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
Big Agriculture Bankrolls Defeat of California's Proposition 37
Proponents remain positive about the future fight against GMOs
Nov 07, 2012
California's landmark Proposition 37 was soundly and sadly defeated on Tuesday by corporate interests and big money politics. As of Wednesday morning, with more than 94 percent of the precincts reporting, news outlets reported that the measure has been rejected.
Opposition of Proposition 37 was spearheaded by large agribusiness and chemical companies--such as Monsanto and Dow--and big food manufacturers--including PepsiCo, Nestle, and Conagra--who dumped more than $45 million into the fight. Monsanto, a leading maker of genetically engineered seeds, contributed $8.1 million alone against the measure which would have required labeling on genetically modified food.
As of early October, a USC/ Los Angeles Times poll announced that the measure was leading by a large margin, "with 59 percent of voters in favor versus 28 percent who are opposed."
However, nearly $27 million was spent by the "highly organized" No campaign on radio, television and Internet advertising to spread myths about increased bureaucracy and higher food costs.
In contrast, the yes campaign raised $9.2 million, relying primarily on social media and grass-roots initiatives. Supporters include the organic industry, consumer groups, and alternative medicine organizations. Proposition advocates believe that consumers have the right to know whether food has been genetically altered, particularly because long-term affects are yet unknown. Consumer groups estimate that about 70 to 80 percent of processed foods currently sold in the US are made with GM ingredients such as corn, soybeans, sugar beets and cottonseed oil.
Despite the loss, proponents of this first-of-its-kind initiative remain optimistic that the conversation about the dangers genetically modified foods will continue.
"Whatever happens tonight, this is a win," Grant Lundberg, CEO of Lundberg Family Farms and co-chair of Yes on 37, said Tuesday while waiting for polls to close. "Never before have millions of Californians come together to support giving consumers a choice about genetically engineered foods."
A statement by Food & Water watch declared:
One bought election does not change the fact that more than 90 percent of Americans want to join the more than 60 other countries around the world in knowing whether or not their food has been genetically engineered with a simple label.
"Thanks to all who have supported us," wrote the Yes on 37 campaign in a concilliatory tweet shortly before 1 a.m. "This is the first round of many!"
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.
California's landmark Proposition 37 was soundly and sadly defeated on Tuesday by corporate interests and big money politics. As of Wednesday morning, with more than 94 percent of the precincts reporting, news outlets reported that the measure has been rejected.
Opposition of Proposition 37 was spearheaded by large agribusiness and chemical companies--such as Monsanto and Dow--and big food manufacturers--including PepsiCo, Nestle, and Conagra--who dumped more than $45 million into the fight. Monsanto, a leading maker of genetically engineered seeds, contributed $8.1 million alone against the measure which would have required labeling on genetically modified food.
As of early October, a USC/ Los Angeles Times poll announced that the measure was leading by a large margin, "with 59 percent of voters in favor versus 28 percent who are opposed."
However, nearly $27 million was spent by the "highly organized" No campaign on radio, television and Internet advertising to spread myths about increased bureaucracy and higher food costs.
In contrast, the yes campaign raised $9.2 million, relying primarily on social media and grass-roots initiatives. Supporters include the organic industry, consumer groups, and alternative medicine organizations. Proposition advocates believe that consumers have the right to know whether food has been genetically altered, particularly because long-term affects are yet unknown. Consumer groups estimate that about 70 to 80 percent of processed foods currently sold in the US are made with GM ingredients such as corn, soybeans, sugar beets and cottonseed oil.
Despite the loss, proponents of this first-of-its-kind initiative remain optimistic that the conversation about the dangers genetically modified foods will continue.
"Whatever happens tonight, this is a win," Grant Lundberg, CEO of Lundberg Family Farms and co-chair of Yes on 37, said Tuesday while waiting for polls to close. "Never before have millions of Californians come together to support giving consumers a choice about genetically engineered foods."
A statement by Food & Water watch declared:
One bought election does not change the fact that more than 90 percent of Americans want to join the more than 60 other countries around the world in knowing whether or not their food has been genetically engineered with a simple label.
"Thanks to all who have supported us," wrote the Yes on 37 campaign in a concilliatory tweet shortly before 1 a.m. "This is the first round of many!"
California's landmark Proposition 37 was soundly and sadly defeated on Tuesday by corporate interests and big money politics. As of Wednesday morning, with more than 94 percent of the precincts reporting, news outlets reported that the measure has been rejected.
Opposition of Proposition 37 was spearheaded by large agribusiness and chemical companies--such as Monsanto and Dow--and big food manufacturers--including PepsiCo, Nestle, and Conagra--who dumped more than $45 million into the fight. Monsanto, a leading maker of genetically engineered seeds, contributed $8.1 million alone against the measure which would have required labeling on genetically modified food.
As of early October, a USC/ Los Angeles Times poll announced that the measure was leading by a large margin, "with 59 percent of voters in favor versus 28 percent who are opposed."
However, nearly $27 million was spent by the "highly organized" No campaign on radio, television and Internet advertising to spread myths about increased bureaucracy and higher food costs.
In contrast, the yes campaign raised $9.2 million, relying primarily on social media and grass-roots initiatives. Supporters include the organic industry, consumer groups, and alternative medicine organizations. Proposition advocates believe that consumers have the right to know whether food has been genetically altered, particularly because long-term affects are yet unknown. Consumer groups estimate that about 70 to 80 percent of processed foods currently sold in the US are made with GM ingredients such as corn, soybeans, sugar beets and cottonseed oil.
Despite the loss, proponents of this first-of-its-kind initiative remain optimistic that the conversation about the dangers genetically modified foods will continue.
"Whatever happens tonight, this is a win," Grant Lundberg, CEO of Lundberg Family Farms and co-chair of Yes on 37, said Tuesday while waiting for polls to close. "Never before have millions of Californians come together to support giving consumers a choice about genetically engineered foods."
A statement by Food & Water watch declared:
One bought election does not change the fact that more than 90 percent of Americans want to join the more than 60 other countries around the world in knowing whether or not their food has been genetically engineered with a simple label.
"Thanks to all who have supported us," wrote the Yes on 37 campaign in a concilliatory tweet shortly before 1 a.m. "This is the first round of many!"
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.