(MintPress) — Agribusiness giants Monsanto, Dupont and a cadre of other food companies have outspent organic advocates by millions in their quest to defeat California’s Proposition 37, a new requirement which mandates companies to disclose genetically modified organism (GMO) labeling on raw or processed foods. If passed, the law would make the labeling of foods with GMOs standard across America because companies selling products in this market often look to standards and regulations required in the most populous state.
“These are the same companies that told us that DDT and agent orange are safe,” Stacy Malkan, spokesperson for the Yes on 37 For Your Right to Know if Your Food Has Been Genetically Engineered campaign committee told progressive journal TruthOut.
According to a new report issued this week from nonpartisan group Voter’s Edge California, Monsanto has dropped a total of $4.2 million on the No on 37 campaign, more than double the $2 million amount spent by supporters of Proposition 37.
Moreover, the tally that all big agriculture firms, food manufacturers and pro-biotech industry groups have raised to defeat Proposition 37 stands at whopping $25 million.
Who gave how much
Companies contributing to that sum include Chemical giant Dupont, adding $4 million to the pot. Dupont ranks second to Monsanto in worldwide sales of genetically engineered seed sales. Pepsico, Coca-Cola, Nestle and the chemical and GE seed manufacturers Bayer and BASF each donated $1 million or more to the campaign.
Malkan says that the money will likely be used toward creating “deceptive” TV ads leading up to the vote in November.
“I think it’s about huge chemical companies trying to hide what they are doing to our food,” Malkan said.
Main contributors to the Yes on 37 campaign include Mercola.com, an alternative health resource website, which shelled out $800,000 in contributions.
Other contributors pushing for the legislation include health firms Nature’s Path ($250,000), Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps ($290,000) and Organic Valley ($50,000).
The study also breaks contributions down by state, with no-supporters in Washington D.C., Missouri, North Carolina and New York all upping the ante. While California has the largest population of consumers in the country, the law, if passed, would go on labels across the nation, as many manufacturers seek to appeal to the broadest base of consumers.
Arguments for and against GMO labeling
“Transparency in ingredients should not be a political issue: after all, GMO labeling is required in other industrialized countries and giant food companies like Nestle, Barilla, Unilever and Danone continue to thrive. Here in the USA, business opportunities abound: companies including Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods generate huge profits with their pledge to avoid foods containing GMOs. At the same time, a UC-Davis study points out that Proposition 37 has its flaws. Conventional foods with trace amounts of GMOs would have to slap a label on their packages, but organic foods with higher levels of genetically modified ingredients would be exempt,” says Leon Kaye, a sustainability consultant and the editor of GreenGoPost.com.
Those who want the labeling to go into effect say that GMOs pose risks to the ecosystem and are opposed to the lack of transparency within the industrial food complex and the patenting and control of the global food supply. Some even say that GMOs may be to blame for an increase in food allergies over the past generation. Those in favor of GMOs say the technology is needed as the global population is predicted to swell to 9 billion people by 2050.
“If foods containing GE ingredients are labeled, consumers may be more likely to buy organic and non-GE foods despite the biotechnology industry’s repeated claims that GE foods are as safe as conventional foods,” TruthOut reports. “GE food opponents, however, say that some studies have shown that GE foods pose health risks. Most GE crops are genetically altered to withstand or produce pesticides and herbicides. Organics advocates and agricultural reformers say that GE mono-crop farming is unsustainable and has unfavorable environmental impacts, such as creating herbicide resistant ‘superweeds.’”
MintPress recently reported on several companies, including Monsanto, which has had its products banned in portions of Europe and has been the subject of lawsuits on behalf of Latin American farmers, who have claimed the chemicals used on their genetically modified crops have caused widespread deformities among children in their community, which are guilty of what can most politely be termed as false advertising.
Driving down an interstate in the midst of Minnesota farm country, motorists are greeted with green-inspired advertisements for Monsanto, illustrating the happy life of “everyday American farmers” and citizens.
To perpetuate that image, Monsanto has spent a considerable amount of resources donating funds for education and charity. In June, the company issued a press release announcing it had donated $100,000 to Maryville University. The funds were specifically designated toward the school’s program aimed at teaching chemistry in high schools.
“Educators at Maryville University will develop new approaches for teaching chemistry in high schools thanks to a generous $100,000 grant from the Monsanto Fund, the philanthropic arm of the Monsanto Company,” the press release states.
But countries such as France have moved to block Monsanto’s genetically modified maize seeds, citing the environment as the main factor. In another political play, however, France’s move was blocked by the EU, citing its own scientific evidence which claimed the product to be safe.
“If Proposition 37 fails in the November 2012 election, it says less about whether GMOs are good or bad for you than the sorry state of American politics. Monsanto’s reputation, meanwhile, will hardly change: it surely does not have much of one now,” Kaye said.