GMO battleground takes shape in California

John Maday, Managing Editor, Drovers CattleNetwork  |  Updated: 08/21/2012

 Resize text        

Opponents are far outspending supporters of California Proposition 37, which would require labeling of food products made from genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

MapLight Voter’s Edge, a non-partisan organization, provides information about ballot measures  along with the funding, endorsements, and advertisements for and against the ballot measure. The organization’s analysis shows campaigns supporting the proposition have raised $2 million, while opponents have raised $25 million. Organic-foods and alternative-health groups account for 86 percent of the total money in support, while food and beverage, agriculture and bio-tech companies have provided 99 percent of the total money in opposition.
According to MapLight, the top five organizations providing funds in support of the measure are:

  1. Mercola.com Health Resources LLC: $800,000
  2. Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps All-One-God-Faith Inc.: $290,000
  3. Nature's Path Foods U.S.A. Inc. Fine Natural Food Products: $250,709
  4. Wehah Farm, Inc./Lundburg Family Farms $200,000
  5. Organic Consumers Fund $54,639

The top five organizations providing funds in support of defeating the measure are:

  1. Monsanto Company: $4,208,000
  2. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.: $4,025,200
  3. PepsiCo, Inc.: $1,716,300
  4. BASF Plant Sciences $1,642,300
  5. Bayer Crop Sciences $1,618,400

A significant percentage of commercially manufactured food products that use corn or soybeans as ingredients would be affected by the labeling law, as many varieties of those crops are considered genetically modified. The proposition would exempt animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves.

According to a Huffington Post article, polls show the proposition with a good chance of passing, but the well-funded opposition campaign is likely to erode some of that support.


Comments (10) Leave a comment 

Name
e-Mail (required)
Location

Comment:

characters left

Jarvis Haugeberg    
South Dakota  |  August, 22, 2012 at 09:40 AM

Take away our technology, yields decline. Yields decline, food prices rise, food riots persist around the world, and we simply will not have enough to go around. Period

Not to mention that GMO foods are wholesome and there is NO reason to take them away.

Tom    
TX  |  August, 22, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Yep, you drank their koolaid.

Tammy    
Washington  |  August, 22, 2012 at 10:11 AM

This initiative is about the "right to know". People have a right to know what they are eating. If they know and choose to eat GMO food anyway, then that's on them. There are countless numbers of studies that say that GMO foods are affecting our DNA. The whole GMO issue is really about control. He who controls the seeds, controls the world.

Carolyn    
California  |  August, 22, 2012 at 11:27 AM

@Jarvis~ the proposition doesn't say anything about taking away technology. It is to get a labeling. As a farmer you cannot even do a large scale plant with out GMO seed. But I would rather have some kind labeling in place now, before the "manufactured" meat products hit the market. It is already contemptible that I live in a hugely agricultural state and cannot even purchase CA grown here, or that we cannot push for USA grown or Ca grown labeling.
This will create a market place for those who produce a "heritage" seed or product.

I must say, I cannot understand why "certified Organic" is exempt, you can grow GMO's in an organic environment and be exempt from the labeling? An animal fed or injected with genetically engineered material is exempt from labeling? This also doesn't make sense... But as a resident small farmer here in the state, I will obviously have to research it some more to know whether to support it or move against it.

From their site~ "Exempts foods that are: certified organic; unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material; made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves; processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients; administered for treatment of medical conditions; sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant; or alcoholic beverages."

Jarvis Haugeberg    
South Dakota  |  August, 22, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Tom Questions:

Do you question that GMO technology has increased yeilds?

Do you question that food is already scarce on the planet? World Vision say 925 million people without enough to eat.

I should disclose that I am involved with agriculture but I am NOT in the seed business.

Jarvis Haugeberg    
South Dakota  |  August, 22, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Tom, I have a couple questions for you:

First do you question that there are a lot of hungry people in the world? World Vision says 925 million do not have enough to eat everyday.

Second, do you question that GMO technology has increased yields?

I will disclose that I am involved with agriculture but NOT involved with seed

Jarvis Haugeberg    
South Dakota  |  August, 22, 2012 at 12:01 PM

I understand that the proposition is a labeling proposal. I am not opposed to that in and of itself but I will tell you it opens up a can of worms that is not easy to manage. Just one small thing, vendors and packagers of products will have to track certain lots of products that are marketed in CA. May not seem like a big deal but everything we do adds cost. In this case I would suggest that it would add cost to the products but not value.

Jasper    
Montana  |  August, 23, 2012 at 11:04 AM

The right to know nothing and to believe anything. That's what Mercola is counting on with his $800,000 investment. There's a sucker born every minute.

Charlie Peters    
Hayward  |  September, 08, 2012 at 07:53 PM

California Obama /Mitt November contest would likely give the California winner prize to Obama but how would a 3 way Obama, Mitt & Ron write in vote count end up? RP votes in 2008 were counted.

The Goldman Sacs-Fed reserve twins might create a fun contest with the Dr.

60 days in a political contest is a long time.

Is this game about D R or other? maybe it is about saving a republic. Maybe Obama and Mitt are the underdogs.

Charlie Peters    
Hayward  |  September, 08, 2012 at 07:56 PM

What would a judge do with AB 118 Nunez/Arnold?

AAA said it would not pass a court test.

GMO corn food will be considered for a label in November.

GMO Corn in my food and gas stinks.

Arnold ask the fed for a waiver and the Clinton EPA agreed

Arnold-W EPA said NO and agrees with MITT.

UN, World Bank, many Governors, Several Congressmen, Bill Clinton & Al Gore say GMO ethanol in the gas is bad policy.