START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

Prop 37 Opponents Have 'Deep Pockets' to Fight GMO Labeling


Business  (tags: cancer, death, diet, disease, food, health, humans, food, healthconditions, politics, corruption, dishonesty, ethics, farming )

Mary
- 716 days ago - digitaljournal.com
Latest campaign finance reports show that pesticide and processed food companies have contributed almost $10 million to oppose Proposition 37, largest contributions come from Dupont, Bayer,BASF Plant Science. Site lists others



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

Mary Riley (939)
Tuesday August 14, 2012, 7:26 am
Latest campaign finance reports show that pesticide and processed food companies have contributed almost $10 million to oppose Proposition 37.
Digital Journal reported recently that top food makers and agrichemical companies are opposing the labeling of GMO products.
Proposition 37 would require the labeling of genetically modified or engineered foods and comes up for vote in the November 2012 elections.
According to the California Secretary of State disclosure forms, the largest contributions come from Dupont Pioneer ($2,441,500), Bayer Cropscience ($1,064,000) and BASF Plant Science ($996,500). Other contributions include $500,000 each from Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Nestle USA, General Mills and ConAgra.
Stacy Malkan, Media Director for California Right to Know says, “These corporations are desperate to keep us from finding out what’s really in our food.”
“They will not prevail. This is America. We have the right to know what’s in the food we eat and feed our children.”
Latest campaign finance reports show that pesticide and processed food companies have contributed almost $10 million to oppose Proposition 37.
Digital Journal reported recently that top food makers and agrichemical companies are opposing the labeling of GMO products.
Proposition 37 would require the labeling of genetically modified or engineered foods and comes up for vote in the November 2012 elections.
According to the California Secretary of State disclosure forms, the largest contributions come from Dupont Pioneer ($2,441,500), Bayer Cropscience ($1,064,000) and BASF Plant Science ($996,500). Other contributions include $500,000 each from Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Nestle USA, General Mills and ConAgra.
Stacy Malkan, Media Director for California Right to Know says, “These corporations are desperate to keep us from finding out what’s really in our food.”
“They will not prevail. This is America. We have the right to know what’s in the food we eat and feed our children.”

Pesticide and seed companies have made huge contributions, now topping $7 million with the latest donations. This shines a light on a little-known fact about GE foods.
Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, PhD is a senior scientist at Pesticide Action Network. She said in a statement supporting Proposition 37, “Rather than reducing the need for hazardous pesticides, herbicide-resistant seeds have driven a massive increase in herbicide use that has been linked to significant environmental and public health concerns.”

“It’s clear that genetically engineered, herbicide-resistant seeds are the growth engines of the pesticide industry’s sales and marketing strategy. These seeds are part of a technology package explicitly designed to facilitate increased, indiscriminate herbicide use and pump up chemical sales,” she added.
In the report summary of a 2009 report by Chuck Benbrook, PhD, chief scientist of the Organic Center, revealed that farmers applied 318 million more pounds of pesticides over the first 13 years of commercial GE crop production (1996-2008). This was a direct result of planting genetically engineered seeds.
Details regarding the new contributions against Proposition 37 are below: (you have to go to the site)

For more information about the Yes on 37 California Right to Know campaign, visit: www.CaRighttoKnow.org.


 

Roger Garin-michaud (61)
Tuesday August 14, 2012, 3:50 pm
noted thanks !
 

Elaya Raja (39)
Thursday August 16, 2012, 3:16 am
thanks for sharing
 

Robert O. (12)
Thursday August 16, 2012, 6:23 pm
Thanks Mary.
 

Arielle S. (316)
Friday August 17, 2012, 6:13 am
Now if there was no danger to GMO's, would these companies really spend that much money to keep labeling off the table? Scary, huh?
 

Jenn L. (0)
Wednesday October 24, 2012, 2:18 pm
Thanks for the great article! With just two more weeks until the election, we'd like to keep up the momentum and get Californians out to the polls! Prop 37 isn't just a Californian issue-- the success of this proposition will shape national policy for years to come!


With that, I'd like to share some more resources with you that may help you reach out to your readers. Please visit our website at www.10reasonsforprop37.org for even more resources (embeddable graphics, tweets, and our Top 10 list for Why Yes on Prop 37)

For now, here are our TOP 5:
1. GMOs are unhealthy.
2. GMOs contaminate the seed pool - forever.
3. GMOs increase herbicide use.
4. Genetic engineering creates dangerous side effects.
5. The Government isn’t protecting your family.

In the coming days, I’ll send you Reason #6. If you’d rather not receive this information, let me know. Should you want to contact me, I can be contacted at jen@10reasonsforprop37.org. Thanks for your tireless advocacy for Yes on Prop 37!
 

Stella Gamboni (17)
Wednesday October 31, 2012, 10:22 pm
I don't care who spent how much money on opposing this proposition. I'm totally against it because it was written by idiots! I posted this elsewhere but it deserves to be repeated:

I know it sounds like this is a great idea and that everyone has the right to know what's in their food but Prop 37 is an unmitigated disaster! It has gaps and loopholes you could fly the space shuttle through -- Dairy, eggs, meat and poultry are exempt; soy milk - regulated; / cow's milk - exempt; Girl Scout cookies - regulated / fortune cookies - exempt, dog food - regulated / meat for human consumption from animal raised on genetically-engineered feed - exempt. Prop 37 is sloppily written and puts the burden of proof not on the companies and farms that produce the food but on the retailers who sell it. This especially hurts mom-and-pop stores that don't have the resources to do this and opens up the stores to lawsuits for things over which they have no control. This is not a case where a bad law is better than no law. This is a case where a bad law is really bad!
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 

 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.