November 6, according to a poll from the California Business Roundtable and Pepperdine University's School of Public Policy. On Tuesday, their latest poll showed support had plummeted to 39 percent, while opposition had surged to almost 51 percent."
Reuters continues:
The swing in sentiment in the final weeks was predicted by pollsters, based on the power of a $46 million "No on 37" campaign, one of the best-funded for a California ballot measure fight. The ads claim the "badly written" initiative would increase the average family's grocery bills by $400 annually and hobble California farmers. Opponents also take aim at what they call "special interest exemptions" for restaurant food and products from animals fed with grain containing genetically modified organisms, popularly known as GMOs.
Backers of the labeling initiative say consumers have the right to know what is in the food they eat. They dispute opponents' cost projections and say labeling would not be burdensome to families or businesses.
They could still prevail on Tuesday if the polling turns out to be wrong, or if a last minute push by grassroots supporters takes root.
Kaldveer writes: "The No On 37 campaign knows that the less you know about your food, the more money they are likely to make. Their goal is literally that simple, even though their campaign of deception is far more elaborate." He continues:
They've set up phony AstroTurf groups, misrepresented spokespeople and embellished their credentials, and misrepresented leading science, government, professional and academic organizations-including (but not limited to) the National Academy of Sciences, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics,US Food and Drug Administrationand World Health Organization. They've bankrolled demonstrably phony "economic studies," made repeated false statements in advertisements, deceived voters with mailers sent by obvious front groups, and repeated one falsehood after another---hoping somehow that no one would ever notice.
Organic food proponents and consumer advocates Frances Moore Lappe and Anna Lappe explain: "Sixty-one countries already require such labeling. But here in the U.S., GMOs took off in the 1990s with no public debate, and today they're in most processed foods, making Americans the world's GMO guinea pigs."
Arguing that Question 1 is as much about democracy as it is about labeling GMO's food, Kaldveer writes: "Prop. 37 is about one and only one thing-- our right to know what's in our food, and make an informed choice about what we eat and feed our children."
"We can't allow our democracy to be hijacked by unscrupulous corporate interests willing to say and spend anything to protect their profits at the expense of real people, and our rights as free citizens," he said.
# # #
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.