1.Food growers, beverage firms bolster effort against Prop. 37
2.Prop. 37: Consumers need to know
3.Which 'Natural' Food Companies Are Fighting the Effort to Label GMOs?
4.Who will you believe on food labeling?

EXTRACT: They fear that your informed choices will reduce their profits. They will saturate TV and billboards and newspapers, and they'll be slick and glib. So it comes down to who are you going to believe?

I have four children, 11 grandchildren, three great-grandchildren. I work for them, and Monsanto's gun-hands work for a paycheck. Our opponents show up in limousines; our Butte County speakers take time off from jobs in our communities and from grandchildren and gardening, and our younger volunteers babysit and hold bake sales for gas money to get to your meetings. Who are you going to believe? (item 4)
–-
–-
1.Food growers, beverage firms bolster effort against Prop. 37
Marc Lifsher
Los Angeles Times, August 22 2012
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-gmo-campaign-funds-20120822,0,1845421.story

*The campaign to defeat Proposition 37, the California ballot measure that would require labels on genetically modified food, has collected $25 million.

SACRAMENTO Major food growers and processors are pumping millions of dollars into an increasingly hefty war chest to fight a November ballot measure that would require labels on genetically engineered foods. In all, they've collected $25 million, the most for any ballot initiative this fall.

Anticipating the need for a high-dollar media campaign to fight the measure, agribusinesses, biotech corporations and manufacturers of some of the bestselling grocery products are bankrolling the effort.

Details of the campaign remain secret, but public reports of campaign finances show that contributions have more than doubled in the last week. Although the No on Proposition 37 campaign's biggest expense thus far has been about half a million dollars for political consultants and media experts, campaign officials said a major advertising campaign is in the works.

"It's all about reaching out to voters," campaign spokeswoman Cathy Fairbanks said. "It's expensive in California."

Last week, the No on Proposition 37 coalition reported receiving 22 new contributions totaling $13 million in addition to the $12 million it had already collected since the beginning of the year. Supporters of Proposition 37 have reported contributions of about $3 million.

The roster of financial backers for the opposition campaign reads like a list of bestsellers at the supermarket and a visit to an agricultural supply store. Leading the list is chemical giant Monsanto Co., the maker of the popular Round-Up herbicide, with $4.2 million. Close behind is E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. with $4 million. Also contributing are other biotech firms that developed plants that have had their DNA manipulated to make them resistant to insects, crop diseases, herbicides or pesticides.

Manufacturers of popular household brands also contributed:PepsiCo Inc.has given $1.7 million;Coca-Cola Co., $1.2 million; Nestle USA Inc., $1.2 million;Kellogg Co., $633,000; and jam makerJ.M. Smucker Co., $388,000. Cargill Inc., the international grain and oil producer and marketer, contributed $202,2229.

If approved by voters, Proposition 37 would make California the first state in the nation to require labels on genetically engineered crops or processed foods that contain genetically engineered fruits or vegetables, such as corn, soybeans, sugar beets and Hawaiian papayas.

Proponents argue that shoppers have a "right to know" whether their food has been genetically modified in a laboratory. Many consumers are concerned that there could be unforeseen health or ecological effects from tinkering with plants' DNA. Labeling laws similar to the one proposed for California currently are in effect in about 50 countries in Europe, South America and Asia.

Opponents counter that genetically engineered crops have been declared safe by federal food safety regulators. An unneeded labeling law, they argue, would besmirch popular and reputable food products, raise food prices and spur frivolous lawsuits while doing little to protect the public's health. A California labeling requirement could spur similar efforts in other states, creating an unwieldy patchwork of food-safety laws, the food industry and many scientists contend.

The influx of large contributions before voters have gotten engaged in the issue and the prospect of even more to come are signs that "these companies will try to buy the election," said Stacy Malkan, a spokeswoman for Yes on 37. "I think they are very nervous because they are far behind in the polls. Any minute, we're going to see a wave of deceptive television commercials."

Three times as many registered voters backed Proposition 37 as opposed it 65% to 21.8% in a statewide survey by the California Business Roundtable and the Pepperdine University School of Public Policy, whose results were released late last week. The online poll of 811 likely voters had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4%. The poll, which asks respondents to read the ballot title, summary and arguments that will be in the official voters' pamphlet, has yielded similar results in two previous surveys.

Unfavorable early polling, combined with the complexity of the genetically engineered food issue and a crowded November ballot, make it essential for Proposition 37 opponents to raise lots of money to buy as much television time as possible, said Fairbanks, the opposition campaign spokeswoman.

As of Monday, the No on 37 side raised more money than any of the campaigns for or against the 11 ballot measures before voters in November, according to Maplight.org, a nonpartisan website that tracks political contributions, initiatives and legislation.

Next in line are proponents of Proposition 39, which would change the way corporate income taxes are calculated. The campaign reported raising $22.3 million, while the backers of Gov. Jerry Brown's tax hike have taken in $20 million.

Getting voters' attention is a challenge during the last few months before the general election as they are bombarded with advertisements from other initiatives, including the governor's controversial tax increase, she said.

Spending on television could turn out to be futile, warned Shaun Bowler, a UC Riverside political science professor who specializes in studying initiative campaigns.

"It's unlikely they are going to overturn public sentiment. There's only so much stuff people can bear in mind, and a nuanced message" on genetically modified food isn't one of them, Bowler said. "It's a difficult position to be in."

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
–-
–-
2.Prop. 37: Consumers need to know
Grant Lundberg and Kathryn Phillips
SF Gate, August 21 2012
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Prop-37-Consumers-need-to-know-3805500.php

Voters will decide on an issue this November that affects us all: our right to know what's in our food. Many food products on market shelves in California – from baby formula, to corn flakes, to soy milk – contain genetically engineered ingredients that are hidden from consumers. Millions of Californians are saying: We want to know, and we have the right to know, if our food has been genetically engineered.

Parents, farmers, health care professionals, environmentalists, politicians and labor groups want to know, too.

Proposition 37 requires companies to add a few words to labels if their food has been genetically modified. Also called GMOs, these modified plant and animal products have been altered in a lab to combine DNA from one species with another to create combinations that don't occur in nature. An example is Monsanto's genetically modified sweet corn, which has been engineered to contain an insecticide, Bt toxin, within the corn itself.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not require safety studies, and no long-term health studies have been conducted, to determine the human health effects. Preliminary studies link genetically engineered foods to allergies and other health risks.

Voters and consumers also have environmental concerns. GMO crops have led to an overall increase in pesticide use, the emergence of superweeds and superbugs, and the unintentional contamination of non-GMO crops with GMO-crop pollens.

Prop. 37 isn't a ban, it's a label. It's simply saying: Let's give consumers information so we can choose for ourselves whether or not we want to eat genetically engineered foods. Consumers in 50 other countries – including all of Europe, Japan, China and Russia – already have this right.

Here in California, out-of-state pesticide and food companies have contributed $25 million to blanket the airwaves with deceptive commercials trying to persuade us that labeling is too costly, scary, or confusing.

We've heard it all before. They used the same tactics to claim hardship if they were forced to tell consumers about calories, fat content or other information we use every day to choose our food. We're not buying these scare stories.

It's a simple label. We have a right to know what's in our food. This is how our country is supposed to work – we are free to make informed choices. Proposition 37 will help us exercise that freedom about what we eat. We urge you to vote yes on Prop. 37.

Prop. 37 in brief

Requires labeling on raw or processed foods if made from genetically altered plants or animals.

About the series: California voters will decide the future of the state when they cast their ballots on these 10 initiatives in November. The Chronicle/SFGate.com will publish opposing views on each proposition on Wednesdays. Prop. 40 will not be included; the sponsors of the referendum abandoned the campaign.

Grant Lundberg is the CEO of Lundberg Family Farms. Kathryn Phillips is the director of Sierra Club California.
–-
–-
3.Which 'Natural' Food Companies Are Fighting the Effort to Label GMOs?
John Robbins
Huffington Post, 22 August 2012 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-robbins/prop-37_b_1821633.html

On Nov. 6, California voters will have the opportunity to vote on historic Proposition 37, which would mandate the labeling of genetically-engineered foods. At a time when it's hard to get a large percentage of Americans to agree on almost anything, polls show that as many as 90 percent of us want genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) labeled. More than 40 other nations, including the entire European Union, already require disclosure. But Monsanto and its allies are dedicated to keeping consumers in the dark and are pouring tens of millions of dollars into a disinformation campaign intended to defeat Prop 37.

You might expect the biotech industry to try to block a measure that would require foods that contain GMOs to say so on their packages. After all, a growing body of scientific research is indicating that GMOs might be far more dangerous than was previously imagined. But Monsanto's allies in the effort to defeat Prop 37 include some unexpected culprits. It can be shocking to realize that some of the most trusted names in the natural food world are in bed with Monsanto.

Naked Juice is owned by PepsiCo, which has donated $1.7 million to Monsanto's efforts. Honest Tea, Odwalla and Simply Orange are owned by Coca-Cola, which has donated another million dollars. Alexia and Lightlife are owned by ConAgra, which has put in more than $1 million.

You won't find this mentioned anywhere on the Kashi product packaging, but Kashi, as well as Gardenburger and Morningstar Farms, is owned by Kellogg, which has already coughed up more than $600,000 to defeat Prop 37.

Kashi has already been in plenty of trouble on the GMO front this year. A few months ago, a number of natural foods stores stopped carrying Kashi cereals when it came to their attention that the "soy used in most Kashi products is genetically modified, and that when the USDA tested the grains used there were found to be pesticides that are known carcinogens and hormone disruptors."

In an attempt to defend itself, Kashi released a YouTube video that announced that:

"While it's likely that some of our foods contain GMOs, the main reason for that is because in North America, well over 80 percent of many crops, including soybeans are grown using GMOs ... Factors outside our control such as pollen drift from nearby crops ... have led to an environment where GMOs are not sufficiently controlled."

This seemingly reasonable defense – that the only reason GMOs are found in Kashi products is because GMOs are widespread in the environment – might be valid if the problem was only trace GMOs, which lead to a product being less than 1 percent genetically engineered. But when the Cornucopia Institute tested Kashi's Go Lean cereal, which gets its protein from soy, they found that the soy was 100 percent genetically engineered.

There are other natural foods heroes whose profits are being used to try to keep us in the dark. Silk soy milk carries the "Non-GMO Project Verified" seal on its package. But Silk is owned by Dean Foods, which has donated more than a quarter million dollars to Monsanto's efforts to defeat Prop 37.

The list of sell-outs who masquerade as bastions of organics is disappointingly long. R. W. Knudsen and Santa Cruz Organics are owned by Smucker, which has donated $388,000 to killing Prop 37. Cascadian Farm, Larabar and Muir Glen are owned by General Mills, which has put more than half a million dollars into the effort.

The good news is that even with large agribusiness companies purchasing natural and organic brands and then betraying consumers by funding the attack on GMO labeling, Prop 37 still stands an excellent chance of passing.

And not everyone has sold out, not by a long shot. There are still some authentic heroes in the natural food industry. Nature's Path, Dr. Bronner's, Nutiva and Lundberg Rice stand out among the companies that are contributing to the effort to pass Prop 37 and ensure your right to know what's in your food. Organic Valley, Amy's and Eden Foods are also standing up for your right to know. And the owner of a natural health website, Joseph Mercola (mercola.com), has donated nearly a million dollars to the good fight.

If you want to know more, the Cornucopia Institute has released a shopper's guide to the companies that are donating on both sides of Prop 37.

At present, it's not easy to know whether there are GMOs in your food. The Non-GMO Shopping Guide put out by the Institute for Responsible Technology is a great support. But the most important thing you can do is to help pass Proposition 37.

If Californians pass Prop 37 in November, it will have enormous implications to the food system throughout North America.

Ignorance, in some cases, may be bliss. But in the case of GMOs, the ignorance of not knowing what is in your food is not bliss, it's subservience to Monsanto and its allies. And it could mean a lifetime of devastating health problems for you and your children.

It's going to be a battle. Let's win this one for ourselves, for the earth, and for all future generations.

John Robbins is cofounder of the Food Revolution Network, which provides information and inspiration to help you heal your body, and you world... with food. He is author of many bestsellers including The Food Revolution; No Happy Cows: Dispatches From The Frontlines of The Food Revolution; and Diet For A New America. He is the recipient of the Rachel Carson Award, the Albert Schweitzer Humanitarian Award, the Peace Abbey's Courage of Conscience Award, and Green America's Lifetime Achievement Award. To learn more about his work, visit JohnRobbins.info.
–-
–-
4.Who will you believe on food labeling?
Chico Enterprise-Record, 23 August 2012
http://www.chicoer.com/opinion/ci_21380989/letter-who-will-you-believe-food-labeling

Proposition 37, on our November ballot, requires labeling of foods containing genetically engineered ingredients. That's all that it does it simply asserts our right to know what's in the food we eat and feed to our children. It does not interfere with anybody's choices, but simply gives us an opportunity to make those choices with more information.

The proposition's opponents Monsanto people and their associates do not want you to see it this way, and they will spend a lot of money to persuade you to see it their way. One of their executives said, "If you put a label on genetically engineered food, you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it." They fear that your informed choices will reduce their profits. They will saturate TV and billboards and newspapers, and they'll be slick and glib. So it comes down to who are you going to believe?

I have four children, 11 grandchildren, three great-grandchildren. I work for them, and Monsanto's gun-hands work for a paycheck. Our opponents show up in limousines; our Butte County speakers take time off from jobs in our communities and from grandchildren and gardening, and our younger volunteers babysit and hold bake sales for gas money to get to your meetings. Who are you going to believe?

Our speakers will show up at any meeting that we're invited to. We'll tell you the truth, face to face, and we'll answer any question. Our website is www.carighttoknow.org. My phone number is
679-0135.

Chuck Greenwood, Bangor