GMO label prop 37

===

SEE ALSO AGRIBIZ/GMOsee GMO 2 on newer
see ben & jerry unilevergmonsanto tag gmo

this page refers to legislation and regulation (esp voter initiatives)capt 717<h1 class="widgetheadline h1" style="margin: 10px 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; cursor: pointer; word-wrap: break-word; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a class="widgetheadline-text custom-post-headline" href="https://www.ecowatch.com/gmo-labeling-center-for-food-safety-2585717757.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-break: break-word; word-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; line-height: 31px;">GMO Labeling: Public Interest Advocacy Group Sues Trump Over Secrecy</a></h1><div class="body js-expandable clearfix js-listicle-body js-update-url" data-elid="2585717757" data-authors="Center for Food Safety" data-headline="GMO Labeling: Public Interest Advocacy Group Sues Trump Over Secrecy" style="margin: 10px; line-height: 24px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="body-description"><div class="widget__brief">Last week, <a href="https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">Center for Food Safety</a> (CFS) <a href="https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/2018-07-03-dkt-01-cfs-complaint_60883.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">sued</a> the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">Trump</a> Administration for refusing to make public documents surrounding its decision on how to label genetically engineered (GE or <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/gmo-genetically-modified-organism/" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">GMO</a>) foods. On May 3, 2018, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) released long-awaited proposed regulations for the first-ever U.S. mandatory disclosure of foods produced using genetic engineering. Earlier this year, CFS sought the public data and documents about the rulemaking under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), but the administration failed to make public any information, leading to this CFS lawsuit to force that disclosure.</div></div></div><a href="https://www.alternet.org/food/whole-foods-fails-consumers-again-delaying-gmo-labeling" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">https://www.alternet.org/food/whole-foods-fails-consumers-again-delaying-gmo-labeling</a><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div style="font-size: small;">=</div><div style="font-size: small;">B&J bk BK // thom fwd annie leonard 300 pp pal ben furman, left of lenin</div><div style="font-size: small;">
</div><div style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.proz-x.com/onlinelibrary/files/original/18fa2f662e17f290134a6dd2dd0ea974.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">
</a></div><div style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.proz-x.com/onlinelibrary/files/original/18fa2f662e17f290134a6dd2dd0ea974.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">http://www.proz-x.com/onlinelibrary/files/original/18fa2f662e17f290134a6dd2dd0ea974.pdf</a></div><div style="font-size: small;">
</div><div style="font-size: small;">...In September 2009, Vermont made it legal for same-sex couples to marry. Ben & Jerry’s had been a supporter of gay rights since the early 1990s, but Unilever had vetoed an employee proposal to celebrate the state’s civil union law for same-sex couples by releasing a special flavor in 2000. This time was different. The company temporarily renamed its Chubby Hubby flavor “Hubby Hubby,” donated ice cream to the wedding receptions of Vermont’s first same-sex spouses, and publicized the efforts of the national advocacy organization Freedom to Marry. </div><div style="font-size: small;">
</div><div style="font-size: small;"> In the fall of 2009, John Le Boutillier and the board negotiated a five-year plan aimed at “re-radicalizing” the company. The plan called for all the ingredients used by Ben & Jerry’s to be free of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) by the end of 2012. By the end of 2013, all ingredients would also come from farms and processors who were paid fairly and met minimum environmental and social standards...</div><div style="font-size: small;">Political donations from corporations and the ultrawealthy have seriously warped the priorities of governments, said Ben, which is why, in 2012, Ben & Jerry’s launched a campaign called “Get the Dough out of Politics.” The campaign is aimed at passing a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision and make it clear that corporations do not have constitutional rights. But people have criticized the “Dough” campaign for sending mixed messages.</div><div style="font-size: small;">
</div><div style="font-size: small;"> During the 2012 election cycle, Unilever also contributed $467,100 to a lobbying group aimed at defeating a California referendum that would require the labeling of products that contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Unilever did this despite Ben & Jerry’s longstanding position in favor of labeling. The referendum was defeated, and a torrent of corporate money ($46 million against, $9 million for) probably had something to do with it. “Ben & Jerry’s has a heritage of being an edgy, cutting edge company,” said Ben. “It is supposed to do things that haven’t been done before. But the reality is that Ben & Jerry’s is owned by a major corporation that is not particularly edgy.” A nervous chuckle crept into Ben’s delivery as he prepared to make his pitch. “You, as franchisees, are in the middle,” he said. “You’re free—heh, heh, heh—to pretty much do whatever the heck you want. You’re independent operators . . . and when the cat’s away, the mice will play.” The audience leaned forward as Ben described his new organization, Stamp Stampede, which sells rubber stamps designed to print messages on US currency...</div><div style="font-size: small;">
</div><div style="font-size: small;">Pushing those conversations is the real point of the exercise. Ben & Jerry’s does not take an official position on whether genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are good or bad, for example, although most of its employees probably oppose them. The company’s position is that products containing GMOs should be labeled as such, so that people can learn about the issue and make up their own minds. The “just label it” strategy is also how Ben & Jerry’s fought bovine growth hormone (rBGH). But this time, the stakes are much higher because GMOs are a much bigger, more complicated debate. Most plant scientists say that making genetic modifications to staple crops like corn, rice, and wheat can improve crop yields while decreasing reliance on pesticides and irrigation.</div><div style="font-size: small;">...</div><div style="font-size: small;">Corporations like Unilever oppose GMO labeling because it increases their production costs. Labeling is a go-slow approach, and it reflects the view that big science and big businesses should not be the only ones who get a vote. “All the big food companies are against labeling, including Unilever,” said Jostein. “We’re having a huge fight with them. But we are committed to the consumer’s right to know, and we are not going to go away.” “Social changes depend on transparency,” said Jeff. “The movements against the Vietnam War and for civil rights took off when pictures showed people what war and injustice look like. Once people understand what is actually happening, the grassroots movements can start. The best way for us to encourage systemic change is to engage with the public about these issues and let them make up their own minds.”</div><div style="font-size: small;">...</div><div style="font-size: small;">
</div><div style="font-size: small;">=</div></div>6/18 usda comments record#?=golden rice not certified b/c does nor work<a href="https://kpfa.org/episode/the-ralph-nader-radio-hour-june-18-2018/">https://kpfa.org/episode/the-ralph-nader-radio-hour-june-18-2018/</a>Andrew Kimbrell, returns to make the case that passing food labeling laws will spell the end of the GMO industryctr for food safety<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/gmo-food-labels-qr-codes-2565811298.html" class="external text" title="https://www.ecowatch.com/gmo-food-labels-qr-codes-2565811298.html" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; background: url(" lock_icon.gif="lock_icon.gif" right="right" center="center" no-repeat="no-repeat" rgb="rgb" padding-right="padding-right" px="px" font-family="font-family" georgia="Georgia" lucida="Lucida" grande="Grande" verdana="Verdana" arial="Arial" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size">Proposed GMO Food Labeling Could Leave 100 Million Americans in the Dark</a> see <a href="https://ic.ucsc.edu/college8core/c8wiki/index.php/Category:Genetically_Modified_Organisms#News.2FArticles" class="external text" title="https://ic.ucsc.edu/college8core/c8wiki/index.php/Category:Genetically Modified Organisms#News.2FArticles" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; background: url(" lock_icon.gif="lock_icon.gif" right="right" center="center" no-repeat="no-repeat" rgb="rgb" padding-right="padding-right" px="px" font-family="font-family" georgia="Georgia" lucida="Lucida" grande="Grande" verdana="Verdana" arial="Arial" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size">GMO's</a> 5/18.no linkCalifornia's Prop 37 and the story of knowledgeBiotech companies like Monsanto and Syngenta hold patents on the GE seeds and also "control who conducts research".
International food and chemical conglomerates spent millions to defeat California's Proposition 37, which required labelling on all food made with altered genetic material [AP]International food and chemical conglomerates spent millions to defeat California's Proposition 37, which required labelling on all food made with altered genetic material [AP]
byCharlotte Silver@CharEsilver
Charlotte Silver is an independent journalist in San Francisco, formerly based in the West Bank, Palestine.
After California's GMO labelling measure, Proposition 37, was securely defeated on Election Night, "No on 37" spokeswoman, Kathy Fairbanks, repeated to the press the same mantra that she presaged to me last September: "The more voters know, the less they like Prop 37". When I spoke last to Fairbanks in late September, Prop 37 was leading in the polls with 65 per cent in favour and 37 opposed. But the "No campaign" had yet to unleash the $44m arsenal they were amassing from multinational food and biotech companies bent on saving the most important market of GE foods in the world: the United States represents two-thirds of GE seed sales worldwide. Fairbanks' slogan is revealing of the cynical reality of elections
After California's GMO labelling measure, Proposition 37, was securely defeated on Election Night, "No on 37" spokeswoman, Kathy Fairbanks, repeated to the press the same mantra that she presaged to me last September: "The more voters know, the less they like Prop 37". 
When I spoke last to Fairbanks in late September, Prop 37 was leading in the polls with 65 per cent in favour and 37 opposed. But the "No campaign" had yet to unleash the $44m arsenal they were amassing from multinational food and biotech companies bent on saving the most important market of GE foods in the world: the United States represents two-thirds of GE seed sales worldwide. 
Fairbanks' slogan is revealing of the cynical reality of elections in the US, which is that what voters "know" is largely left to the campaign with the largest coffers. Indeed, the campaign against 37 was nothing but a crude example of how power produces and manipulates knowledge. 
At the beginning of October, with a month left of the campaign, "No on 37" began inundating Californian's televisions, radios and mailboxes with fallacious and scaremongering threats of what would happen if Prop 37 passed: consumers will be confused, nefarious lawsuits will run rampant and grocery bills will rise, rise and rise. 
The miraculous San Francisco Giants' ascendancy to the World Series was just an added boon, with a captive audience of devoted fans poised to watch ad after misinforming ad on the television screen.
'No campaign'Let us review some of the "knowledge" Fairbanks' campaign generously offered consumers. One of the first television ads featured Henry Miller against the backdrop of the iconic vaulted arches on Stanford University's campus, representing him as a professor at the University. Miller is not, rather he is a fellow at the right-wing Hoover Institute, a reliable think-tank for politicians looking to deregulate and privatise industry.  Argentina awaits ruling on crop pesticidesStanford immediately required the ad be taken down for its misrepresentation of Miller's position and for its associating the school with a political campaign, in violation of the institution's policy. In widely distributed mailers, the "No campaign" fraudulently used the Food and Drug Administration's seal and misattributed a quote to the federal agency that disparaged Prop 37. The "No campaign" also misrepresented the views of the World Health Organisation, the National Academy of Science, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and the American Medical Association, suggesting they endorse the safety of GMOs. In reality, these organisations have either argued that further testing of GE foods should be done or remained silent on the issue altogether. But what surely most effectively swayed voters away supporting the Proposition was hearing that their grocery bills would increase by $400 per year, a number derived from an industry-funded study that refers to the increase in grocery costs if a family were to switch to organic and non-GMO foods. In fact, labelling would have cost neither consumers nor manufacturers a dime. The "Yes on 37" campaign had one-sixth of the funds (but 10,000 volunteers throughout the state), and reeling from the ad assault managed to get a few ads on the airwaves. But the damage was done. Thirty-seven's popularity began a sharp decline after the non-stop ad campaign was launched; three weeks into October and polls showed a near reversal in public sentiment, with 50 opposed and only 39 per cent in favour. All of a sudden, one of the most straightforward propositions on California's ballot had become the most confusing. Even more disheartening to watch as the labelling initiative was foiled was the press' increasing hostility towards the campaign, the blind adoption of the "No" campaign's logic in many newspaper editorials and the collusion of various pundits in making the proposition about anything other than what it was, the consumer's right to know what he or she is eating. Despite the brazen mendacity of the "No campaign", the press barely took notice.
Reverence for 'science' It's hard to make a sound argument against transparency on any issue without insulting your audience. Independent opponents of the labelling initiative attacked the measure and its supporters for being inherently anti-progress, anti-science and anti-technology, a grave offence in an era of rampant starvation and failing crops, as Keith Kloor asserted on Slate. After all, how else will we feed "the seven billion people who cannot feed" themselves? Echoing David Zilberman's argument that GMOs are "our future" and labelling them would lead the ignorant flocks to squelch the earnest and selfless efforts to develop GE technology, Kloor masquerades as an ally to the so-called Food Movement by offering it his advice. He chides Prop 37 and its friends for not embracing science or what he calls the "Years of rigorous studies of GM foods" that "have not demonstrated any harmful effects associated with consuming GM crops"."If a company can control the research that appears in the public domain, they can reduce the potential negatives that can come out of any research."
- Ken Ostlie, entamologist
It would seem, however, that Kloor would like us to accept a science that simply does not exist. Carelessly flouting the cautionary observations of Thomas Kuhn that yesterday's science is tomorrow's myth, what these pundits more flagrantly ignore is that there is in fact very little science on the health consequences of GMOs. Because biotech companies like Monsanto and Syngenta hold patents on the GE seeds, they also control who conducts research. Furthermore, the FDA does not require safety testing of GE foods before entering the market. In 2009, a group of 26 insect scientists wrote a statement to the Environmental Protection Agency explaining the difficulty they have in conducting tests on GE seeds. Tellingly, the statement was unsigned out of fear of being blacklisted for research by the companies. In a New York Times article at the time, University of Minnesota entomologist and signatory of the statement, Ken Ostlie, said, "If a company can control the research that appears in the public domain, they can reduce the potential negatives that can come out of any research."
Research blockedNever mind this embargo on furthering our knowledge of GMOs, Kloor would prefer us to trust the industry's tests (never longer than 90 days) or the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), whose board chairwoman is the former director of Sigma-Aldrich Chemical Company.AAAS excoriated the labelling movement for being unscientific and then went ahead and misattributed anti-labelling positions to the same organisation that the "No campaign" did. Not only have the biotech companies that produce genetically modified ingredients blocked most independent research into the long-term health effects of eating a small amount of pesticides in each meal, but in their campaign against Prop 37 they have also monopolised the authority of knowledge.Without getting into the myriad examples that undermine GE crops as efficiently employing our globe's agricultural land and resources, or pointing to the biotech profiteers waiting in the wings of our changing climate, I will point out that these anti-labelling voices sing in harmony with the imperialists - whether liberal or conservative - who wage a war against what and who they've deemed anti-progress and anti-modern. Whether in the name of white man's burden or benevolent empire, the US' food industry parallels its empire as operating with impunity and unaccountability while it peddles a mythology of progress and modernity. Sadly for California, the goliath was nearly but not quite defeated - the race ended with a six-point spread - and big money defeated reason, ethics and consumer rights.Charlotte Silver is a journalist based in San Francisco and the West Bank. She is a graduate of Stanford University. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/11/201211811503032830.htmlrefhttps://web.archive.org/web/20121122162222/http://truefoodnow.org/2012/10/17/california-newspaper-editorial-boards-spread-false-claims-and-faulty-logic-on-proposition-37<h2 style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 2px; line-height: 27px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20121122162222/http://truefoodnow.org/2012/10/17/california-newspaper-editorial-boards-spread-false-claims-and-faulty-logic-on-proposition-37/" rel="bookmark" title="California Newspaper Editorial Boards Spread False Claims and Faulty Logic on Proposition 37" style="text-decoration: none; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(117, 171, 234);">California Newspaper Editorial Boards Spread False Claims and Faulty Logic on Proposition 37</a></h2><div class="postinfo" style="clear: both; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Posted on October 17, 2012 by Admin</div><div class="entry" style="vertical-align: top; max-width: 475px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">By Michele SimonEach election season, proponents and opponents of the various initiatives on the California ballot hope for the state’s major newspaper endorsements. While you can’t expect every paper to endorse your side, Proposition 37, which would require labeling of foods produced using genetic engineering, seems to have had a string of incredibly bad luck. So incredible, in fact, that the reasoning behind several California newspaper endorsements of a No vote has me scratching my head.It’s one thing to have a difference of opinion, but these editorials don’t even get their facts straight. Even more perplexing, most of the papers acknowledged that we should have labeling for foods produced using genetic engineering, and yet they went out of their way to find excuses to not endorse a basic consumer “right to know” effort. In this light, it seemed logical to review a few of the arguments that raised questions.The Sacramento Bee <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20121122162222/http://www.sacbee.com/2012/09/16/4822220/prop-37-is-a-sour-plan-for-food.html" target="blank">editorial</a> board, after saying they “don’t oppose labeling of genetically modified food,” went on to parrot several of the opposition’s talking points, but failed to back them up with any actual facts. They claim the initiative would result in “countless lawsuits against retailers,” a baseless scare tactic well-honed by the<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20121122162222/http://www.noprop37.com/facts/trial-lawyers/" target="blank">opposition</a>. The vast majority of businesses follow the law, so lawsuits will be rare.Much has been made by the Bee and other papers about how “private attorneys and plaintiffs would have the power to enforce,” demonstrating a troubling ignorance of the law. Under current California law, private attorneys can already sue food companies for deceptive marketing, so this is really no different. And unlike other laws (such as Prop 65), under Prop 37 there are no financial incentives for bringing a lawsuit. All a person can get is a court order for the company to properly label its product, which is no incentive for an attorney to bring a lawsuit. Again, it’s just scare mongering from the opposition, and it’s sad to see the editorial pages engage in such shallow analysis and flimsy argumentation.The Los Angeles Times reasoning for its No <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20121122162222/http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-end-prop37-20121004,0,5824651.story" target="blank">endorsement</a> was particularly bizarre. The first three paragraphs read like a great Yes argument, including:<blockquote style="margin: 10px 10px 0px; padding: 0px; background: url(" web="web" http="http" s1.wp.com="s1.wp.com" wp-content="wp-content" themes="themes" pub="pub" digg3="digg3" images="images" bg_blockquote.gif="bg_blockquote.gif" px="px" no-repeat="no-repeat" rgb="rgb">In most cases, there is no requirement to inform consumers, via labels, about the use of pesticides, hormones or antibiotics, or about the inhumane conditions in which animals are often kept. But Proposition 37 would make an exception for genetically engineered food, requiring that it be labeled before being sold in California.</blockquote>The board then makes a lengthy and twisted argument summed up as: With so many other things wrong with the food supply, why single out GMOs? The paper claims we should be more worried about how…<blockquote style="margin: 10px 10px 0px; padding: 0px; background: url(" web="web" http="http" s1.wp.com="s1.wp.com" wp-content="wp-content" themes="themes" pub="pub" digg3="digg3" images="images" bg_blockquote.gif="bg_blockquote.gif" px="px" no-repeat="no-repeat" rgb="rgb">… three-fourths of the antibiotics in this country are used to <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20121122162222/http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/13/opinion/la-ed-antibiotics-20120413" target="blank">fatten and prevent disease in livestock</a>, not to treat disease in people. The rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria from overuse of pharmaceuticals poses a real threat to public health. So why label only the bioengineered foods? Because the group that wrote Proposition 37 happened to target them. What’s needed is a consistent, rational food policy, not a piecemeal approach based on individual groups’ pet concerns.</blockquote>Has the L.A. Times missed the decades-long <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20121122162222/http://www.meatwithoutdrugs.com/" target="blank">movement</a> to halt the overuse of antibiotics in livestock? It has been <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20121122162222/http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/us/antibiotics-for-livestock-will-require-prescription-fda-says.html" target="blank">gaining more traction</a> lately. You would think they would have heard of it. How exactly do two wrongs make a right? And a “consistent, rational food policy” would be nice in a consistent, rational world, but that’s not the planet we inhabit. Or the state. Advocates often have to fight these battles one at time because the food industry is so powerful it’s the only way we can get anything done.Finally, the reference to “groups’ pet concerns” is condescending and ignorant. More than <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20121122162222/http://justlabelit.org/one-million-strong-record-breaking-comments-delivered-to-fda-to-label-ge-foods/" target="blank">a million Americans</a> have signed a petition asking the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to label GMOs, a request that <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20121122162222/https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/labelgmos/pages/2602/attachments/original/1343756416/Mellman-Survey-Results_3.12.pdf?1343756416" target="blank">one survey showed 91 percent of Americans agree with</a>, but that the FDA has so far ignored thanks to politics. (This, despite President Obama’s campaign promise to label GMOs; see <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20121122162222/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqaaB6NE1TI" target="blank">this video</a> from Food Democracy Now.) Moreover, volunteers in California helped gather more than a million signatures to get Prop 37 on the ballot. Also, most of the groups working to get GMO labeling have also been working on the other food system problems the Timesmentions (and many more), so these are hardly “pet concerns” to advocates, and shame on the L.A. Times for saying so.Undoubtedly, the single most disturbing and outright false argument made by at least three newspapers (the Sacramento Bee, the San Jose Mercury News, and the San Francisco Chronicle) is how the proponents of Prop 37 should have gone through the legislature first. The Bee said that “proponents made no effort to push the concept through the Legislature” and the Chronicle claimed that “advocates of the labeling law never attempted that step, despite Democratic majorities in both houses.”What?In fact, organizations such as the Center for Food Safety (full disclosure: this article is on behalf of CFS) have tried numerous times to introduce such a bill, and could never even get a legislator to introduce a bill. However CFS was able to get a bill to label genetically engineered fish introduced in 2011 (AB 88, authored by Assemblymember Jared Huffman), and while it passed through the assembly health committee, it failed in appropriations.For these three major California newspapers to base their No on 37 endorsements on such patently false claims about the legislative process completely boggles the mind. This is no small mistake. Many editorial boards have made it clear that they just don’t like the initiative process and are quick to bash it. Fair enough, but at least acknowledge that those fighting for GMO labeling in California did try to go through the legislature first. To say otherwise is giving readers the false impression that Prop 37 proponents were too lazy or stupid to bother going through that important first step. Given the massive amount of resources required to engage in the initiative process in California (either in volunteer effort or money or both), most advocacy groups would only choose this route after failing multiple times in the legislature. It’s just too big an undertaking, and extremely risky financially. And yet, these newspapers make it sound like Prop 37 proponents took the easy way out. Hardly. Running up against the deep, deep pockets of No on Prop 37 donors like Monsanto, DuPont, Dow, PepsiCo, and Coca-Cola is not exactly the easy way.Related to this false statement is the notion the legislature would do a better job drafting a bill to label GMOs. The San Jose Mercury News <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20121122162222/http://www.mercurynews.com/editorials/ci_21708019?source=rss" target="blank">predicted</a> that the legislative “give and take would have resulted in a better-drafted law that we might well have supported.” Really? Has anyone on these editorial boards ever been to the state’s capital to witness California sausage-making first hand? I have, and it’s not pretty. That both houses have a Democratic majority hardly matters, as corporate lobbyists write most of the bills in their favor and then gut the rest to render them toothless.Even if a GMO labeling bill for all foods was introduced, the resulting bill would either die in committee or come out the other end in favor of Monsanto et al. That’s exactly why Prop 37 proponents had to resort to the initiative process. As flawed as it is; it’s all we have left. Prop 37 may not be perfect, but it’s the best chance we have of getting GMO labeling right now, so why not support it? According to California’s leading newspapers, GMO labeling should only happen through a rational legislative process where all stakeholders have their say, resulting in a balanced and perfect law that would make everyone happy. What world do these editorial board members live in?That so many California newspapers failed to understand the political realities that led to Prop 37 in the first place raises troubling questions about the relevance of proposition endorsements in general. Many Californians rely on their local papers to help them understand the numerous and complex ballot initiatives each election. But if editorial boards can’t bother to get their facts straight, they have abdicated their responsibility and simply cannot be trusted to offer voters fair recommendations. Maybe it’s time newspapers retired the practice altogether. If the debacle of Prop 37 editorials is any indication, the voting public would be better off doing its own homework.Paid for by Californians for Truth in Labeling-Yes on 37, sponsored by the <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20121122162222/http://www.cfsactionfund.org/" target="blank">Center for Food Safety Action Fund</a></div><a href="http://www.alternet.org/story/155675/meet_the_corporate_front_groups_fighting_to_make_sure_you_can't_know_what's_in_your_food">http://www.alternet.org/story/155675/meet_the_corporate_front_groups_fighting_to_make_sure_you_can't_know_what's_in_your_food</a>What do a former mouthpiece for tobacco and big oil, a corporate-interest PR flack, and the regional director of a Monsanto-funded tort reform group have in common?They’re all part of the anti-labeling PR team that will soon unleash a massive advertising and PR campaign in California, designed to scare voters into rejecting the <a href="http://carighttoknow.org/" style="text-decoration: none;">California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act.</a>In November, California voters will vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on a law to require mandatory labeling of all GMO ingredients in processed foods, and ban the routine industry practice of mislabeling foods containing GMO ingredients as ‘natural.’Polls show that nearly 90% of the state’s voters plan to vote ‘yes.’  But when November rolls around, will voter support still be strong? Not if the biotech, agribusiness, and food manufacturers industries can help it.It’s estimated that the opposition <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/25/science/dispute-over-labeling-of-genetically-modified-food.html?r=2" style="text-decoration: none;">will spend $60 million - $100 million</a> to convince voters that GMOs are perfectly safe. They’ll try to scare voters into believing that labeling will make food more expensive, that it will spark hundreds of lawsuits against small farmers and small businesses, and that it will contribute to world hunger.  None of this is true. On the contrary, studies suggest just the opposite.Here’s what is true: The opposition has lined up some heavy-hitters and industry-funded front groups -- masquerading as “grassroots” organizations -- to help spin their anti-labeling propaganda machine.You have the right to know what’s in your food. You also have the right to know who is working tirelessly to prevent you from ever having that right – and who is signing their paychecks.  Here’s a partial lineup of hired guns and organizations behind the anti-labeling advertising blitz soon to hit the California airwaves:Tom Hiltachk: Monsanto’s Man in CaliforniaTom Hiltachk is the PR gunslinger behind the Coalition Against the Costly Food Labeling Proposition (CACFLP), an anti-labeling front group. A partner at the Sacramento-based lobbying firm <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bell,McAndrews%26_Hiltachk,LLP" style="text-decoration: none;">Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk</a>, Hiltachk is no stranger to front groups. With a little help from his friends at Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds, he helped organize the <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447474/" style="text-decoration: none;">Californians for Smokers’ Rights</a> group to fight anti-smoking initiatives in the 1980s and 1990s. He also helped form the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Californians_for_Fair_Business_Policy" style="text-decoration: none;">Californians for Fair Business Policy</a> – a so-called “grassroots” organization, but actually a front group to mobilize business opposition to anti-smoking initiatives. That organization was funded by an <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/07/27/174754/prop23-tobacco/" style="text-decoration: none;">“academic” front group</a> – the <a href="http://www.claremont.org/" style="text-decoration: none;">Claremont Institute</a> – which was in turn funded by tobacco companies.Hitachk also has ties to Big Oil, including a colorful history with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_23(2010)" style="text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">California’s Proposition 23</a>, a conservative-backed ballot initiative launched – and defeated – in 2010. The initiative, supported by Big Oil, would have repealed California’s clean energy and climate laws. Hiltachk was initially an ally of Ted Costa, a veteran right-wing activist behind many conservative initiatives, including Prop 23, and head of the group <a href="http://calprops.ning.com/group/peoplesadvocate" style="text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">People’s Advocate</a>. But that relationship soured, <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/07/30/206494/politician-behind-the-campaign-to-repeal-california%E2%80%99s-clean-energy-laws-calls-global-warming-a-scam/" style="text-decoration: none;">according to ThinkProgress.org</a>, when Costa realized that Hiltachk’s main motivation was to funnel the $50 million that he hoped would be raised from oil companies and the Chamber of Commerce to himself and his friends.Coalition Against Costly Food Labeling Proposition: Looking out for consumers’ financial well being?<a href="http://www.stopcostlyfoodlabeling.com/" style="text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The Coalition Against Costly Food Labeling Proposition (CACFLP)</a> runs a website called <a href="http://www.stopcostlyfoodlabeling.com/" style="text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">stopcostlyfoodlabeling.com</a>, giving the impression that this is a group concerned about protecting consumers’ wallets. But the website lists only one consumer group in its coalition – Consumers Coalition of California. A search of the IRS.gov site turns up nothing on this group. According to the coalitions’ 2009 990-Form published on <a href="file:///C:/UsersKatherine%20Pauldownloadsguidestar.org" style="text-decoration: none;">Guidestar.org</a>, this Torrance, Calif.-based coalition describes itself as “Research and oriented community education studies and info for residential and small businesses advocating on issues affecting major legislation.” The group has no website. No other national or California-based consumer groups are listed on the CACFLP site.CACFLP’s website does list some powerhouse coalition members, however, including the <a href="http://www.gmaonline.org/" style="text-decoration: none;">Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA)</a>, whose members also include Monsanto, BASF, Bayer, Dow and Syngenta as well as many large food processors and supermarket chains, and the <a href="http://www.whybiotech.com/" style="text-decoration: none;">Council for Biotechnology Information (CBI)</a> , whose members include Monsanto, BASF, Bayer, Dow and Syngenta. Both groups are based in Washington DC. As of March, the GMA and the CBI had<a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_20107995/food-labeling-measure-draws-early-cash-initiative-would" style="text-decoration: none;">contributed a combined $625,000</a> to the CACFLP – presumably to “protect” consumers from GMO labeling. Both groups <a href="http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2012/05/genetic-labeling-measure-heads-for-the-ballot-in-california.html" style="text-decoration: none;">have publicly opposed</a> this initiative.Monsanto recently made <a href="http://www.dailynews.com/health/ci_20374661/group-pushes-november-ballot-initiative-label-foods-gmos" style="text-decoration: none;">the following statement</a> in support of CACFLP:<blockquote style="line-height: 25px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Monsanto is part of a growing coalition of California farmers, food producers, grocers, retailers, and others which has been formed to oppose the California measure. As a member of both GMA (Grocery Manufacturers Association) and BIO (Biotechnology Industry Organization), we support the organizations' involvement in the California campaign to oppose the costly and extreme measure.</blockquote>Kathy Fairbanks: Voice of the people?Kathy Fairbanks wants consumers to believe she’s on their side when she warns them that requiring labels on GMO foods will raise their grocery bills. Yet since when has she fought for the little guy? A glance at her resume reveals a long list of pro-corporate gigs, including some involving illegal donations and questionable practices.In 2010, Fairbanks worked for <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Californians_for_Fair_Auto_Insurance_Rates" style="text-decoration: none;">the Californians for Fair Auto Insurance Rates - C-FAIR</a> - an insurance industry front group set up by billionaire Mercury Insurance executive George Joseph. C-FAIR launched a California ballot initiative, <a href="http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance/committee.phtml?c=4041" style="text-decoration: none;">Prop 17</a>, to raise rates on consumers who had been without coverage - despite a voter-approved law banning the practice. Fairbanks' work on the 2010 ballot initiative was investigated in a <a href="http://www.sfbg.com/2010/03/16/buying-power?page=0,5" style="text-decoration: none;">San Francisco Bay Guardian piece</a> called "Buying Power: How PG&E and Mercury Insurance Are Spending Millions to Try to Trick Californians into Voting for Corporate Interests," and a <a href="http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2010/feb/19/insurer-veils-its-funding-of-measure/" style="text-decoration: none;">San Diego Union Tribune article</a>, "Insurer Veils Its Funding of Measure: Literature for Prop. 17 Omits Mercury's Millions."During the initiative battle, the state Department of Insurance accused Mercury of <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/15/business/la-fi-insure-mercury15-2010feb15" style="text-decoration: none;">illegal practices,</a> including <a href="http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/51239" style="text-decoration: none;">unfairly denying coverage</a> and charging discriminatory rates to motorists who were not at fault in accidents, were members of the armed forces or worked in certain professions.  It found Mercury had a "lengthy history of serious misconduct" and an attitude of "contempt toward and/or abuse of its customers, the [insurance] commissioner, its competition and the Superior Court." Mercury paid $300,000 to settle the allegations.Fairbanks also worked on the wrong side of consumers on the following pro-big business campaigns:<ul style="line-height: 25px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><li>In 2008: spokesperson for the opposition to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_7(2008)" style="text-decoration: none;">Prop 7</a>, a California ballot measure to require half the state's electricity to come from renewable sources by 2025. </li><li>In 2006: helped defeat <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_82(2006)" style="text-decoration: none;">Proposition 82</a> which would have provided credentialed teachers to 150,000 4-year-olds living in the city, funded through tax increases on individuals earning more than $400,000 a year, and on couples making more than $800,000 a year.</li><li>In 2005: spokesperson for <a href="http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=SJ&s_site=mercurynews&p_multi=SJ&p_theme=realcities&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=10D1E27BF6C84AC0&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=Goog" style="text-decoration: none;">Steve Poizner's Campaign for State Insurance Commissioner</a> , whose funding was controlled by Poizner, a wealthy Silicon Valley Republican. The fund was required to return $1.75 million in illegal donations made by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his campaign committee.</li></ul>Fairbanks also worked for the California Chamber of Commerce, in 1999, when the Chamber was spending $2.4 million per legislative session on lobbying.  The list of bills she urged Gov. Davis to veto included a bill that would have increased workers compensation benefits, and one that would have allowed employees to use up to half of their annual sick leave to stay home and care for sick family members. She also opposed limiting the expansion of Big Box stores and barring businesses from using revenues from state contracts for anti-union activities.Maryann Marino and the California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (CALA): Defending small farmers?Maryann Marino is the Southern California regional director of <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Citizens_Against_Lawsuit_Abuse" style="text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (CALA)</a>, which according to <a href="http://www.citizen.org/preshttp:/www.citizen.org/pressroom/pressroomredirect.cfm?ID=481sroom/pressroomredirect.cfm?ID=481" style="text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Public Citizen</a> is one of many so-called "lawsuit abuse" groups throughout the country that are part of a national, corporate-backed network of front groups that receive substantial financial and strategic assistance from the tobacco industry and some of America's biggest corporations.According to Public Citizen, “These groups masquerade as grassroots citizens groups spontaneously manifesting citizen anger against so-called ‘lawsuit abuse.’ The groups aim to incite public scorn for the civil justice system, juries and judges, and to pave the way for enactment of laws immunizing corporations from liability for actions that harm consumers.”Sure enough, Marino recently <a href="http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/food_coach&id=8645922" style="text-decoration: none;">told KABC-TV</a>, Los Angeles, the GMO labeling initiative is “not really about the right to know, but rather the right to sue.”In 2000, the Center for Justice and Democracy issued a <a href="http://centerjd.org/content/cala-files-secret-campaign-big-tobacco-and-other-major-industries-take-away-your-rights" style="text-decoration: none;">report on CALA</a> which unmasked "funding by self-serving mega-corporations that secretly spawned a national network of fake citizens’ organizations," said Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook. "These so-called citizens groups are doing the bidding of the corporate funders and are pushing at all levels to deny Americans access to the courtroom and to create a legal environment that shields corporate wrongdoers from accountability."American Tort Reform Association (ATRA): Champion of food safety?Maryann Marino’s organization, CALA,  is a state chapter of the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) – which receives substantial financial and strategic assistance from the tobacco industry and America's biggest corporations, including Philip Morris, Dow Chemical (currently seeking approval for Agent Orange Corn), Exxon, General Electric, Aetna, Geico and Nationwide. ATRA now keeps its membership secret, but according to a 1993 American University Law Review <a href="http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr/vol42/iss4/16/" style="text-decoration: none;">article by P.R. Sugarman</a>, Monsanto Chemical Company, RJR/Nabisco, E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company were among just a few of the companies and industry trade association members.  According to "Justice For Sale: Shortchanging the Public Interest for Private Gain," <a href="http://www.ratical.org/corporations/Justice4sale.html" style="text-decoration: none;">a 1993 report</a> by the Alliance for Justice, "The ATRA is made up of corporation trade groups such as the National Association of Manufacturers, the Chemical Manufacturers Association, the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association -- thus giving corporations a decoy and accomplice group two full steps removed from their board rooms."In 2008, the last time they made the names of any of their members public, a list of <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ATRA#Members" style="text-decoration: none;">"sample members"</a> included Kraft Foods Inc., the 3rd largest packaged food company in the U.S. Kraft opposes GMO labels, but <a href="http://www.capwiz.com/grassrootsnetroots/issues/alert/?alertid=30612501&type=CU" style="text-decoration: none;">defends its use of GMOs.</a>In return for Monsanto's support, ATRA has been a relentless cheerleader for the company's lawlessness.<a href="http://www.atra.org/newsroom/alabama-supreme-court-denies-new-claim-medical-monitoring" style="text-decoration: none;">ATRA applauded Monsanto</a> for skirting plaintiffs' claims for medical monitoring after Monsanto was found to have been knowingly polluting the small town of Anniston, Alabama, with dangerous levels of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). (The residents surrounding the Monsanto plant were predominantly minorities. The first lawsuit, brought in state court, went to trial and the jury found Monsanto guilty of a variety of torts, including negligence, nuisance and trespass. This case was eventually folded into a similar federal case, concluding in a global settlement fining Monsanto $700 million for its egregious behavior toward the Anniston residents.)ATRA's publication, <a href="http://www.judicialhellholes.org/" style="text-decoration: none;">Judicial Hellholes</a>, in a <a href="http://www.judicialhellholes.org/2012/02/28/food-eaters-1-organic-industry-0/" style="text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">post</a> titled, "Food Eaters 1, Uncompetitive Organics Industry 0," calls atrazine, the infamous <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/03/opinion/kristof-how-chemicals-change-us.html" style="text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">endocrine-disrupting pesticide</a>, "a safe and widely used weed killer."Neither CALA nor ATRA have voiced concern about Monsanto <a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/CFSMOnsantovsFarmerReport1.13.05.pdf" style="text-decoration: none;">suing farmers</a> in 143 different patent infringement lawsuits when their crops were unintentionally contaminated with Monsanto's GMOs.  Marino does, however, have a problem with farmers getting together to bring one lawsuit against Monsanto to stop the harassment.Find our Common Ground: Advocating for moms and regular folks?The newly launched website, <a href="http://findourcommonground.com/" style="text-decoration: none;">Find Our Common Ground</a>, may not fit in the heavy-hitter category, but it’s another example of a thinly veiled attempt by a group to look as if it’s working for small farmers, gardeners, and health-conscious folks.  The group also has a <a href="https://www.facebook.com/CommonGroundNow" style="text-decoration: none;">facebook page</a>, to help spread its folksy message.The message? Direct from the group’s website:<blockquote style="line-height: 25px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Consumers aren’t getting the real story about American agriculture and all that goes into growing and raising their food. We’re a group of volunteer farm women and we plan to change that by doing something extraordinary. Our program is called CommonGround and it’s all about starting a conversation between women who grow food, and the women who buy it. It’s a conversation based on our personal experience as farmers, but also on science and research. Our first goal is to help consumers understand that their food is not grown by a factory. It’s grown by people and it’s important to us that you understand and trust the process. We hope you’ll join in the conversation.</blockquote>The message maker? A quick search on <a href="http://whois.domaintools.com/" style="text-decoration: none;">Wois.com</a> reveals that <a href="http://osborn-barr.com/" style="text-decoration: none;">Osborn Barr Communications</a>, a PR company with ties to - who else? - Monsanto – owns the domain name. Osborn Barr specializes in agriculture and rural communities and is used to <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Osborne%26_Barr" style="text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">create front groups</a> for their clients.  In 2006, Monsanto hired Osborn Barr to work on the controversial recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone issue, so Osborn Barr set up <a href="http://itisafact.org/" style="text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">American Farmers for Advancement and Conservation of Technology</a> (AFACT), a pro-rbGH farmer front group.There will be no lack of creativity and certainly no lack of money spent to defeat the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act. There should also be no lack of scrutiny when it comes to who is spreading the anti-GMO labeling message.Alexis Baden-Mayer is Political Director of the<a href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/" style="text-decoration: none;">Organic Consumers Association</a>.Ronnie Cummins is founder and director of the <a href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/" style="text-decoration: none;">Organic Consumers Association</a>. Cummins is author of numerous articles and books, including "Genetically Engineered Food: A Self-Defense Guide for Consumers" (Second Revised Edition Marlowe & Company 2004). http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-28/coca-cola-may-pull-products-from-vermont-to-comply-with-gmo-law-Cola Co., the world’s largest soft-drink company, expects to pull some of its beverages from Vermont stores as the state imposes a GMO-labeling law this week.All products made with genetically modified organisms must have warning labels in order to stay on sale in Vermont -- the nation’s second-least-populous state -- starting July 1. While the Atlanta-based company’s top beverages will stay on shelves, including Coca-Cola, Diet Coke and Coke Zero, some smaller brands or configurations may disappear for now, according to spokesman Ben Sheidler.“To avoid multiple labeling changes, some lower-volume brands and packages we offer within our broad portfolio could be temporarily unavailable in Vermont,” he told Bloomberg BNA.<div data-view-uid="1|0_3_1_8" style="box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; line-height: 29.124px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Products made with GMOs are a hot-button topic in the food and agriculture industry, and the U.S. Senate is discussing its own bill that would supersede Vermont’s labeling law.  Consumers are increasingly wary of scientifically altered ingredients, but food companies say the scientific consensus is that GMOs are safe.Kellogg Co., Campbell Soup Co. and Mars Inc. previously announced that they would bow to the Vermont law and begin labeling their products for GMOs.<h3 style="box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; margin: 1.25rem 0px 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Senate Bill</h3>But the industry is still seeking a national solution, saying a patchwork of state laws isn’t practical. Republicans and Democrats on the U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee have struck a deal that would create national GMO-labeling protocol, pre-empting the Vermont law.For beverage companies such as Coca-Cola, the GMO debate adds to bigger problems. Per-person soda consumption in the U.S. fell to a 30-year low last year, according to Beverage Digest. And sales have continued to tumble in 2016.<div data-view-uid="1|0_3_1_9" style="box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; line-height: 29.124px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">PepsiCo Inc. <a itemscope="itemscope" itemprop="StoryLink" href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-27/new-pepsi-old-problem-u-s-soda-sales-have-lost-their-fizz" title="New Pepsi, Old Problem: U.S. Soda Sales Have Lost Their Fizz" data-tracker-action="click" data-tracker-category="recirc" data-tracker-label="inline_link.01" style="box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; transition: color 0.1s ease-out; text-decoration: none; outline: 0px; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: rgb(43, 0, 247); background: transparent;">announced</a> that it was revamping its diet-cola line this week after slow sales.=https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/06/29/coca-cola-reportedly-pulling-products-from-vt-over-gmo-labeling-law/Coca-Cola reportedly pulling products from VT over GMO labeling lawhttp://www.alternet.org/food/sanders-takes-stand-against-senate-bill-would-undermine-vermonts-new-gmo-labeling-law-videolegslators appear ruthless in keeping Americans in the dark about what they eat—literally. While 90 percent of Americans support mandatory GMO labeling, H.R. 1599—otherwise known as the Deny Americans the Right to Know, or DARK Act—introduced by Sen. Pat Roberts, would have "preempted states from requiring the labeling of GMO foods," according to <a href="http://www.justlabelit.org/dark-act/" style="text-decoration: none; line-height: 32px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Just Label It</a>.blog
The coalition backing No on 37 is a long list of biotech, big ag, and drug and chemical manufacturers, including the American Council on Science and Health, whose president is Elizabeth Whelan, who describes herself as a lifelong conservative “more libertarian than Republican.” The ACSH supporters include Dow, DuPont, Exxon, General Mills, David H. Koch Charitable Foundation, and of course Monsanto. And Coke and Pepsi if you need an artificially sweetened beverage.<div>
</div>This week the House Agriculture Committee is expected to mark up and vote on a bill that would take away the right of states to label food with genetically modified ingredients, or<a href="http://ecowatch.com/news/food-agriculture/gmo-genetically-modified-organism/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">GMOs</a>. According to Environmental Working Group (EWG), the latest draft of the measure shows it to be a bad bill that keeps getting worse.<figure id="attachment_364837" aria-labelledby="figcaption_attachment_364837" class="wp-caption alignnone" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 3px; line-height: 25.2px; max-width: 660px;"><figcaption id="figcaption_attachment_364837" class="wp-caption-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0.1875rem 0.4375rem; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" /></figure>The bill originally only prevented states from labeling products with GMOs. The version to be considered this week goes a step further, prohibiting state and local governments from protecting the environment and public health from the side effects of the production of GMO crops. The bill also allows companies to make “natural” claims on foods with GMOs and blocks state efforts to prohibit these misleading claims. These are more reasons that clean food advocates call the bill the <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/03/25/gmo-labeling-hits-dc/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Deny Americans the Right to Know</a>, or DARK Act.“This bad bill just keeps getting worse,” said Mary Ellen Kustin, EWG senior policy analyst. “The DARK Act has always been an infringement upon the well-established rights of states to regulate food labeling, but the most recent versions of the bill takes that overreach to a new level.”Use of herbicides linked to cancer, especially glyphosate, has <a href="http://www.ewg.org/agmag/2015/04/glyphosate-spreading-cancer-across-us" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">exploded</a> alongside the increase in production of GMO crops engineered to withstand the application of these toxic chemicals. In the last 20 years, use of glyphosate, which was recently identified as a <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/03/23/monsanto-roundup-glyphosate-cancer/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">probable human carcinogen</a> by the world’s leading cancer researchers, has increased 16-fold.As glyphosate use has increased, weeds have started to develop resistance to it. In response, Dow Agrosciences has produced Enlist Duo, a combination of glyphosate and another herbicide, 2,4-D, which was recently labeled a <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/06/23/24-d-weed-killer-carcinogenic/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">possible human carcinogen</a>. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2014/10/15/epa-approves-gmo-pesticide/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">approved the use</a> of Enlist Duo in 15 states, though the agency has not examined the safety risk of the two active ingredients when combined together.“Because of the risks to human health posed by the widespread application of herbicides linked to cancer and other terrible diseases, like Parkinsons, of course local governments would want to keep farmers and farmworkers safe from exposure,” said Kustin. “If the federal government isn’t going to protect public health, responsible local officials will want to step up—but the DARK Act wants to make it impossible for them to do so. Backers of the bill keep adding more ways to keep Americans in the dark.”YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE<a class="black-to-green" href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/07/01/neil-young-pope-francis/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">What Neil Young and Pope Francis Have in Common</a><a class="black-to-green" href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/06/08/monsanto-control-world-food-supply/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">How Monsanto Gained Huge Control of the World’s Food Supply</a><a class="black-to-green" href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/06/20/monsanto-fires-back-neil-young/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Monsanto Fires Back at Neil Young’s Scathing New Album</a>5/15Recently introduced legislation (H.R.1599) would prohibit any state efforts to require labeling of genetically engineered foods (GMOs), overruling legislation already passed in Maine, Vermont and Connecticut as well as bills moving in many other states.1That's why I started a petition to the U.S. House of Representatives, which says:<div class="yiv2343914190header-smaller-button" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1432137493279_68064" style="margin: 1em 0px; padding: 1em; border: 1px solid rgb(239, 239, 239);">I urge you to reject Representative Mike Pompeo's "Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act" (H.R.1599), which would prohibit states from requiring the labeling of genetically engineered foods, or GMOs. 

This bill, which is being promoted by the Grocery Manufacturers Association, would prevent states from requiring GMO labels at any time. In fact, this bill is so anti-consumer it is commonly referred to as the "Deny Americans the Right to Know (or DARK) Act." </div>4/15whoohoohttp://freespeechforpeople.org/node/841Vermont has largely prevailed in its defense of Act 120, its recently-passed law requiring the labeling of food produced with genetic engineering. The law requires food sold in Vermont that was produced with genetic engineering to be labeled “produced with genetic engineering." Major agribusiness and industrial food manufacturers and processors challenged the law in federal district court with a variety of claims, including that it violates their First Amendment rights by forcing them to “speak” against their will. Free Speech For People filed an <a href="http://freespeechforpeople.org/node/782" style="text-decoration: none;">amicus brief </a>in the case, as did the <a href="http://www.vpirg.org/" style="text-decoration: none;">Vermont Public Interest Research Group</a>, the <a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/" style="text-decoration: none;">Center for Food Safety</a>, and the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/TheVermontCommunityLawCenter" style="text-decoration: none;">Vermont Community Law Center</a>.On Monday, April 27, Chief Judge Christina Reiss issued an 84-page opinion rejecting nearly all of industry’s claims. She readily disposed of industry’s claims that a food labeling law was “political speech” or discriminated against corporate “viewpoints,” instead finding that the law is an ordinary product labeling requirement. And as for the Grocery Manufacturers Association’s discrimination claims, the judge dryly noted that the corporate plaintiffs "are not a politically unpopular group that has been subjected to purposeful and unconstitutional discrimination.”While some of the trade groups’ claims will proceed to trial, the judge completely denied industry's request to block implementation of the law while trial is pending. And the judge specifically found that, based on the information presented so far, the “compelled speech” claim (on which Free Speech For People’s amicus brief focused) is not likely to succeed at trial.On the ruling, Legal Director Ron Fein explained, "Overall, this decision is a significant victory for the people of Vermont, who have the right to know what’s in their food so that they can make informed decisions. The decision is also a line in the sand against encroaching corporate First Amendment challenges to disclosure and labeling laws. Of course, higher courts might step in to <a href="http://freespeechforpeople.org/node/763" style="text-decoration: none;">save industry’s bacon</a>. But in Vermont, industrial food manufacturing corporations just got a lesson in people power."Free Speech For People thanks Vermont attorney Anthony Iarrapino for assistance with our amicus brief. <a href="http://freespeechforpeople.org/sites/default/files/FSFP-Vermont%20GMO-Order%20on%20Motions.pdf" style="text-decoration: none;">Download the Order on Motions [PDF]</a>http://freespeechforpeople.org/node/841
yahoo news 12/14
SALEM, Ore. (AP) — Proponents of an Oregon ballot measure requiring labels on genetically modified foods conceded defeat Thursday after a judge ruled against them and an automatic recount appeared unlikely to sway the outcome.
The Yes on 92 campaign said there are no legal options remaining that could lead them to victory.
"The labeling movement will continue to grow," the campaign said in a statement. "We draw strength from the fact that we came so achingly close to winning this vote, despite being outspent by more than $12 million."
Measure 92 was defeated by just 812 votes out of 1.5 million, triggering an automatic recount. The second tally showed a net shift of 25 votes against the initiative. The results cover all 36 counties but have not yet been certified.
The proponents said they would continue working toward a labeling requirement for genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, but stopped short of promising a 2016 campaign.
The initiative would have required manufacturers, retailers and suppliers to label raw or packaged foods produced entirely or partially by genetic engineering.

Oregon is the fourth state in the West to oppose a labeling requirement for genetically modified foods, but Oregon came closer than efforts in California, Colorado and Washington."After looking at the facts about Measure 92, Oregon voters decided that it rightly deserved a no vote," Pat McCormick, a spokesman for the No on 92 Coalition, said in a statement.
Congress could step into the debate next year. A congressional hearing Wednesday previewed Republican efforts to push federal legislation that would override state laws mandating labels
=<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/">e Guardian</a> [1] / By <a href="http://www.alternet.org/authors/suzanne-goldenberg">Suzanne Goldenberg</a> [2]<div class="body-slot-mod" style="line-height: 17.3076953887939px; float: right; clear: right; margin: 0px 0px 1.1em 10px; max-width: 300px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="yom-remote"><div class="" id="mediacontentrelatedstory_container"><div class="headline" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><h1 property="dc:title" datatype="" class="node-title">Big Ag Spending Millions to Defeat GMO Labeling Campaigns</h1></div><div class="the_body body_story clearfix"><div class="big_story_tools_bottom_container" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="authors_signup"><div class="talk_box"></div><div class="clear"> </div></div><div class="clear" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </div><div class="story_tools_bottom" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="text-size"><div class="story_tools_email"><div class="story_tools_print"><div class="story_tools_share"><div style="clear: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="story-date" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">October 24, 2014  |  </div>Biotech and supermarket giants are spending more than $25 million to defeat ballot initiatives in two western states that would require labeling of foods containing genetically modified organisms. In Colorado, DuPont and Monsanto food companies are outspending supporters of mandatory labeling by 22-1 ahead of the 4 November vote, according to state campaign finance records.In Oregon, meanwhile, <a href="https://secure.sos.state.or.us/orestar/CommitteeSearchThirdPage.do">industry is outspending supporters of the ballot measure by about 2-1</a> [3].The heavy industry spending resembles the last-minute infusions of cash for television ads, direct mail, and campaign staff that helped defeat earlier campaigns for mandatory GM labeling <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/nov/07/prop-37-californian-gm-labelling">in California</a> [4] and<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/06/washington-state-voters-reject-gmo-labeing/3450705/">Washington state</a> [5].“It is like David vs Goliath,” Larry Cooper, director of <a href="http://www.righttoknowcolorado.org/">Colorado’s Right to Know campaign</a> [6] said.He said the pro-labeling campaign had raised $625,000 by Thursday afternoon. Cooper’s opponents, meanwhile, amassed $14 million, after DuPont this week gave an additional $3 million to the campaign, and were advertising heavily on local television.“Why they put $14 million in Colorado to keep us in the dark really doesn’t make sense to me,” Cooper said. “The bottom line is that we really don’t know what is in our food. We are shopping blindly.”Monsanto alone has spent $4.7 million to defeat the measure. Other top donors to the campaign to defeat pro-labeling Proposition 105 read like a grocery shopping list. They include: PepsiCo, Kraft Foods, General Mills, Hershey Company, Coca-Cola and Kellogg, and Flower Food, according to Colorado state campaign finance records.The spending is much less lopsided in Oregon where opponents of the state’s <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Mandatory_Labeling_of_GMOs_Initiative,Measure_92(2014)">Measure 92 labeling initiative</a> [7] have raised $11 million while supporters have $6 million.Monsanto is a major force in both states. “We oppose state-by-state mandatory labeling laws like Measure 92 in Oregon and Proposition 105 in Colorado,” a company spokeswoman said in an email. “The reason we don’t support them is simple. They don’t provide any safety or nutrition information and these measures will hurt, not help, consumers, taxpayers and businesses.”Unlike Colorado, labeling advocates in Oregon have attracted some big donors to their side, including $1 million from Dr Bronners’ magic soaps.An heir to the Hormel meat-packing fortune. Thomas Hormel, who has no connection to the company and lives in Florida, gave $500,000, according to state campaign finance records.The company immediately ramped up its own donations, giving a total of $85,000 to defeat the labeling initiative.Kevin Glenn, a spokesman for <a href="http://oregonrighttoknow.org/">Oregon Right to Know</a> [8], said the pro-labeling side hoped to counter the financial advantage by grassroots organizing. He said the campaign had opened five field offices in the state, and was about to start canvassing door-to-door.Organizers also had a bit of a head start. In May, <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-05-22/two-oregon-counties-ban-genetically-modified-crops">voters in two rural counties voted to ban cultivation of GM crops</a> [9], on the grounds that it put conventional produce at risk of contamination.Last year, a number of countries postponed wheat imports from Oregon after <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/may/29/oregon-genetically-modified-wheat-monsanto">an outbreak of GM wheat from an experimental research station</a> [10]. Investigators have yet to discover the source of the GM outbreak, which occurred years after the tests were shut down.Scientists generally agree that foods containing GM ingredients are safe to eat, but the “right to know” has emerged as a hugely emotional issue for some Americans.Pro-labeling campaigners say the public has a right to know exactly what they are eating. Opponents say labels make no sense if there are no real health concerns, and risks stigmatizing their products.Vermont earlier this year <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/08/vermont-first-us-state-gm-labelling-food">became the first US state to adopt mandatory labeling of GM foods</a> [11] – although the law does not go into effect until 2016.Maine and Connecticut have also passed GM labeling laws, but put them on hold. </div>=

<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/24/colorado-proposition-105-gmo_n_6038812.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/24/colorado-proposition-105-gmo_n_6038812.html</a>

— Farms and fields dominate Colorado ads opposing a ballot measure to require labels on some foods that have been genetically modified, with farmers telling voters the labels will damage their businesses.

But farmers and agriculture groups are just bit players in the $11 million campaign to defeat Proposition 105. The real money is coming from biotechnology giant Monsanto Co., which has given more than $4.7 million, and food giants like Pepsico and Coca-Cola, which sent a combined $1.9 million to fighting the proposal.

Hormel Foods, Kraft Foods, Kellogg Co. and The Hershey Co. are also outspending farm groups to fight the proposal. Food companies are pouring big money into fighting a similar ballot measure in Oregon, too.

Colorado and Oregon are battlegrounds in a national war over genetically modified organisms, or organisms that have been altered at the molecular or cellular level. So-called GMOs now make up almost the entirety of many staple crops, such as corn and soybeans, which are used in many items on grocery-store shelves.

"We're not saying GMOs are bad. We're saying we want them to be labeled," said Tammi DeVille Merrell, campaign manager for Right To Know Colorado, which has raised less than $500,000 and has no TV or radio ads to promote its campaign.

Short on funds, the campaign is relying on big-name endorsers to take their side.

Chipotle, along with Ben & Jerry's ice cream company, has backed GMO labeling. Former Democratic presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich has planned a visit to Colorado next week to talk up the measure.

Labeling opponents in Colorado feel confident they'll be able to defeat the proposal. They've spent just about $3 million on television ads, according to campaign finance data analyzed by the Center for Public Integrity.

===

==

$ 3x

<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 21px; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">By Carey Gillam<br style="box-sizing: border-box; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 21px; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" />

<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 21px; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Sept 3 (Reuters) - Opponents of mandatory labeling for foods made with genetically modified organisms spent more than $27 million in the first six months of this year on GMO-related lobbying, roughly three times their spending in all of 2013, according to an analysis released Wednesday.<br style="box-sizing: border-box; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 21px; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" />

<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 21px; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) and major food makers such as Coca-Cola Co and PepsiCo Inc and top biotech seed makers Monsanto Co and DuPont were among heavy spenders on GMO labeling-related lobbying, among other food issues, according to a report issued by the Environmental Working Group.<br style="box-sizing: border-box; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 21px; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" />

<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 21px; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The group analyzed lobbying disclosure forms that cited labeling of foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) along with other policy issues.<br style="box-sizing: border-box; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 21px; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" />

<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 21px; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">All told, the opponents of GMO labeling disclosed $15.2 million in lobbying expenditures for the second quarter of 2014, bringing the six-month total for 2014 to $27.5 million. That compared with $9.3 million reported in 2013, according to EWG, a Washington-based nonprofit that supports GMO labeling.<br style="box-sizing: border-box; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 21px; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" />

<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 21px; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">In contrast, supporters of GMO labeling disclosed $1.9 million in lobbying expenditures for the first half of 2014, up slightly from $1.6 million spent in 2013.<br style="box-sizing: border-box; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 21px; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" />

<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 21px; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Mike Gruber, vice president for government affairs for the Grocery Manufacturers Association, said that the EWG report is "grossly misleading." The lobbying work the dollars in the report includes a host of issues unrelated to GMO labeling, he said.<br style="box-sizing: border-box; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 21px; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" />

<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 21px; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">GMA said the dollars spent lobbying on GMO issues are far less than what the EWG report indicates.<br style="box-sizing: border-box; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 21px; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" />

<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 21px; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"The GMO issue is a very important issue without a doubt but so is food safety so is international trade," said Gruber.<br style="box-sizing: border-box; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 21px; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" />

<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 21px; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The expenditures by food and biotechnology companies come as the group pushes for passage of a bill introduced in April by U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo that would block state laws that require GMO labeling on food packages.<br style="box-sizing: border-box; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 21px; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" />

<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 21px; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Vermont in May became the first U.S. state to pass a mandatory GMO labeling law that requires no other trigger to become effective. More than 20 other states are considering mandatory labeling of GMO foods, including Colorado and Oregon, which have the issue on the ballot for the November election.<br style="box-sizing: border-box; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 21px; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" />

<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 21px; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Consumer groups and lawmakers pushing for mandatory labeling of GMOs say there is no scientific consensus on their safety, and consumers have the right to know if GMOs are in the food they eat. They say high pesticide use associated with GMOs and pesticide residues on food containing GMOS is a health concern.<br style="box-sizing: border-box; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 21px; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" />

<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 21px; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">But the food and agriculture industries, including the makers of genetically modified corn, soybeans, canola and other crops widely used in packaged foods, say their products are proven safe. They have sued to block the Vermont law and say that labeling will imply GMO products are unsafe, confuse consumers and increase costs for consumers as well as farmers and food companies. (Reporting by Carey Gillam in Kansas City; Editing by Cynthia Osterman and Lisa Shumaker)

===

EXCERPTS:

According to <a href="http://organicconsumers.org/" target="blank">Organic Consumers Association</a> [12] Executive Director Ronnie Cummins and Vermont farmer Will Allen, "Monsanto has used lawsuits or threats of lawsuits for 20 years to <a href="http://www.alternet.org/story/154855/monsanto_threatens_to_sue_vermont_if_legislators_pass_a_bill_requiring_gmo_food_to_be_labeled" target="blank">force unlabeled genetically engineered foods</a> [11] on the public, and to intimidate farmers into buying their genetically engineered seeds and hormones."

==

federal:

<a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/gmo-labeling-bill-101853.html">http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/gmo-labeling-bill-101853.html</a>

Food industry to fire preemptive GMO strike

By: Jenny Hopkinson and Helena Bottemiller Evich

January 7, 2014 04:24 PM EST

</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" valign="top" class="story" style="margin-bottom: 7px; margin-top: 5px; display: block;">

The giants of the U.S. food industry who have spent millions fighting state-by-state efforts to mandate new labels for genetically modified organisms are taking a page from their opponents and pushing for a federal GMO law.

But the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which represents such food and beverage leaders as ConAgra, PepsiCo and Kraft, isn’t exactly joining the anti-GMO movement. It’s advocating for an industry-friendly, law with a voluntary federal standard — a move that food activists see as a power grab by an industry that has tried to kill GMO labeling initiatives every step of the way.

The most powerful players in the food industry say they are simply trying to find a national solution for GMO labeling, rather than having to navigate a patchwork of dozens of state laws for every packaged food item on the grocery shelf. According to a <a href="http://images.politico.com/global/2014/01/07/scaned_pdf1.html" target="_blank" style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">discussion draft</a> of GMA’s proposed bill obtained by POLITICO, labeling standards would not be mandatory and the industry would submit to more FDA oversight.

(<a href="http://www.politico.com/agriculture/" style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Also on POLITICO: Full agriculture policy coverage</a>)

The draft provides the first concrete look of what the food industry is asking for from Congress.

The push for a softer national standard on GMO labeling comes as consumer interest in biotech foods has blown up into an intense national conversation, and the food industry is clearly trying to get out ahead of a strong, vocal movement pushing strict labeling requirements in multiple states around the country.

“We believe that it’s important for Congress to engage and provide FDA with the ability to have a national standard” on GMO food labeling, Louis Finkel, head of government affairs for GMA, said. “A 50-state patchwork of regulations is irresponsible.”

(<a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/chobani-vs-whole-foods-over-gmos-101380.html" target="_blank" style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Also on POLITICO: Chobani vs. Whole Foods over GMOs</a>)

GMA’s proposal is aimed at protecting its members from having to fight a series of state labeling efforts as several states, including Colorado and Oregon, look to move forward with<a href="https://www.politicopro.com/story/agriculture/?id=29208" target="_blank" style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">initiatives in 2014</a>. The push for state-level action has prompted food, beverage and biotech companies to shell out big bucks to quash such efforts, which has also earned them some unfavorable press coverage.

Two states — Connecticut and Maine — passed GMO-labeling mandates last year, but both have strict trigger clauses, requiring four other states with a combined population of more than 20 million to implement similar measures before they take effect. Ballot initiatives in California in 2012 and Washington in 2013 were defeated, though by voting margins scarcely above 2 percentage points and only after the food and biotechnology industries spent almost $70 million in campaign ads....

</td></tr></tbody></table>

==

PROP 37

<div class="asset-body" style=" margin-bottom: 1em;"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/detail.php?cmte=C90011719&cycle=2012" style="text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent;">Crossroads GPS</a>, the dark money political organization linked to Republican operative Karl Rove, apparently gave $2 million last year to Americans for Job Security, a group that was involved in a scheme in California to funnel $11 million into efforts aimed at two state ballot initiatives.

A state investigation into the movement of money found that AJS, also a dark money nonprofit, sent the $11 million through three other organizations in an attempt to hide the identities of its donors. California election authorities called it "the largest contribution ever disclosed as campaign money-laundering in California history" and demanded disclosure of the donors.

In a settlement today, after a grand jury investigation, the <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/nonprof_contrib.php?id=264683543" style="font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;">Center to Protect Patient Rights</a>and <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/detail.php?cmte=C90012931" style="font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;">Americans for Responsible Leadership</a> -- two of the groups through which money was channeled -- agreed to pay a fine of $500,000 each, which together amounts to the largest campaign-reporting fine ever levied by the watchdog agency. CPPR has been a major clearinghouse of contributions to other conservative dark money groups. Both CPPR and ARL have strong ties to the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, major donors to conservative political causes. CPPR <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/09/a-story-on-politicos-website.html" style="font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent;">received $115 million</a> from the Koch-spearheaded group Freedom Partners last year.

In addition, the agency released a <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/810042-americans-for-job-security-fppc-list-public.html" target="_blank" style="font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent;">list of AJS donors</a> the state obtained in its investigation. The document, much of which is redacted, contains enough information to identify some of the large donors.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/10/24/3709096_p2/calif-pacs-reach-1m-campaign-finance.html#storylink=cpy</div>

</div>

<div id="more" class="asset-more">Crossroads GPS spent more than $70 million on independent expenditures in the 2012 elections, but apparently had enough to give to other dark money groups as well.

Some other major Republican donors are on the list, such as <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?cycle=2012&disp=D&type=V" style="background-color: transparent; text-decoration: none;">Miriam and Sheldon Adelson</a>, who gave $250,000 each. The Adelsons were major donors to Republican super PACs in 2012, giving nearly $100 million to such groups as <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/detail.php?cmte=C00487363&cycle=2012" style="background-color: transparent; text-decoration: none;">American Crossroads</a> (the super PAC affiliate of Crossroads GPS) and the pro-Mitt Romney super PAC <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/detail.php?cmte=Restore+Our+Future&cycle=2012" style="background-color: transparent; text-decoration: none;">Restore Our Future</a>.

Other donors included:

<li style=" font-weight: normal; margin: 5px 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-position: inside;">Jesse Rogers of Altman Capital, $450,000</li>

<li style=" margin: 5px 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-position: inside;">Greg Penner of Wal Mart, $500,000</li>

<li style=" font-weight: normal; margin: 5px 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-position: inside;">Margaret Bloomfield of Baron Real Estate Fund, $500,000</li>

<li style=" font-weight: normal; margin: 5px 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-position: inside;">Glen Stearns and Stearns Lending, $250,000</li>

<li style=" font-weight: normal; margin: 5px 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-position: inside;">The Tulley and Elise Friedman Fund, $100,000</li>

<li style=" font-weight: normal; margin: 5px 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-position: inside;">The American Council of Engineering Companies of California, $500,000</li>

<li style=" font-weight: normal; margin: 5px 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-position: inside;">Wayne Hughes, $450,000</li>

<li style=" font-weight: normal; margin: 5px 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-position: inside;">Hitchcock Automotive, $100,000

</li>

</ul>

The <a href="http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-secret-donors-california-initiatives-20131024,0,6457967.story#axzz2igMRZT1T" target="_blank" style="background-color: transparent; text-decoration: none;">Los Angeles Times</a> identified other donors: The Fisher family, for instance, which owns the Gap clothing empire, gave more than $9 million, according to the Times.

According to the <a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/10/24/3709096_p2/calif-pacs-reach-1m-campaign-finance.html" target="_blank" style="background-color: transparent; text-decoration: none;">Associated Press</a>, CPPR said that the settlement included a recognition by the state that the group didn't intend to conceal information but made a mistake "largely because it had never previously made any contributions" in California. "The Commission today recognized that CPPR acted in 'good faith' and that there was absolutely no intent to violate campaign reporting rules," attorney Malcolm Segal said in a statement.

</div>

<div style=" font-weight: normal;">The money flowed like this: AJS raised $29 million. It gave nearly $25 million of it to CPPR, which in turn gave $18 million to Americans for Responsible Leadership. ARL gave $11 million to the Small Business Action Committee, which put it toward fighting one state ballot initiative that would have meant higher taxes and supporting another that would have reduced the political power of labor unions. The Small Business committee was ordered Thursday to pay $11 million to the state. </div>

</div>

<div>CPPR also gave $7 million to the <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/detail.php?cycle=2012&cmte=American+Future+Fund" style="text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent;">American Future Fund</a>, which sent $4 million on to the California Future Fund for Free Markets. The California group, which supported the anti-union ballot measure, was ordered by the state watchdog agency to pay a penalty equivalent to the sum it received. None of those organizations disclose their donors, though they are all engage in extensive political activity. The American Future Fund spent more than $25 million at the federal level in the 2012 elections.

A call and email to Crossroads GPS were not returned at the time of this post.

Political Nonprofits Investigator Robert Maguire and Money-in-Politics Reporter Russ Choma contributed to this post.

Image: Sean Noble, head of the Center to Protect Patient Rights, via his Twitter account.

</div>

</div>

<li class="entry-tag" style=" margin: 5px 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-position: inside; display: inline;"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=adelson&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag" style="background-color: transparent; text-decoration: none;">adelson</a>,</li>

</li><li style=" list-style: none;">

</li><li class="entry-tag" style=" margin: 5px 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-position: inside; display: inline;"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=american%20crossroads&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag" style="background-color: transparent; text-decoration: none;">american crossroads</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-tag" style=" margin: 5px 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-position: inside; display: inline;"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=california%20fair%20political%20practices%20commission&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag" style="background-color: transparent; text-decoration: none;">california fair political practices commission</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-tag" style=" margin: 5px 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-position: inside; display: inline;"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=center%20to%20protect%20patient%20rights&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag" style="background-color: transparent; text-decoration: none;">center to protect patient rights</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-tag" style=" margin: 5px 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-position: inside; display: inline;"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=crossroads%20gps&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag" style="background-color: transparent; text-decoration: none;">crossroads gps</a></li>

<li class="entry-tag" style=" margin: 5px 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-position: inside; display: inline;"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=dark%20money&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag" style="background-color: transparent; text-decoration: none;">dark money</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-tag" style=" margin: 5px 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-position: inside; display: inline;"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=shadow%20money%20trail&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag" style="background-color: transparent; text-decoration: none;">shadow money trail</a>,</li>

<li class="entry-tag" style=" margin: 5px 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-position: inside; display: inline;"><a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/MT/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=8&tag=viveca%20novak&limit=20&IncludeBlogs=8" rel="tag" style="background-color: transparent; text-decoration: none;">viveca novak</a></li>

</ul>

</div>

===

<h1 style="margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 1.2em; outline: none; display: block; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: -webkit-left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Corporate Cash Defeats GMO Labeling in WA State Preliminary Results</h1>

<p style="margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; line-height: 14.3906px; outline: none; display: block; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: -webkit-left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">After a barrage of ads, Washington voters slid from a 66 percent show of support for labeling genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food six weeks ago to defeating the state's Initiative 522 for GMO labeling at the polls, with preliminary results showing 55 percent against.

<a href="http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=ZjZ3htMF09M40PNShvRGKBkbNXCPoSvn">http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=ZjZ3htMF09M40PNShvRGKBkbNXCPoSv</a>n

==

<div class="byline environment">OtherWords / By <a href="http://www.alternet.org/authors/jill-richardson-0" style="">Jill Richardson</a> [1]</div>

<h1 property="dc:title" datatype="" class="node-title">Big Food Crushes Consumer Rights in Washington State</h1>

</div>

<div class="story-date">November 6, 2013  |  </div>

When you look at the numbers, how could Washington State’s ballot initiative to require the labeling of foods made with genetically engineered ingredients ever stand a chance?

I’m not talking about poll numbers. I’m talking about money.

Just six weeks ago, voters <a href="http://www.theolympian.com/2013/10/21/2787131/i-522-new-poll-shows-big-swing.html" style="">supported the measure</a> [2] by a 3-to–1 margin. But that was before Big Ag bankrolled a barrage of negative and<a href="http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2022103454_truthneedlegmoxml.html" style="">misleading ads</a> [3].

Shortly before voters got to weigh in on Initiative 522, polls pointed to a tight race but the consumer-friendly measure still looked like it might pass. Shortly before Election Day, the opposition ponied up nearly $5 million for last-minute ad buys to guarantee a decisive win for Big Food. Corporate America outspent its grassroots foes by a 3-to-1 margin, rapidly skewing public opinion.

Genetic engineering entails inserting genes from one species into the DNA of another species. For example, scientists alter a tomato plant with a fish gene. Nowadays, these newfangled ingredients are in an estimated <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/08/what-are-gmos-and-why-should-i-care" style="">60 to 70 percent</a> [4] of foods sold in U.S. supermarkets.

Odds are, unless you only eat organic food, you’re eating them yourself. And, if you’re like most Americans, you had no idea.

Washington isn’t the first state to try to label genetically engineered foods. Connecticut recently adopted a law that’s contingent on other nearby states following suit. New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, and New York have considered it too.

In 61 other countries, companies already comply with laws making this information mandatory.

Big Food defeated a similar measure, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Prop_37" style="">Proposition 37</a> [5], in California last year. Initially, support for that ballot initiative ran 2 to 1 in favor of it.

Then the money arrived.

Deep-pocketed corporations like Monsanto, Coca-Cola, Nestle, and PepsiCo <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/No_on_37:_Coalition_Against_the_Deceptive_Food_Labeling_Scheme#Major_Funders" style="">poured millions</a> [6] into convincing Californians that labeling would increase their grocery bills. To prove it, the deceptive companies pointed to a biased study they paid for themselves. They outspent consumer advocates by a 4-to-1 margin.

The final numbers on Washington’s labeling measure aren’t in yet but it looks like the blizzard of campaign cash worked its voodoo again.

I can’t help but feel an overwhelming sadness. A truly grassroots David was crushed by a powerful corporate Goliath.

It’s true that much of the <a href="http://www.pdc.wa.gov/MvcQuerySystem/CommitteeData/contributions?param=WUVTNTIyIDEwMQ&year=2013&type=initiative" target="_blank" style="">$7.2 million raised to support Washington’s labeling measure</a> [7]came from corporations and non-profits, but an awful lot of it came from individuals too. And many were Washington residents.

<a href="http://www.pdc.wa.gov/MvcQuerySystem/Committee/initiative_committees_by_ballot_num?year=2013&ballotNum=522" style="">Their $7.2 million</a> [8] barely stood a chance against the <a href="http://www.pdc.wa.gov/MvcQuerySystem/CommitteeData/contributions?param=Tk81MjIgIDUwNw&year=2013&type=initiative" target="_blank" style="">$22 million that flooded the state</a> [9] to defeat the labeling initiative. And guess how much of that money came from actual Washington residents? <a href="http://www.pdc.wa.gov/MvcQuerySystem/CommitteeData/contributions?param=Tk81MjIgIDUwNw&year=2013&type=initiative" style="">Merely $550</a> [9]. The rest came from five major chemical and biotech companies (Monsanto, DuPont, Dow, Bayer, and BASF) and the Grocery Manufacturers Association.

The biotech companies are the ones who make and sell genetically engineered seeds. They don’t want you to know that you’re eating their products. But it’s the Grocery Manufacturers Association that wins the award for the dirtiest trick.

You see, many major food companies sell <a href="https://www.msu.edu/_{howardp/organicindustry.html}" style="">both conventional and organic or natural brands</a> [10]. Coca-Cola owns Honest Tea and Odwalla. Kellogg owns Kashi and Morningstar Farms. General Mills owns Cascadian Farm. And last year, organic consumers took note of their heavy-handed efforts to defeat labeling in California. They didn’t want any bad press this time.

That’s where the Grocery Manufacturers Association came in. Pretty much every single major food company in the U.S. secretly kicked in a few thousand — or million — dollars to a special fund. The money went to oppose labeling in Washington, but voters had no way to find out which companies it came from — until Bob Ferguson, the state’s Attorney General, cried foul. He called it “the largest amount of money ever concealed in an election.”

If this is what our elections have come to, why don’t we just save time at the polls?

We could just measure who has the most money, and declare that side the winner. If that doesn’t sit well with you, then we obviously need a new way to ensure that the voice of the people won’t be drowned out by corporate money.

</div>

<div class="tags">See more stories tagged with:

<div class="field-item even"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/tags/labeling" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" style="">labeling</a> [13],</div>

<div class="field-item odd"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/tags/right-know" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" style="">right to know</a> [14]</div>

</div>

</div>

<div class="print-source_url" style="text-align: left;">Source URL: <a href="http://www.alternet.org/food/big-food-crushes-consumer-rights-washington-state" style="">http://www.alternet.org/food/big-food-crushes-consumer-rights-washington-state</a></div>

<div style=" text-align: left;">Links:</div>

<div style=" text-align: left;">[1] http://www.alternet.org/authors/jill-richardson-0</div>

<div style=" text-align: left;">[2] http://www.theolympian.com/2013/10/21/2787131/i-522-new-poll-shows-big-swing.html</div>

<div style=" text-align: left;">[3] http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2022103454_truthneedlegmoxml.html</div>

<div style=" text-align: left;">[4] http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/08/what-are-gmos-and-why-should-i-care</div>

<div style=" text-align: left;">[5] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Prop_37</div>

<div style=" text-align: left;">[6] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/No_on_37:_Coalition_Against_the_Deceptive_Food_Labeling_Scheme#Major_Funders</div>

<div style=" text-align: left;">[7] http://www.pdc.wa.gov/MvcQuerySystem/CommitteeData/contributions?param=WUVTNTIyIDEwMQ====&year=2013&type=initiative</div>

<div style=" text-align: left;">[8] http://www.pdc.wa.gov/MvcQuerySystem/Committee/initiative_committees_by_ballot_num?year=2013&ballotNum=522</div>

<div style=" text-align: left;">[9] http://www.pdc.wa.gov/MvcQuerySystem/CommitteeData/contributions?param=Tk81MjIgIDUwNw====&year=2013&type=initiative</div>

<div style=" text-align: left;">[10] https://www.msu.edu/~howardp/organicindustry.html</div>

<div style=" text-align: left;">[11] http://www.alternet.org/tags/gmo</div>

<div style=" text-align: left;">[12] http://www.alternet.org/tags/food-0</div>

<div style=" text-align: left;">[13] http://www.alternet.org/tags/labeling</div>

<div style=" text-align: left;">[14] http://www.alternet.org/tags/right-know</div>

<div style=" text-align: left;">[15] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B</div>

</div>

==

<div class="byline environment" style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><a href="http://alternet.org/" style="">AlterNet</a> [1] / By <a href="http://www.alternet.org/authors/ocean-robbins" style="">Ocean Robbins</a> [2]</div>

<h1 property="dc:title" datatype="" class="node-title">Monsanto's Very Bad Week: 3 Big Blows for GMO Food</h1>

</div>

<div class="story-date" style=" font-weight: normal;">October 21, 2013  |  </div>

It hasn't been a good week for Monsanto and the rest of the biotech industry.

Just three days ago, Mexico <a href="http://www.theyucatantimes.com/2013/10/mexico-bans-gmo-corn/" target="_hplink" style="">banned</a> [3] genetically engineered corn. Citing the risk of imminent harm to the environment, a Mexican judge ruled that, effective immediately, no genetically engineered corn can be planted in the country. This means that companies like Monsanto will no longer be allowed to plant or sell their corn within the country's borders.

At the same time, the County Council for the island of Kauai <a href="http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/23707723/kauai-council-approves-controversial-gmo-pesticide-labeling-bill" target="_hplink" style="">passed a law </a> [4]that mandates farms to disclose pesticide use and the presence of genetically modified crops. The bill also requires a 500-foot buffer zone near medical facilities, schools and homes -- among other locations.

And the big island of Hawaii County Council <a href="http://bigislandnow.com/2013/10/16/council-votes-to-restrict-gmos-ban-fracking/" target="_hplink" style="">gave preliminary approval</a> [5] to a bill that prohibits open air cultivation, propagation, development or testing of genetically engineered crops or plants. The bill, which still needs further confirmation to become law, would also prohibit biotech companies from operating on the Big Island.

But perhaps the biggest bombshell of all is now unfolding in Washington state. The mail-in ballot state's voters are already weighing in on Initiative 522, which would mandate the labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Knowing full well that 93 percent of the American public <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97567" target="hplink" style="">supports</a> [6] GMO labeling, and that if one state passes it, many others are likely to follow, entrenched agribusiness interests are <a href="http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021941264_gmomoneyxml.html" target="hplink" style="font-weight: normal;">pulling out all the stops</a> [7] to try to squelch <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ocean-robbins/monsanto-prop-37_b_2088934.html" target="_hplink" style="font-weight: normal;">yet another</a> [8] state labeling effort.

This time, however, things aren't going quite as planned. On Wednesday, Washington state Attorney General Bob Feguson <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/16/us-usa-gmo-labeling-idUSBRE99F19B20131016" target="_hplink" style="font-weight: normal;">filed a lawsuit</a> [9] against the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA). The GMA, a lobby for the junk food industry, has been by far the largest donor to efforts to defeat the labeling initiative. The lawsuit alleges that the GMA illegally collected and spent more than $7 million while shielding the identity of its contributors.

<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ocean-robbins/huge-gmo-news_b_4129311.html" style="">This story</a> [10] first appeared on the Huffington Post.

The source of the money has now been exposed, and it <a href="http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2013/10/18/pepsi-coke-nestle-top-multi-million-dollar-campaign-against-i-522/" target="hplink" style="">turns out</a> [11] to be Pepsico, Coca-Cola, NestleUSA, General Mills and a few other junk food companies. The lawsuit <a href="http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2013/10/17/corporate-secrets-how-the-anti-522-campaign-was-planned/" target="hplink" style="">reveals</a> [12] that GMA leadership held a series of secret meetings to plot how to perpetrate a money laundering scheme and illegally hide member donations from Washington state voters, in direct violation of campaign disclosure laws.

Unlike the junk food companies that feared consumer backlash, Monsanto hasn't even bothered to hide the more than $4 million the company has given to the "no" campaign. In fact, GMA, Monsanto and a handful of other corporate donors have now <a href="http://blogs.seattletimes.com/politicsnorthwest/category/general-election/gmo-initiative/" target="_hplink" style="">broken a state record</a> [13] by pouring more than $17 million into their effort to stop Washington's GMO labeling ballot initiative.

Voting is already underway in Washington, and the final ballots will be cast on November 5. The "yes" side is <a href="http://www.seattlemet.com/news-and-profiles/publicola/articles/elway-poll-eyman-initiative-gmo-labeling-measure-hold-big-leads-september-2013" target="hplink" style="">ahead</a> [14] in the most recent polls, but supporters of the right to know fear that a barrage of heavily funded and <a href="http://www.inspirationsforchange.com/healthy-living/yes-522-misleading-no-on-522-commercials-analyzed/#.UmJCIWRgb0g" target="hplink" style="">misleading</a> [15] ads could sour voters to the initiative.

They remember that just last year, California's Proposition 37 was well ahead in the polls until Monsanto and its allies <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ocean-robbins/monsanto-prop-37_b_2088934.html" target="_hplink" style="">spent more than $46 million</a> [8] on their campaign in the Golden State.

All this label fighting and money laundering leads to some very significant questions. Why are Monsanto and the junk food industry willing to spend many tens of millions of dollars every year trying to keep you in the dark about your food? What doesn't big food want you to know? And what are they afraid might happen if you did?

Monsanto tells us that their products are about the best thing to come along since sliced bread. For years they've been promising that GMOs would <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/10/how-gmos-ramped-us-pesticide-use" target="hplink" style="">reduce</a> [16] pesticide use, <a href="http://www.alternet.org/food/why-monsanto-wrong-about-gm-crop-promises" target="hplink" style="">increase</a> [17]yields, <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/monsanto-fails-at-improving.html" target="hplink" style="">reduce</a> [18] water consumption, and offer foods that are <a href="http://www.biotech.iastate.edu/biotech_info_series/bio8.html" target="hplink" style="">more</a> [19] tasty and <a href="http://monsantoblog.com/2009/04/01/gmos-improving-nutrition/" target="_hplink" style="">more</a> [20] nutritious.

I wish they were right.

But in the 20 years since GMO crops first came on the market, studies have found that they have led to <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/02/us-usa-study-pesticides-idUSBRE89100X20121002" target="hplink" style="">higher</a> [21] pesticide use, and no meaningful improvement in <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/booming/you-call-that-a-tomato.html" target="hplink" style="">flavor</a> [22], <a href="http://www.medicaldaily.com/nutritional-value-corn-does-gmo-corn-contain-same-nutrients-246496" target="hplink" style="">nutrition</a> [23],<a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/failure-to-yield.html" target="hplink" style="">yield</a> [24] or <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/monsanto-fails-at-improving.html" target="hplink" style="">water</a> [18] requirements. Instead, what they've created are plants that are engineered to withstand <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environment/04weed.html?pagewanted=all" target="hplink" style="">massive</a> [25] dosing of <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=weed-whacking-herbicide-p" target="hplink" style="">toxic</a> [26] herbicides, and plants that function as living pesticide factories. Monsanto's Bt. corn, for example, is actually <a href="http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/pips/regofbtcrops.htm" target="hplink" style="">registered</a> [27] with the EPA as a pesticide.

With concern about GMOs growing fast, and with the public being pummeled with vast amounts of misinformation, there is a tremendous need for clear, accurate and reliable information about GMOs. In response, the 100,000+ member Food Revolution Network and the Institute for Responsible Technology are co-sponsoring a free online <a href="http://www.gmosummit.org/" target="hplink" style="">GMO Mini-Summit</a> [28]. From October 25-27, some of the top GMO experts on the planet will be providing insights and clear calls to action in this teleseminar that is also being broadcast without charge on the Internet. Monsanto probably isn't too happy about the prospect of tens of thousands of people getting informed and mobilized. But if you love life, safe food, and the truth, then you might want to <a href="http://www.gmosummit.org/" target="hplink" style="">check it out.</a> [28]

And if you want to lend a hand to getting out the vote in the state of Washington, you can<a href="http://yeson522.com/volunteer-for-yes-on-522/" target="_hplink" style="">sign up to volunteer here.</a> [29]

Nobody knows what's going to happen in Washington between now and November 5. But from Mexico, to Hawaii and to the 64 nations that already have GMO labeling, this tide just might be turning.

Maybe we, the people, do get a say in what we know, and what we eat, after all.

</div>

<div class="tags" style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">See more stories tagged with:

<div class="field-item odd"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/tags/right-know" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" style="">right to know</a> [31],</div>

<div class="field-item odd"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/tags/agriculture" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" style="">agriculture</a> [33],</div>

<div class="field-item even"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/tags/monstanto" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" style="">monstanto</a> [34]</div>

</div>

<div class="print-source_url" style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;">Source URL: <a href="http://www.alternet.org/food/monsantos-very-bad-week-3-big-blows-gmo-food" style="">http://www.alternet.org/food/monsantos-very-bad-week-3-big-blows-gmo-food</a></div>

Links:

[1] http://alternet.org

[2] http://www.alternet.org/authors/ocean-robbins

[3] http://www.theyucatantimes.com/2013/10/mexico-bans-gmo-corn/

[4] http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/23707723/kauai-council-approves-controversial-gmo-pesticide-labeling-bill

[5] http://bigislandnow.com/2013/10/16/council-votes-to-restrict-gmos-ban-fracking/

[6] http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97567

[7] http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021941264_gmomoneyxml.html

[8] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ocean-robbins/monsanto-prop-37_b_2088934.html

[9] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/16/us-usa-gmo-labeling-idUSBRE99F19B20131016

[10] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ocean-robbins/huge-gmo-news_b_4129311.html

[11] http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2013/10/18/pepsi-coke-nestle-top-multi-million-dollar-campaign-against-i-522/

[12] http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2013/10/17/corporate-secrets-how-the-anti-522-campaign-was-planned/

[13] http://blogs.seattletimes.com/politicsnorthwest/category/general-election/gmo-initiative/

[14] http://www.seattlemet.com/news-and-profiles/publicola/articles/elway-poll-eyman-initiative-gmo-labeling-measure-hold-big-leads-september-2013

[15] http://www.inspirationsforchange.com/healthy-living/yes-522-misleading-no-on-522-commercials-analyzed/#.UmJCIWRgb0g

[16] http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/10/how-gmos-ramped-us-pesticide-use

[17] http://www.alternet.org/food/why-monsanto-wrong-about-gm-crop-promises

[18] http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/monsanto-fails-at-improving.html

[19] http://www.biotech.iastate.edu/biotech_info_series/bio8.html

[20] http://monsantoblog.com/2009/04/01/gmos-improving-nutrition/

[21] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/02/us-usa-study-pesticides-idUSBRE89100X20121002

[22] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/booming/you-call-that-a-tomato.html

[23] http://www.medicaldaily.com/nutritional-value-corn-does-gmo-corn-contain-same-nutrients-246496

[24] http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/failure-to-yield.html

[25] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environment/04weed.html?pagewanted=all

[26] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=weed-whacking-herbicide-p

[27] http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/pips/regofbtcrops.htm

[28] http://www.gmosummit.org/

[29] http://yeson522.com/volunteer-for-yes-on-522/

[30] http://www.alternet.org/tags/gmo

[31] http://www.alternet.org/tags/right-know

[32] http://www.alternet.org/tags/food-0

[33] http://www.alternet.org/tags/agriculture

[34] http://www.alternet.org/tags/monstanto

[35] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B

</div>

==

<div class="byline environment" style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/" style="">Center for Food Safety </a>[1] / By <a href="http://www.alternet.org/authors/michele-simon" style="">Michele Simon</a> [2]</div>

<h1 property="dc:title" datatype="" class="node-title">Junk Food Lobby Forced to Disclose Secret Donors in Campaign to Stop GMO Labeling</h1>

</div>

<div class="story-date" style="">October 23, 2013  |  </div>

Just a few weeks ago, attorneys for the No on 522 campaign were feeling rather smug when a lawsuit filed against them by a group called “Moms for Labeling” was dismissed. As <a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/blog/2645/junk-food-lobbyists-sued-for-money-laundering-in-washington-state" target="_blank" style="">I wrote last week</a> [3], consumer class action attorney Knoll Lowney sued the No on 522 and the Washington DC-based Grocery Manufactures Association (lobbyists for major food corporations) for not disclosing the donors behind GMA’s $7 million-plus donation to stop I-522, which would require genetically-engineered foods to be labeled. The judge threw out that case on a technicality.

But then, Big Food’s arrogance got the best of them.

Last Wednesday, Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson picked up where the Moms for Labeling lawyer left off by <a href="http://www.atg.wa.gov/pressrelease.aspx?&id=31448#.UmXeilPFovk" target="_blank" style="">filing his own complaint</a> [4], which adds stunning detail to the allegations in the original suit. In case you’re not familiar with what the attorney general does, he or she is the state’s top law enforcer, but often has limited resources to act. So when the AG’s office decides to come after you, it’s a very big deal, far bigger than a private attorney doing so.

The new lawsuit also accuses GMA of violating the state’s campaign disclosure laws, and alleges that the trade group secretly gathered more than $7 million from its members. Not content to just collect food industry money illegally, or even discreetly, GMA had the chutzpah to a designate a special account dubbed the “Defense of Brand Strategic Account,” for a strategic, “multi-pronged approach” to fight labeling laws, including Washington’s I-522.

And this scheme didn’t just pop up recently either; rather the shady deal-making was in the works for months, soon after the narrow loss of Proposition 37 in California. The plan was hatched at a GMA board meeting this past January to fund future anti-labeling efforts with “a preference for GMA to be the funder of such efforts, rather than individual companies.” That’s because brand names like PepsiCo and General Mills took a lot of heat from upset consumers. So, as GMA CEO Pamela G. Bailey explained in a February memorandum, a plan to “better shield individual companies from attack” was quickly approved; GMA sent its first round of invoices to members by March and the second round went out in August.

The dollar figures are staggering: GMA earmarked ten million dollars to oppose I-522, meaning that when the trade group made its first contribution to No on 522 in May—a paltry $472,500—it knew it was only getting started, something the public would learn by August when it donated another $1,750,000. In September, GMA dropped $5 million in one load, which now makes sense considering how long they had been taking collections. But if the two lawsuits hadn’t stopped GMA, chances are it would have spent even more. As of October 7, GMA collected almost $13.5 million dollars but had only spent $7.2 million, meaning it still has more than $6 million left in its arsenal. That can buy a lot of TV ads.

In fact, Attorney General Ferguson <a href="http://www.kirotv.com/videos/news/video-dc-group-accused-of-illegally-influencing/vCF3ZJ/" target="_blank" style="">said</a> [5] this case represents “the largest amount of money ever concealed in an election.” Way to go team.

Barely 48 hours after the attorney general filed suit, GMA <a href="http://www.atg.wa.gov/pressrelease.aspx?&id=31450#.UmXwKVPFovl" target="blank" style="">waved a white flag</a> [6], disclosing the <a href="http://www.eatdrinkpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/GMADisclosureWA.pdf" target="blank" style="">list of donors</a> [7] it had so adamantly refused to give Moms for Labeling. Topping the list were old favorites like PepsiCo ($1.6+ million), Nestlé ($1+ million), Coca-Cola ($1+ million), and General Mills (almost $600K). But all the major food groups are also represented. Not only soda companies, but also Sunny Delight and the juice bottler Clement Pappas & Company are named. For canned foods, GMA hit up Del Monte and Hormel Foods, maker of Spam. And who knew that the <a href="http://www.cloroxprofessional.com/products/soy-vay/at-a-glance/" target="_blank" style="">Clorox Company owns Soy Vay marinades</a> [8], which explains its $12K donation to the Defense of Brand Strategic Account.

Before releasing its list of donors, though, GMA put out a <a href="http://www.gmaonline.org/news-events/newsroom/gma-statement-on-washington-state-ag-complaint-related-to-no-on-522-campaig/" target="_blank" style="">statement</a> [9] saying it was “surprised to learn that the Washington State authorities viewed the association’s actions as improper.” Maybe GMA’s lawyers (aren’t they all lawyers?) were too busy making a paper trail of its wrongdoing to read up on the state campaign finance laws they were so sloppily trying to circumvent.

Then, when GMA released the donor data (on Friday at 3pm, wonder why?), the lobbyists had the nerve to <a href="http://www.gmaonline.org/news-events/newsroom/gma-statement-regarding-washington-state-lawsuit-on-funding-of-no-on-522-ca/" target="_blank" style="">claim</a> [10] to be doing so “in the spirit of continuing cooperation and in an effort to provide Washington voters with full transparency.” That’s the spirit. But even more impressive was GMA’s decision to “voluntarily establish a Washington State political committee and to file reports disclosing the source of all funds used in connection with Washington State elections.” Let’s unpack that: GMA is volunteering to follow the law after the state’s top law enforcer sued them to stop violating it.

Meanwhile, Lowney and Moms for Labeling aren’t done yet. Yesterday, Lowney <a href="http://fusewashington.org/momsforlabelinglawsuit/index.html" target="_blank" style="">filed another suit</a> [11], incorporating the attorney general’s allegations, and asking the judge to “sequester” the same amount No on 522 illegally concealed – more than $7 million – to pay future penalties.

In the new <a href="http://www.eatdrinkpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/COMPLAINT-UNDER-RCW-42.17A-w_exhibits.pdf" target="_blank" style="">complaint</a> [12], No on 522 is not only accused of concealing the source of its donations, but also intentionally misleading Washington voters by falsely reporting the source of the $7.2 million. Not satisfied with the disclosures made last week, this suit wants the court to order No on 522 to: 1) stop running advertisements that don’t reflect the accurate top five contributors; 2) admit that earlier disclosures were false and disseminate corrected information; 3) file corrected campaign finance reports; 4) discontinue receipt of contributions from GMA; and (my personal favorite) 5) pay a penalty in the amount of the contributions it concealed – more than $7.2 million.

GMA hasn’t responded to that suit yet, but in the meantime, Ferguson’s office <a href="http://mynorthwest.com/174/2375859/Wash-AG-to-still-seek-penalty-against-food-group" target="_blank" style="">isn’t backing down</a> [13] after the initial disclosures either. Janelle Guthrie, communications director for the Washington State attorney general’s office told me that the state’s “lawsuit continues with regard to setting penalties.”

The Moms for Labeling lawsuit highlights the important role that private litigation has in getting state officials to force Big Food’s compliance with the law and big kudos to the attorney general for doing so. Let’s hope we see more of it.

And if you’re keeping score, that makes three lawsuits filed so far against an industry that will stop at nothing to keep consumers in the dark. Washington State voters should really be asking, when they see the next ad opposing 522: if this campaign is willing to break the law, how can we trust anything they say?

Meanwhile, it’s not too late to help the <a href="http://yeson522.com/" target="_blank" style="">Yes on 522 campaign</a> [14]. SLAPPED?

</div>

<div class="field-item odd"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/tags/labeling" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" style="">labeling</a> [16],</div>

<div class="field-item odd"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/tags/right-know" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" style="">right to know</a> [18]</div>

</div>

<div class="print-source_url" style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;">Source URL: <a href="http://www.alternet.org/food/junk-food-lobby-forced-disclose-secret-donors-campaign-stop-gmo-labeling" style="">http://www.alternet.org/food/junk-food-lobby-forced-disclose-secret-donors-campaign-stop-gmo-labeling</a></div>

Links:

[1] http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/

[2] http://www.alternet.org/authors/michele-simon

[3] http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/blog/2645/junk-food-lobbyists-sued-for-money-laundering-in-washington-state

[4] http://www.atg.wa.gov/pressrelease.aspx?&id=31448#.UmXeilPFovk

[5] http://www.kirotv.com/videos/news/video-dc-group-accused-of-illegally-influencing/vCF3ZJ/

[6] http://www.atg.wa.gov/pressrelease.aspx?&id=31450#.UmXwKVPFovl

[7] http://www.eatdrinkpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/GMADisclosureWA.pdf

[8] http://www.cloroxprofessional.com/products/soy-vay/at-a-glance/

[9] http://www.gmaonline.org/news-events/newsroom/gma-statement-on-washington-state-ag-complaint-related-to-no-on-522-campaig/

[10] http://www.gmaonline.org/news-events/newsroom/gma-statement-regarding-washington-state-lawsuit-on-funding-of-no-on-522-ca/

[11] http://fusewashington.org/momsforlabelinglawsuit/index.html

[12] http://www.eatdrinkpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/COMPLAINT-UNDER-RCW-42.17A-w_exhibits.pdf

[13] http://mynorthwest.com/174/2375859/Wash-AG-to-still-seek-penalty-against-food-group

[14] http://yeson522.com/

[15] http://www.alternet.org/tags/gmo

[16] http://www.alternet.org/tags/labeling

[17] http://www.alternet.org/tags/food-0

[18] http://www.alternet.org/tags/right-know

[19] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B

</div>

BUT

<h1 property="dc:title" datatype="" class="node-title" style=" text-align: left;">Junk Food Lobbyists Sued for Money Laundering in Washington State</h1>

</div>

<div class="story-date" style=" text-align: left;">October 16, 2013  |  </div>

In the final weeks leading up to Election Day, the debate over measure I-522 in Washington State is getting even uglier. As I recently <a href="http://www.eatdrinkpolitics.com/2013/09/17/are-junk-food-corporations-hiding-behind-lobbyists-to-stop-ge-food-labeling-in-washington-state/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">explained</a> [3], the Grocery Manufacturer Association, the nation’s largest trade group for the processed food industry, has been flexing its muscle to oppose the labeling of genetically-engineered food, both at the federal and state levels. Now, a <a href="http://www.thestranger.com/images/blogimages/2013/09/17/1379461953-complaint.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">lawsuit</a> [4] brought by a non-profit called “Moms for Labeling” alleges that GMA crossed the line by not properly disclosing who is behind the whopping $7 million-plus the trade group has <a href="http://www.pdc.wa.gov/MvcQuerySystem/CommitteeData/contributions?param=Tk81MjIgIDUwNw%3D%3D%3D%3D&year=2013&type=initiative" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">donated</a> [5] to the No on 522 campaign so far.

The main goal of a lobbying organization like GMA is to pool the massive resources of its members, which include heavy-hitters such as Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and General Mills; each has a huge stake in this fight. While last year in California, these companies donated millions to stop Proposition 37, this year, the game plan has changed. GMA is now doing industry’s dirty work by donating on behalf of its members and possibly violating Washington State’s lobbying rules in the process. Here is how the Seattle Post-Intelligencer<a href="http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2013/09/17/grocery-manufacturers-laundered-donations-suit/" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">explains</a> [6] the case:

<blockquote style=" text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Under Washington’s public disclosure law, any organization that “bundles” contributions must declare itself as a political action committee. Moms for Labeling is citing underground industry sources to support its claim that the Grocery Manufacturers Association is fronting for the companies that gave heavily in California last year.</blockquote>

While Superior Court judge Chris Wickham recently <a href="http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2013/10/04/corporate-laundering-suit-dismissed-for-now/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">dismissed</a> [7] the lawsuit, the attorney for the No on 522 campaign may have overstated the decision when she called it a “<a href="http://www.theolympian.com/2013/10/04/2759071/olympia-judge-rejects-lawsuit.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">complete victory</a> [8].” The judge did not actually rule on the merits of the case, so the allegations that GMA is fighting with junk food companies’ money still stands. Instead, <a href="http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2013/10/04/corporate-laundering-suit-dismissed-for-now/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">the judge said</a> [7] that the timing of the case wasn’t right, “not that there isn’t merit in the underlying claim.” In other words, as the <a href="http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2013/10/04/corporate-laundering-suit-dismissed-for-now/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Post-Intelligencer put it</a> [7]: “The basic issue of the suit — the public’s right to know where money spent in the I-522 campaign comes from — remains unresolved.”

While dismissing the lawsuit based on timing, Judge Wickam also hit the non-profit with a $10,000 sanction (plus defendant attorney’s fees) under a statute meant, ironically, to protect against frivolous lawsuits brought by large corporations to stop public interest groups from speaking out. Known as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, anti-SLAPP laws are designed to protect David from Goliath. But GMA turned the tables, accusing Moms for Labeling of making a “strategic attempt to suppress [its] political speech.” And the judge agreed.

Still, the attorney who filed the suit on behalf of Moms for Labeling, Knoll Lowney, says he’s not backing down. Last week, he <a href="http://fusewashington.org/momsforlabeling/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">filed </a> [9]a legal notice to give the state attorney general’s office ten days to file its own case, after which Lowney says Moms for Labeling will have met the requirements to bring the lawsuit again themselves. According to the letter, newly released 2012 tax filings show that GMA received contributions from member companies that it funneled to the No on Prop 37 campaign in California last year. “The new evidence we delivered to the attorney general makes it even more clear that No on 522 is illegally concealing its donors,” <a href="http://fusewashington.org/momsforlabeling/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">says </a> [9]Pam Johnson, co-chair of Moms for Labeling.

</div>

<h1 property="dc:title" datatype="" class="node-title" style=" text-align: left;">Junk Food Lobbyists Sued for Money Laundering in Washington State</h1>

</div>

<div class="story-date" style=" text-align: left;">October 16, 2013  |  </div>

In the final weeks leading up to Election Day, the debate over measure I-522 in Washington State is getting even uglier. As I recently <a href="http://www.eatdrinkpolitics.com/2013/09/17/are-junk-food-corporations-hiding-behind-lobbyists-to-stop-ge-food-labeling-in-washington-state/" target="blank" style="">explained</a> [3], the Grocery Manufacturer Association, the nation’s largest trade group for the processed food industry, has been flexing its muscle to oppose the labeling of genetically-engineered food, both at the federal and state levels. Now, a <a href="http://www.thestranger.com/images/blogimages/2013/09/17/1379461953-complaint.pdf" target="blank" style="">lawsuit</a> [4] brought by a non-profit called “Moms for Labeling” alleges that GMA crossed the line by not properly disclosing who is behind the whopping $7 million-plus the trade group has <a href="http://www.pdc.wa.gov/MvcQuerySystem/CommitteeData/contributions?param=Tk81MjIgIDUwNw%3D%3D%3D%3D&year=2013&type=initiative" target="_blank" style="">donated</a> [5] to the No on 522 campaign so far.

The main goal of a lobbying organization like GMA is to pool the massive resources of its members, which include heavy-hitters such as Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and General Mills; each has a huge stake in this fight. While last year in California, these companies donated millions to stop Proposition 37, this year, the game plan has changed. GMA is now doing industry’s dirty work by donating on behalf of its members and possibly violating Washington State’s lobbying rules in the process. Here is how the Seattle Post-Intelligencer<a href="http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2013/09/17/grocery-manufacturers-laundered-donations-suit/" target="_blank" style="">explains</a> [6] the case:

<blockquote style=" text-align: left;">Under Washington’s public disclosure law, any organization that “bundles” contributions must declare itself as a political action committee. Moms for Labeling is citing underground industry sources to support its claim that the Grocery Manufacturers Association is fronting for the companies that gave heavily in California last year.</blockquote>

While Superior Court judge Chris Wickham recently <a href="http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2013/10/04/corporate-laundering-suit-dismissed-for-now/" target="blank" style="">dismissed</a> [7] the lawsuit, the attorney for the No on 522 campaign may have overstated the decision when she called it a “<a href="http://www.theolympian.com/2013/10/04/2759071/olympia-judge-rejects-lawsuit.html" target="blank" style="">complete victory</a> [8].” The judge did not actually rule on the merits of the case, so the allegations that GMA is fighting with junk food companies’ money still stands. Instead, <a href="http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2013/10/04/corporate-laundering-suit-dismissed-for-now/" target="blank" style="">the judge said</a> [7] that the timing of the case wasn’t right, “not that there isn’t merit in the underlying claim.” In other words, as the <a href="http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2013/10/04/corporate-laundering-suit-dismissed-for-now/" target="blank" style="">Post-Intelligencer put it</a> [7]: “The basic issue of the suit — the public’s right to know where money spent in the I-522 campaign comes from — remains unresolved.”

While dismissing the lawsuit based on timing, Judge Wickam also hit the non-profit with a $10,000 sanction (plus defendant attorney’s fees) under a statute meant, ironically, to protect against frivolous lawsuits brought by large corporations to stop public interest groups from speaking out. Known as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, anti-SLAPP laws are designed to protect David from Goliath. But GMA turned the tables, accusing Moms for Labeling of making a “strategic attempt to suppress [its] political speech.” And the judge agreed.

Still, the attorney who filed the suit on behalf of Moms for Labeling, Knoll Lowney, says he’s not backing down. Last week, he <a href="http://fusewashington.org/momsforlabeling/" target="blank" style="">filed </a> [9]a legal notice to give the state attorney general’s office ten days to file its own case, after which Lowney says Moms for Labeling will have met the requirements to bring the lawsuit again themselves. According to the letter, newly released 2012 tax filings show that GMA received contributions from member companies that it funneled to the No on Prop 37 campaign in California last year. “The new evidence we delivered to the attorney general makes it even more clear that No on 522 is illegally concealing its donors,” <a href="http://fusewashington.org/momsforlabeling/" target="blank" style="">says </a> [9]Pam Johnson, co-chair of Moms for Labeling.

In addition, Lowney says sources within these companies told him the $7 million is the result of GMA’s soliciting “voluntary special assessments” (donations on top of usual dues) from its members. While his whistleblowers can’t say with certainty that the special assessments are for I-522, “everyone knows where the money is going.” That GMA has yet to issue a flat out denial is also suspect, Lowney says.

It’s really not hard to figure out. Just take a look at the executives running the show at GMA. The Board of Directors is a veritable who’s who of Big Food. For starters, <a href="http://www.gmaonline.org/forms/meeting/Microsite/EmergingLeaders13,1" target="_blank" style="">Ken Powell</a> [10], Chairman and CEO of cereal giant General Mills is board chair. Other notable GMA board members include:

<ul>

<li style=" text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.diversityinc.com/john-bryant/" target="_blank" style="">John Bryant</a> [11], President and CEO of Kellogg</li>

<li style=" text-align: left;"><a href="http://littlesis.org/person/1384/Brian_C_Cornell" target="_blank" style="">Brian C. Cornell</a> [12], Chief Executive Officer, PepsiCo Americas Foods</li>

<li style=" text-align: left;"><a href="http://littlesis.org/person/107194/W_Anthony_Vernon" target="_blank" style="">W. Anthony Vernon</a> [13], Chief Executive Officer, Kraft Foods</li>

<li style=" text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.coca-colacompany.com/our-company/operations-leadership-j-alexander-m-douglas-jr" target="_blank" style="">J. Alexander M. Douglas Jr.</a> [14], Senior Vice President and Global Chief Customer Officer, Coca-Cola</li>

</ul>

Each of these companies relies heavily upon on genetically-engineered ingredients to make its products, so it’s really no mystery what’s going on. During the California fight, food companies suffered significant backlash for opposing Prop 37. No wonder these corporations want to let GMA be the public face of their opposition this time around. But doing so just may be a violation of law. The question is: will they get away with it?

Meanwhile, overall the opposition has donated $17 million to keep Washington State consumers in the dark. You can help support the Yes on 522 campaign by <a href="https://secure.yeson522.com/page/contribute/default?source=site-header" target="_blank" style="">donating here</a> [15

</div>

<a href="http://www.alternet.org/print/food/proof-biotech-companies-are-getting-desperate">http://www.alternet.org/print/food/proof-biotech-companies-are-getting-desperate</a> golden rice

==

<div style="text-align: left;">[<a href="http://www.alternet.org/print/food/why-monsanto-wrong-about-gm-crop-promises">http://www.alternet.org/print/food/why-monsanto-wrong-about-gm-crop-promises</a> Research Shows that Monsanto's Big Claims for GMO Food Are Probably Wrong].  A new peer-reviewed study published in the [http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14735903.2013.806408#.UcE_LOsd67I International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability] examined those claims and found that conventional plant breeding, not genetic engineering, is responsible for yield increases in major U.S. crops. Additionally, GM crops, also known as genetically engineered (GE) crops, can’t even take credit for reductions in pesticide use.  7/13.</div>

<h1 class="title-news" style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-align: left;">Monsanto's Unapproved GMO Wheat Stored In Colorado For 7 Years, Investigators Say</h1>

Reuters  |  Posted: 06/28/2013 9:21 am EDT  |  Updated: 06/28/2013 11:30 am EDT

</div>

<div style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-align: left;">June 28 (Reuters) - Monsanto Co's unapproved, experimental genetically engineered wheat, which is feared to have potentially contaminated U.S. wheat supplies after it was found growing in an Oregon field this spring, was kept in a U.S. government storage facility until at least late 2011, according to documents obtained by Reuters.</div>

</div>

<div style="text-align: left;">The revelation that the seed for the controversial genetically engineered wheat was kept viable in a Colorado storage facility as recently as a year and a half ago comes as the U.S. government is investigating how the strain of experimental wheat wound up growing in an Oregon field this spring.</div>

</div>

<div style="text-align: left;">The probe by the U.S. Department of Agriculture includes an examination of the handling of the GMO wheat seed that Monsanto directed be sent to the government-controlled National Center for Genetic Resources Preservation in Fort Collins, Colorado, beginning in late 2004, according to Peter Bretting, who oversees the center for the USDA's Agricultural Research Service.</div>

</div>

<div style="text-align: left;">David Dierig, research leader at the National Center for Genetic Resources Preservation, also said the matter was "under active investigation."</div>

</div>

<div style="text-align: left;">The National Center uses high-tech methods to extend the viability of seeds for decades, much longer than their viability in conventional storage. The facility took in at least 43 physical containers of Monsanto's so-called "Roundup Ready" wheat in late 2004 and early 2005, the documents show. The material represented more than 1,000 different unique varieties or lines, according to the documents that Monsanto provided in a heavily redacted format.</div>

</div>

<div style="text-align: left;">The documents were made up of correspondence between Monsanto and the Colorado facility.</div>

<h1 class="gl_headline" style="text-align: left; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">Supreme Court says genes can't be patented; patient advocates and researchers cheer</h1>

<p class="gl_headline" style="text-align: left; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><a href="http://usnews.nbcnews.com/news/2013/06/13/18935727-supreme-court-says-genes-cant-be-patented-patient-advocates-and-researchers-cheer?lite">http://usnews.nbcnews.com/news/2013/06/13/18935727-supreme-court-says-genes-cant-be-patented-patient-advocates-and-researchers-cheer?lite</a>

==

<h1 class="title-news" style="text-align: left; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">In Europe, Monsanto Backing Away From GMO Crops</h1>

<p class="title-news" style="text-align: left; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/europe-monsanto-gmo-crops_n_3367284.html?view=print&comm_ref=false">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/europe-monsanto-gmo-crops_n_3367284.html?view=print&comm_ref=false</a>

==

<h1 class="print-title" style="text-align: left; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">GMO Labeling Passes Vermont House as Activists Prepare to March Against Monsanto</h1>

<div class="meta" style="text-align: left; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">by <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/users/35294/rebekah-wilce" title="View user profile.">Rebekah Wilce</a> [1] — May 15, 2013 - 7:58am</div>

<ul>

<li class="vocabulary-2" style=" text-align: left;">Topics: <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/topics/food">Food</a> [2], <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/topics/environment/genetic-engineering">Genetic Engineering</a> [3], <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/topics/politics">Politics</a> [4]</li>

</ul>

</div>

<ul>

<li class="vocabulary-9" style=" text-align: left;">Projects: <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/projects/food-rights-network">Food Rights Network</a> [5]</li>

</ul>

</div>

<p style="text-align: left; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><a class="da2a_button" href="http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prwatch.org%2Fnews%2F2013%2F05%2F12108%2Fgmo-labeling-passes-vermont-house-activists-prepare-march-against-monsanto&linkname=GMO%20Labeling%20Passes%20Vermont%20House%20as%20Activists%20Prepare%20to%20March%20Against%20Monsanto" id="da2a_1"><img src="/7766470b-d165-5bba-9744-65915cbe79d9.png"/> Share this</a> [6]

In an advance that makes history, Vermont's House of Representatives <a href="http://www.leg.state.vt.us/database/status/summary.cfm?Bill=H%2E0112&Session=2014" target="_blank">passed a bill</a> [7] on May 10 requiring foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to be labeled. This is the furthest any such legislation has made it through the legislative process in the United States.

Vermont's legislative session was due to end already, but negotiations over a tax bill have kept lawmakers in the capitol this week. With the Senate's attention focused fiscally rather than on food, however, H.112 to label GMOs will have to wait to be taken up by the Senate in January 2014.

The bill would <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/2013/05/09/house-approves-gmo-labeling-bill/Y4Kde8VhN7PdBlUkGZJA8N/story.html" target="_blank">exempt animal products</a> [8], including meat and dairy, even though livestock are often fed genetically engineered (GE) feed.

<h2 style="text-align: left; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">State Faces Threat of Monsanto Lawsuit</h2>

<p style="text-align: left; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">GMO labeling legislation has been stalled in the Vermont legislature for three years, in part because of a concern that biotechnology companies would sue the state if it passed. The concern seems justified, as <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Monsanto" target="blank">Monsanto</a> [9] -- the <a href="http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/MonsantoReport.pdf" target="blank">world's largest GE seed company</a> [10] -- reportedly <a href="http://www.alternet.org/story/154855/monsanto_threatens_to_sue_vermont_if_legislators_pass_a_bill_requiring_gmo_food_to_be_labeled" target="_blank">threatened</a> [11] to do so last year.

According to <a href="http://organicconsumers.org/" target="blank">Organic Consumers Association</a> [12] Executive Director Ronnie Cummins and Vermont farmer Will Allen, "Monsanto has used lawsuits or threats of lawsuits for 20 years to <a href="http://www.alternet.org/story/154855/monsanto_threatens_to_sue_vermont_if_legislators_pass_a_bill_requiring_gmo_food_to_be_labeled" target="blank">force unlabeled genetically engineered foods</a> [11] on the public, and to intimidate farmers into buying their genetically engineered seeds and hormones."

<h2 style="text-align: left; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">GMO Labeling Bills Across the Country</h2>

<p style="text-align: left; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">California's Prop 37 to label GMOs was narrowly defeated in 2012, as the Center for Media and Democracy <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/11/11844/direct-democracy-results-ballot-propositions-across-country" target="blank">reported</a> [13]. Afterwards, Jennifer Hatcher, senior vice president of government and public affairs for the Food Marketing Institute, who had previously said that Prop 37 "<a href="http://supermarketnews.com/health-amp-wellness/prop-37-proponents-continue-battle#ixzz2Gm6JgeDB" target="blank">scared us to death</a> [14]," said in an official statement, "This gives us hope that you can, with a well-funded, well-organized, well-executed campaign, defeat a ballot initiative and go directly to the voters. <a href="http://supermarketnews.com/health-amp-wellness/prop-37-proponents-continue-battle#ixzz2Gm6JgeDB" target="_blank">We hope we don't have too many of them</a> [14], because you can't keep doing that over and over again . . ."

Contrary to industry hopes, however, similar bills have been <a href="http://fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2013/may/10/vermont_house_passes_first_gmo_labeling_bill/" target="blank">introduced</a> [15] in Connecticut, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, New Mexico, Arizona, <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/02/11983/bills-label-genetically-engineered-foods-introduced-illinois-and-iowa" target="blank">Illinois, and Iowa</a> [16] in 2013. Food and Water Watch and other organizations are encouraging supporters to <a href="https://secure3.convio.net/fww/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=225&utma=195521467.862483735.1361045995.1361049244.1361133812.3&utmb=195521467.6.10.1361133812&utmc=195521467&utmx=-&utmz=195521467.1361045995.1.1.utmcsr=%28direct%29%7Cutmccn=%28direct%29%7Cutmcmd=%28none%29&utmv=-&_utmk=242349890" target="blank">petition for a national GE labeling law</a> [17]. The passage in the Vermont House of Representatives of that state's long-sought labeling bill marks an important and historic step towards realizing eaters' right to know whether or not foods contain GMOs.

<div style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://members.tripod.com/%7Engin/rightwing.htm">Pro-GM scientists and the right</a></div>

<div style="text-align: left;">In the wake of the massive defeats suffered over their promotion of GM foods, pro-GM lobbyists in the UK have regrouped and with the help of a clique of right wing journalists and academics are coordinating a still more aggressive campaign of disinformation ... (<a href="http://members.tripod.com/%7Engin/rightwing.htm">Read entire article</a>)</div>

<a href="http://www.alternet.org/print/food/what-it-means-monsanto-holds-patents-life">http://www.alternet.org/print/food/what-it-means-monsanto-holds-patents-life</a>

===

Prop 37 CA 2012

<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-greenberg/ten-grassroots-lessons-fr_b_2114553.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-greenberg/ten-grassroots-lessons-fr_b_2114553.html</a>  post mortem

http://knowgmo.org/

==

<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/25/chemical-industry-campaign-contributions-environmental-regulations_n_2017412.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/25/chemical-industry-campaign-contributions-environmental-regulations_n_2017412.html</a>

<h1 class="title-news" style="text-align: left; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">Chemical Industry Uses Wallet To Block Tighter Regulations, Environmental Advocates Say</h1>

Posted: 10/25/2012 6:57 pm EDT Updated: 10/25/2012 7:51 pm EDT

</div>

In an effort to block a <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_37,Mandatory_Labeling_of_Genetically_Engineered_Food%282012%29" target="hplink">ballot measure in California</a> that would require the labeling of genetically modified foods, shape a <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/oh/ohio_senate_mandel_vs_brown-2100.html" target="hplink">Senate race in Ohio</a> with potential repercussions for fracking, and influence a host of <a href="http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Elections/2012/House/Michigan/6/" target="_hplink">House contests</a> key to toxic chemical reform -- the chemical industry has been busy wielding its wallet, say environmental advocates.

New numbers support that assertion: Tens of millions of dollars continue to feed industry friendly causes and candidates this election season, with federal campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures by the chemical industry more than doubling since 2000.

"The more the truth has gotten out about the chemical regulatory system not working; the more the science has shed light on the consequences for American families as they bear the burden of problems linked to environmental exposures such as learning disabilities, childhood cancer and breast cancer; I think the more it has <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/22/national-stroller-brigade-toxic-chemical-reform_n_1536587.html" target="hplink">increased demands for change</a>," said Andy Igrejas, national campaign director for the nonprofit <a href="http://www.saferchemicals.org/" target="hplink">Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families</a>.

"And industry has ramped up its spending to block such a change," he added.

The chemical and agro-chemical industries have generally argued that stiffer regulations would be overly burdensome to companies and costly to the country. Anne Kolton of the American Chemistry Council, a lobbying group for the chemical industry, said the ACC is <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/AmericanChemistry" target="_hplink">"proud" of its efforts</a> to "highlight the good work being done in Washington to grow the economy and create jobs."

<a href="http://monsantoblog.com/2012/08/14/taking-a-stand-proposition-37-the-california-labeling-proposal/" target="hplink">Monsanto</a> and other agro-chemical companies have invested <a href="http://votersedge.org/california/ballot-measures/2012/november/prop-37/funding" target="hplink">more than $20 million</a> -- on top of the food industry's nearly equivalent contribution -- for ads <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/21/gmo-proposition-37-study-funding-research_n_1904535.html" target="_hplink">opposing Proposition 37</a>, a California measure that would require labeling of genetically modified foods, or GMOs. Proponents of the bill have raised less than $8 million.

Meanwhile, chemical interests have spent some $375 million since 2005 to help elect and try to influence federal leaders, specifically in regards to a pending overhaul of the <a href="http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/tsca.html" target="hplink">Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976</a> (TSCA), according to a <a href="http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665%7D/COMMONCAUSE_TOXICSPENDING-10%2023%20FINAL.PDF" target="hplink">report</a> released this week by <a href="http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=8281551" target="_hplink">Common Cause</a>, a nonprofit, nonpartisan citizen's lobbying organization.

"It's been 36 years since they passed TSCA, and people are showing how it really fails to protect people," said James Browning, Common Cause's regional director for state operations and a principal author of the report. "Public health advocates are starting to win the fight, they have so much evidence on their side. Industry is realizing it needs to start spending more to stop it."

In July, the Safe Chemicals Act <a href="http://lautenberg.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=337325" target="hplink">passed out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee</a>. First introduced by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) in 2005, the act would replace the TSCA and essentially <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/24/safe-chemicals-act-flame-retardants_n_1699384.html" target="hplink">reverse the burden of proof</a> on chemical safety. In other words, chemicals would be required to be tested and proven safe before they are placed on store shelves -- something that it not the case today. The bill is now awaiting a vote from the full Senate.

The ACC, whose <a href="http://www.americanchemistry.com/Membership/MemberCompanies#M" target="_hplink">member companies'</a> spending was included in the Common Cause report, has said it is committed to working on a bipartisan bill, but has also expressed concerns with the Safe Chemicals Act.

"As one of America's most significant manufacturing industries, we have a significant interest in seeing good policies enacted that will encourage economic growth and job creation including a balanced approach to regulation, a strong domestic energy policy and sound tax and trade policies, and we believe it is important to support leaders in Congress who share those priorities," Kolton said.

Overall, Common Cause found that chemical industry contributions in the current election cycle have gone predominantly to Republicans: 78 percent compared to 22 percent for Democrats. President Barack Obama received $217,283, for example, compared to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's $704,337.

The report, titled "Toxic Spending," also highlights how the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision opened up a new "avenue of influence" for the chemical industry in the form of so-called <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/outside-groups-senate-races_n_2011468.html" target="_hplink">Super PACs</a>. Chemical interests have given $23 million to these groups in the current elections, according to the study.

Browning noted that actual spending numbers are likely even higher due to incomplete tracking of ad spending and a surge of undisclosed contributions from <a href="http://www.propublica.org/article/how-nonprofits-spend-millions-on-elections-and-call-it-public-welfare" target="_hplink">nonprofit organizations</a>.

This year, chemical interests are targeting a few key races, Browning said, including a heated Senate battle in Ohio. Josh Mandel, the Republican contender, ranks third among recipients of chemical industry campaign contributions, and has expressed plans to <a href="http://www.ohio.com/blogs/drilling/ohio-utica-shale-1.291290/mandel-ruffles-feathers-in-anti-fracking-community-1.312941?month=7&year=2012" target="_hplink">open up more land to natural gas drilling</a>. Calls and emails to Mandel's campaign office seeking comment were not returned.

</div>

"Clearly, they see Ohio as pivotal and that race as pivotal," Browning said.

A <a href="http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665%7D/Ohio--Deep%20Drilling%20Deep%20Pockets%20Nov%202011.pdf" target="_hplink">Common Cause report from last year</a> found people on Rep. Fred Upton's (R-Mich.) House Energy & Commerce Committee who voted for the so-called Haliburton loophole -- which essentially exempts the natural gas industry from the Safe Drinking Water Act -- received more than six times as much money from oil and gas companies as people who voted against it.

"There's a long history of industry throwing weight around and with it being successful," Browning added.

Stacy Malkan, media director of <a href="http://www.carighttoknow.org/tags/yes_on_37" target="_hplink">Yes on 37</a>, hopes that doesn't end up being the case in California.

Efforts to get GMO foods labeled have so far failed at the federal level, and in 19 states. And now the Proposition 37 race, which experts anticipate -- if passed -- could lead to labeling nationwide, has been tightening in recent weeks after what had been a consistent two-fold lead. The latest poll numbers released on Thursday show the measure leading among likely California voters by margin of <a href="http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/10/food-labeling-initiative-proposition-37-is-sliding-in-the-polls.html" target="_hplink">44 percent to 42 percent</a>.

The <a href="http://www.noprop37.com/" target="_hplink">No on 37</a> campaign started rolling out ads on Oct. 1 that pointed out what they argue are shortcomings in the proposed labeling law and its potential to mislead consumers.

Malkan, in turn, calls the No on 37 ads "<a href="http://www.carighttoknow.org/possiblefraud" target="_hplink">deceptive</a>." And she calls Proposition 37 a "dramatic example" of "today's total full court press to buy elections as well as buy politicians."

</div>

--

California's <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/23/prop-37-labeling-for-gmos_n_1982932.html" target="hplink">Prop 37</a>, a ballot initiative that proposes mandatory GMO foods labels, has seen support from food advocates such as <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/15/michael-pollan-gmos-prop-37_n_1967781.html" target="hplink">Michael Pollan</a> and <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/22/proposition-37-gmo-celebrity-chefs_n_2001962.html" target="hplink">Alice Waters</a>, as well as various celebrities such as <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jillian-michaels/california-prop-37_b_1979841.html" target="hplink">Jillian Michaels</a> and <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/09/california-prop-37-video-celebrities_n_1952203.html" target="hplink">Danny DeVito</a>. Various food companies such as Nature's Path and Organic Valley have also shown their support in the form of monetary donations. <a href="http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/" target="hplink">Food Democracy Now!</a>, a group focused on sustainable food policy, has calculated that these businesses have donated more than $5.5 million to support Prop 37.

But, $5.5 million pales in comparison with the major food businesses that have opposed the proposition. Here's a list of food companies against Prop 37 and how much money they've contributed to oppose it (according to Food Democracy Now!):

<div style="text-align: left;">Monsanto - $7,100,500</div>

<div style="text-align: left;">DuPont - $4,900,000</div>

<div style="text-align: left;">Pepsi - $2,145,400</div>

<div style="text-align: left;">Bayer - $2,000,000</div>

<div style="text-align: left;">Syngenta - $2,000,000</div>

<div style="text-align: left;">Kraft Foods - $1,950,000</div>

<div style="text-align: left;">Nestle - $1,315,600</div>

<div style="text-align: left;">General Mills - $1,135,000</div>

<div style="text-align: left;">ConAgra - $1,077,000</div>

<div style="text-align: left;">Kellogg’s - $790,000</div>

<div style="text-align: left;">Smithfield - $684,000</div>

And here's a list of companies that have supported Prop 37:

<div style="text-align: left;">Mercola.com - $1,115,000</div>

<div style="text-align: left;">Nature’s Path - $610,000</div>

<div style="text-align: left;">Dr. Bronner’s - $369,000</div>

<div style="text-align: left;">Lundberg - $251,000</div>

<div style="text-align: left;">Udis/EarthBalance/Glutino - $102,000</div>

<div style="text-align: left;">Organic Valley - $100,000</div>

<div style="text-align: left;">Annie’s - $50,000</div>

<div style="text-align: left;">Nutiva - $50,000</div>

<div style="text-align: left;">Frey Vineyards - $35,000</div>

===

BIG AG's BIG MONEY CAMPAIGN. One of the most important and hotly contested elections of 2012 had no Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian, or other partisan in it--yet it <a href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.alternet.org/food/344-million-cant-seem-buy-prop-37-opponents-monsanto-and-big-food-their-own-facts&hl=en&prmd=imvns&strip=0" target="_blank">drew at least $34.4 million from corporate powers</a> desperate to defeat this candidate.

Who was it that spooked the CEOs of national corporations right out of their Gucci's? Mr. right-to-know, appearing on the California ballot as Proposition 37.

This citizens initiative was proposed by a broad coalition, including small farmers, consumers, and environmentalists. All are alarmed by the rush of genetically manipulated organisms into America's food supply without adequate scientific testing and without the nicety of letting consumers know which products contain these risky, artificially altered organisms.

Prop 37 doesn't ban GMOs, but merely <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/magazine/why-californias-proposition-37-should-matter-to-anyone-who-cares-about-food.html?pagewanted=all&r=0" target="blank">requires food corporations that put such altered ingredients into their products to say so on the package labels</a>. This is an easy, non-bureaucratic, honest way to empower consumers in the marketplace, giving us the information we need to make our own choice. And, boy, the corporate powers really HATE that!

To keep their own customers in the dark, brand-name food processors bulldozed tons of money into deceptive and outright false TV ads to kill Prop 37. Since I'm writing this prior to the Nov. 6 vote, I can't tell you who won, but I can tell you which food brands put up between $500,000 and $2 million each to fund this campaign for continued consumer deception:

<li style=" text-align: left;">PepsiCo</li>

<li style=" text-align: left;">Nestle n Coca-Cola</li>

<li style=" text-align: left;">ConAgra n General Mills</li>

<li style=" text-align: left;">Del Monte n Hershey's</li>

<li style=" text-align: left;">J.M. Smucker Co.</li>

<li style=" text-align: left;">Hormel</li>

<li style=" text-align: left;">Bumble Bee Foods</li>

<li style=" text-align: left;">Ocean Spray</li>

<li style=" text-align: left;">Bimbo</li>

<li style=" text-align: left;">Dean Foods</li>

<li style=" text-align: left;">Campbell's Soup</li>

<li style=" text-align: left;">McCormick Corp.</li>

</ul>

To learn more about which brands are funding the anti-label effort, <a href="http://www.hightowerlowdown.org/node/3153">check out this list of resources</a>.

This cash influx created quite a few family squabbles, for many of the food conglomerates have quietly bought up popular organic companies, practically all of which oppose GMOs and enthusiastically back Prop 37. For example, even though General Mills owns such organic brands as Muir Glen, Cascadian Farm, and Food Should Taste Good, it has spent nearly a million bucks to defeat GMO labeling. What a hoot, then, to see the conglomerate's Food Should Taste Good subsidiary (maker of chips and crackers) proudly publicizing its new labels boasting that all of its products are GMO-free.

Meanwhile, many organic companies have pooled together about $4.7 million to back the consumers' right-to-know proposal. Among them are Nature's Path, Dr. Bronner's soaps, Clif Bar, Amy's Kitchen, Organic Valley, Annie's Homegrown, Good Earth Natural Foods, Frey Vineyards organic wine, and Eden Foods.

===

<div style="text-align: left;">bittman says 1m$/day to beat</div>

<h2 style="text-align: left;">Follow the Money: "Big 6" GMO Companies Buy Big Ads</h2>

<div style="text-align: left;">Among the campaign's <a href="http://www.panna.org/blog/biggest-opponents-labeling-ge-food-pesticide-corporations" title="reference on largest funders" target="blank">largest funders</a> are the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=" title="reference on " target="self">"Big 6"</a> GMO and pesticide corporations: <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=BASF" title="reference on BASF" target="self">BASF</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bayer" title="reference on Bayer" target="self">Bayer</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dupont" title="reference on Dupont" target="self">Dupont</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dow_Chemical_Company" title="reference on Dow Chemical Company" target="self">Dow Chemical Company</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Syngenta" title="reference on Syngenta" target="self">Syngenta</a>, and <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto" title="reference on Monsanto" target="self">Monsanto</a> (see the chart below this article). These six corporations <a href="http://www.panna.org/sites/default/files/etc_WhoOwnsNature.pdf" title="reference on dominate" target="_blank">dominate</a> the world's seed, pesticide and genetic engineering (GE) industries. Collectively they have contributed more than $20 million to oppose the labeling measure.</div>

The most effective ad run by the opposition campaign, according to "Yes on 37" spokesperson Stacy Malkan, features <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Henry_I.Miller" title="reference on Henry I. Miller" target="self">Henry I. Miller</a> telling voters that Prop 37 "doesn't make sense." It misleads voters by spinning the law's logical labeling exemptions into "arbitrary" "special interest" loopholes that allegedly result in an "illogical" and "ill-conceived" law.

For instance, the ad discusses exemptions for animal products, but currently there are no genetically modified cows, pigs, or chickens on the market.

<a href="http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/elist/eListRead/prop_37_opponents_have_holes_in_their_loopholes/" title="reference on According to" target="_blank">According to</a> the Earth Island Journal, spinning the law's exemptions into a major issue makes "a snazzy sound bite, ... no doubt informed by the No campaign's polling and focus group findings that show this is a wedge issue. But it's a strawman argument and fundamentally misleading." The article points out "the holes in the loophole argument" one by one.

<h2 style="text-align: left;">Who is Henry Miller?</h2>

The ad originally listed campaign spokesperson Miller as "M.D., Stanford" and showed Stanford University buildings in the background. The campaign had to pull that version off the air at the request of Stanford University and re-do it because "the Stanford ID on the screen appeared to violate the university's policy against use of the Stanford name by consultants," <a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-anti-proposition-37-ad-pulled-20121004,0,1204815.story" title="reference on according to" target="_blank">according to</a> the Los Angeles Times.

Henry I. Miller (screenshot from "No on 37" ad)

<div style="text-align: left;">Miller is a senior research fellow at the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hoover_Institution" title="reference on Hoover Institution" target="self">Hoover Institution</a>, a conservative think tank housed on the Stanford campus. Prior to joining Hoover, Miller worked for 15 years at the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=U.S.Food_and_Drug_Administration" title="reference on U.S. Food and Drug Administration" target="_self">U.S. Food and Drug Administration</a> (FDA), where he was an outspoken advocate of agricultural biotechnology, including GMOs. Miller was the founding director of the FDA Office of Biotechnology, from 1989-1994.</div>

What Miller is most notorious for are his unusual public positions. In 2003, Miller penned an op-ed for the New York Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/07/opinion/07MILL.html%20" title="reference on defending DDT and arguing for its resurrection" target="blank">defending DDT and arguing for its resurrection</a>. This prompted a U.S. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Centers_for_Disease_Control_and_Prevention" title="reference on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention" target="self">Centers for Disease Control and Prevention</a> (CDC) response pointing out the estimated "<a href="http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/9/8/03-0082_article.htm" title="reference on increase in infant deaths" target="_blank">increase in infant deaths</a> that might result from DDT spraying."

Miller was also a founding member scientist of <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_Advancement_of_Sound_Science_Coalition" title="reference on The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition" target="self">The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition</a>, a now-defunct, tobacco industry-funded public relations front group run by the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=APCO_Worldwide" title="reference on APCO Worldwide" target="self">APCO Worldwide</a> PR firm that worked to discredit the links between cigarettes and cancer.

Perhaps most outrageously, Miller <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2011/12/21/can-tiny-amounts-of-poison-actually-be-good-for-you/" title="reference on wrote" target="_blank">wrote</a> in a 2011 op-ed for Forbes that some of those exposed to radiation after the damage to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant "could have actually benefitted from it."

So it is unsurprising that Miller penned a Forbes op-ed on GMO labeling <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2012/10/22/the-roots-of-the-anti-genetic-engineering-movement-follow-the-money/" title="reference on this week" target="_blank">this week</a> suggesting that it is the supporters of GMO labeling who are engaged in "no-holds-barred advocacy ... to disparage farming methods and promulgate fraudulent health claims about the foods we eat."...

In an effort to block a <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_37,Mandatory_Labeling_of_Genetically_Engineered_Food%282012%29" target="hplink">ballot measure in California</a> that would require the labeling of genetically modified foods, shape a <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/oh/ohio_senate_mandel_vs_brown-2100.html" target="hplink">Senate race in Ohio</a> with potential repercussions for fracking, and influence a host of <a href="http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Elections/2012/House/Michigan/6/" target="_hplink">House contests</a> key to toxic chemical reform -- the chemical industry has been busy wielding its wallet, say environmental advocates.

"And industry has ramped up its spending to block such a change," he added.

<a href="http://monsantoblog.com/2012/08/14/taking-a-stand-proposition-37-the-california-labeling-proposal/" target="hplink">Monsanto</a> and other agro-chemical companies have invested <a href="http://votersedge.org/california/ballot-measures/2012/november/prop-37/funding" target="hplink">more than $20 million</a> -- on top of the food industry's nearly equivalent contribution -- for ads <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/21/gmo-proposition-37-study-funding-research_n_1904535.html" target="_hplink">opposing Proposition 37</a>, a California measure that would require labeling of genetically modified foods, or GMOs. Proponents of the bill have raised less than $8 million.

Meanwhile, chemical interests have spent some $375 million since 2005 to help elect and try to influence federal leaders, specifically in regards to a pending overhaul of the <a href="http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/tsca.html" target="hplink">Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976</a> (TSCA), according to a <a href="http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665%7D/COMMONCAUSE_TOXICSPENDING-10%2023%20FINAL.PDF" target="hplink">report</a> released this week by <a href="http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=8281551" target="_hplink">Common Cause</a>, a nonprofit, nonpartisan citizen's lobbying organization.

"It's been 36 years since they passed TSCA, and people are showing how it really fails to protect people," said James Browning, Common Cause's regional director for state operations and a principal author of the report. "Public health advocates are starting to win the fight, they have so much evidence on their side. Industry is realizing it needs to start spending more to stop it."

In July, the Safe Chemicals Act <a href="http://lautenberg.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=337325" target="hplink">passed out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee</a>. First introduced by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) in 2005, the act would replace the TSCA and essentially <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/24/safe-chemicals-act-flame-retardants_n_1699384.html" target="hplink">reverse the burden of proof</a> on chemical safety. In other words, chemicals would be required to be tested and proven safe before they are placed on store shelves -- something that it not the case today. The bill is now awaiting a vote from the full Senate.

Overall, Common Cause found that chemical industry contributions in the current election cycle have gone predominantly to Republicans: 78 percent compared to 22 percent for Democrats. President Barack Obama received $217,283, for example, compared to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's $704,337.

<div style=" text-align: left;">TOP 10 RECIPIENTS OF CHEMICAL INDUSTRY CAMPAIGN FUNDS, 2011-2012*<img src="/8e1c76db-ed45-5de8-9277-e29536084f00.jpg"/></div>

<div style="text-align: left; width: 150px;">Data compiled from CMAG/Kantar Media, the FCC, and the FEC. *Through Sept. 30, 2012</div>

</div>

"Clearly, they see Ohio as pivotal and that race as pivotal," Browning said.

A <a href="http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665%7D/Ohio--Deep%20Drilling%20Deep%20Pockets%20Nov%202011.pdf" target="_hplink">Common Cause report from last year</a> found people on Rep. Fred Upton's (R-Mich.) House Energy & Commerce Committee who voted for the so-called Haliburton loophole -- which essentially exempts the natural gas industry from the Safe Drinking Water Act -- received more than six times as much money from oil and gas companies as people who voted against it.

<div style=" text-align: left;">TOP 10 CHEMICAL INDUSTRY AD EXPENDITURES, BY RACE, 2012<img src="/6eed5b22-e42d-5380-8a74-1dfb6fadcc42.jpg"/></div>

<div style="text-align: left; width: 150px;">Data compiled from CMAG/Kantar Media, the FCC, and the FEC. * Data on Tommy Thompson from <a href="http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C90011578/808671/f57">FEC reporting</a> of spending by the American Chemistry Council (ACC). Expenditure on behalf of Sen. Scott Brown was paid for by the "Coalition for American Jobs," an entity affiliated with the American Chemistry Council and the American Petroleum Institute.</div>

</div>

===

<a href="http://www.grist.org/industrial-agriculture/2011-12-13-the-bugs-that-ate-monsanto">http://www.grist.org/industrial-agriculture/2011-12-13-the-bugs-that-ate-monsanto</a>

----

<h1 class="headline" style="text-align: left;">Big Food puts its back into fighting GMO labeling in California</h1>

By <a href="http://grist.org/author/michele-simon/" title="Posts by Michele Simon">Michele Simon</a>

In case you had any doubt that <a href="http://carighttoknow.org/">California’s Prop 37 </a>— which would require labeling of food containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) — poses a significant threat to the food industry, a top food lobby has now made it perfectly clear that it does.

In a recent <a href="http://npaper-wehaa.com/wlj/2012/07/23/#?page=14&article=1632353">speech</a> to the American Soybean Association (most soy grown in the U.S. is GMO), Pamela Bailey, president of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), said that defeating the initiative “is the single highest priority for GMA this year.”

You may not know the GMA, but its members represent the nation’s largest food producers — those with the most at stake in the battle over GMO labeling. Soft drink and snack giant PepsiCo, cereal makers Kellogg and General Mills, and of course, biotech behemoth Monsanto all belong to the GMA.

According to state filing <a href="http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1344135&session=2011&view=late1">reports</a>, GMA has already spent $375,000 on its efforts to oppose the labeling measure, with its members adding additional out-of-state lobbying power in the tens of thousands of dollars.

Big Food: “Lobbying is us”  <a href="http://grist.org/food/big-food-puts-its-back-into-fighting-gmo-labeling-in-california/">http://grist.org/food/big-food-puts-its-back-into-fighting-gmo-labeling-in-california/</a>

==

</div>

</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>