Index, Table Of Contents, About Page

▼

Why was 45 Million Spent By Huge Corporations To Defeat A GMO Labeling Law, Compared To 8 million Donated By Average People, Non Profits Supporting Labeling GMO's? California Proposition 37, Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food Voting Results and Analysis

Why was 45 Million Spent By Huge Corporations To Defeat A GMO Labeling Law, Compared To  8 million Donated By Average People, Non Profits Supporting Labeling GMO's? California Proposition 37, Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food Voting Results and Analysis 

If a product is so superior to all other foods, wouldn't you want the whole world to know about that ingredient, food or special technology? 

Why would someone who claims their product is so superior to all others want to hide it from the public and make it all secret? 




Why was 45 Million spent by huge corporations to defeat the GMO Labeling law, compared to only 8 million by average people and non profits supporting it? 

California Proposition 37, Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food (2012)


Proposition 37

According to Ballotpedia; "Proposition 37, a Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food Initiative, was on the November 6, 2012 ballot in California as an initiated state statute, where it was defeated, (after being largely outspent by huge corporations who aired scary propoganda on the mass media that they also own. Supporters of Prop 37 spent: $8,700,000. Monsanto and other large corporations opposed labeling GMO foods and spent $45,600,000. Citizens were outspent by a factor of 4 to 1. Generally speaking the organization that spends more on any issue or candidate, wins.).[1],[2]

If Proposition 37 has been approved, it would have: 

Required labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if the food is made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways. 

Prohibited labeling or advertising such food as "natural." 

Exempted from this requirement 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." 

James Wheaton, who filed the ballot language for the initiative, called it "The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act." 

Election results 


California Proposition 37 

Result Votes Percentage 

No 6,442,371 51.4% 

Yes 6,088,714 48.6% 

These final, certified, results are from the California Secretary of State. 


Title; Genetically Engineered Foods. Labeling. Initiative Statute. 

Note: The original title given to Proposition 37 by election officials during the petition circulation stage was, "Genetically Engineered Foods. Mandatory Labeling. Initiative Statute." 

Summary 

The state's official voter guide included two summaries for each statewide ballot measure. One summary, in bullet-point format, was in the long-form description of each measure. A shorter form of the summary was on the ballot label in the front of the voter guide. 

The long-form summary for Proposition 37 said: 

Requires labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways. 

Prohibits labeling or advertising such food, or other processed food, as “natural.” 

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. 

The short-form (ballot label) summary for Proposition 37 said: 

"Requires labeling of food sold to consumers made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways. Prohibits marketing such food, or other processed food, as 'natural.' Provides exemptions." 

Neither of the two summaries in the final voter guide was identical to the summary that was originally given to Proposition 37, when its sponsors sought a summary prior to circulating petitions to qualify the measure for the ballot. The summary that was given by election officials to Proposition 37 at that time said: 

"Requires labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways. Prohibits labeling or advertising such food as “natural.” 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." 


(This is a summary of the initiative's estimated "fiscal impact on state and local government" prepared by the California Legislative Analyst's Office and the Director of Finance.) 

Increased annual state costs ranging from a few hundred thousand dollars to over $1 million to regulate the labeling of genetically engineered foods. 

Potential, but likely not significant, costs to state and local governments due to litigation resulting from possible violations of the requirements of this measure. Some of these costs would be supported by court filing fees that the parties involved in each legal case would be required to pay under existing law. 

Note: The original fiscal note given to Proposition 37 by election officials during the petition circulation stage was, "Potential increase in state administrative costs of up to one million dollars annually to monitor compliance with the disclosure requirements specified in the measure. Unknown, but potentially significant, costs for the courts, the Attorney General, and district attorneys due to litigation resulting from possible violations to the provisions of this measure." 

Support 

Supporters included: 

The "Yes on 37" logo 
850,000-member Organic Consumers Association[3], also 1st largest donor says below 


1316-location “Food with Integrity” Chipotle Mexican Grill "because knowing more about where our food comes from is always better than knowing less. In light of this, and our vision[ and slogan] of Food With Integrity, we wholeheartedly support the cause of Prop 37, having endorsed the measure as soon as we heard it was on the ballot."[5]

311-location “Health Starts Here” Whole Foods Market "because [we have] long believed [our] customers have the right to know how their food is produced. However, [we have] some reservations with the proposition as drafted and hope several issues can be addressed in [its] implementation phase.."[6]

7-location Mother's Market Kitchen "because we believe our customers have the right to know what is in the products they buy"[7]

2008 nationwide documentary Food, Inc. (7.8 in IMDB) strong indirect suggestion "Support Prop 37 and the California Right to Know Movement."[8]; and "transparency and the consumer’s right to know .. Monsanto and its allies have managed to stifle in Washington for nearly two decades" but "If Prop 37 passes" [it rightfully puts in question] "not just .. genetically modified crops but the public’s confidence in the[ nation's] industrial food chain"[9]

The Institute for Responsible Technology[10]


The Green Party of California[12]

The arguments in favor of Proposition 37 in the state's official voter guide were submitted by: 

Dr. Michelle Pero. Pero is a pediatrician. 

Rebecca Spector. Spector is the West Coast Director of the Center for Food Safety. 

Grant Lundberg. Lundberg is the Chief Executive Officer of Lundberg Family Farms. 

Jamie Court. Court is the president of Consumer Watchdog

Jim Cochran. Cochran is the general manager of Swanton Berry Farm. 

Dr. Marcia Ishil-Eiteman. Ishil-Eiteman is a senior scientist with the Pesticide Action Network.[13]

Arguments in favor 

The arguments presented in favor of Proposition 37 in the state's official voter guide included: 

"You should have the right to know what's in your food." 

"You'll have the information you need about foods that some physicians and scientists say are linked to allergies and other significant health risks." 

"Over 40 countries around the world require labels for genetically modified foods."[13]

Donors 

Total campaign cash as of November 3, 2012 

Support: $8,700,000

Opposition: $45,600,000 

Joseph Mercola was one of the main financial supporters of Proposition 37. He is an osteopath who lives in suburban Chicago. According to Mercola, "Your health care, your food supply, everything you need to live a healthy life is now being taken away and controlled by a massive industrial complex and corrupt government."[14]

These are the $50,000 and over donors to the "yes" campaign as of Saturday, November 3, 2012:

Donor Amount

Organic Consumers Fund $1,334,865 

Mercola Health Resources $1,115,000 

Kent Whealy $1,000,000 

Nature's Path Foods $660,709 

Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps $566,438 

Mark Squire/Stillonger Trust $440,000 

Wehah Farm (Lundberg Family Farms) $251,500 

Ali Partovi $219,113 

Amy's Kitchen $200,000 

Great Foods of America $177,000 

Alex Bogusky $100,000 

Cliff Bar Co. $100,000 

Cropp Cooperative (Organic Valley) $100,000 

Annie's, Inc. $50,000 

Michael S. Funk $50,000 

Nutiva $50,000 

Opposition 

The "No on Prop 37" logo 

Opponents 

The arguments against Proposition 37 in the state's official voter guide were submitted by: 

Dr. Bob Goldberg. Goldberg is a member of the National Academy of Sciences. (government is largely controlled by huge corporations.) 

Jamie Johansson. Johansson is a family farmer in California. 

Betty Jo Toccoli. Toccoli is the president of the California Small Business Association. 

Jonnalee Henderson. Henderson is affiliated with the California Farm Bureau Federation. 

Dr. Henry I. Miller. Miller is a founding director of the Office of Biotechnology of the Food & Drug Administration. 

Tom Hudson. Hudson is the executive director of the California Taxpayer Protection Committee.[15]


Arguments against 

The arguments in opposition to Proposition 37 presented in the state's official voter guide included: 

"It's a deceptive, deeply flawed food labeling scheme that would add more government bureaucracy and taxpayer costs, create new frivolous lawsuits, and increase food costs by billions--without providing any health or safety benefits." 

"It's full of special interest exemptions." 

"It authorizes shakedown lawsuits."[15]

Donors 

Total campaign cash 
as of November 3, 2012 

Support: $8,700,000 

Opposition: $45,600,000 

As of November 3, 2012, about $45.6 million had been donated to the "No on 37" campaign effort.[17]

These are the $100,000 and over donors to the "no" campaign as of Saturday, November 3, 2012: 

Donor Amount 

Monsanto $8,112,867 

E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co. $5,400,000 

Pepsico, Inc. $2,145,400 

Grocery Manufacturers Association $2,002,000 

DOW Agrisciences $2,000,000 

Bayer Cropscience $2,000,000 

BASF Plant Science $2,000,000 

Syngenta Corporation $2,000,000 

Kraft Foods Global $1,950,500 

Coca-Cola North America $1,700,500 

Nestle USA $1,315,600 

Conagra Foods $1,176,700 

General Mills $1,135,300 

Kellogg Company $790,000 

Smithfield Foods $683,900 

Del Monte Foods $674,100 

Campbell's Soup $500,000 

Heinz Foods $500,000 

Hershey Company $493,900 

The J.M. Smucker Company $485,000 

Bimbo Bakeries $422,900 

Ocean Spray Cranberries $387,100 

Mars Food North America $376,650 

Council for Biotechnology Information $375,000 

Hormel Foods $374,300 

Unilever $372,100 

Bumble Bee Foods $368,500 

Sara Lee $343,600 

Kraft Food Group $304,500 

Pinnacle Foods $266,100 

Dean Foods Company $253,950 

Biotechnolog Industry Organization $252,000 

Bunge North America $248,600 

McCormick Company $248,200 

Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company $237,664 

Abbott Nutrition $234,500 

Cargill, Inc. $226,846 

Rich Products Corporation $225,537 

Flowers Foods $182,000 

Dole Packaged Foods $171,261 

Knouse Foods Cooperative $164,731 

Other food companies who contributed to the "no" campaign (but with checks of less than $150,000) included 

Sunny Delight Beverages, McCain Foods, Tree Top, Idahoan Foods, Richelieu Foods, Land O'Lakes, Hillshire Brands, Morton Salt, Clorox, Goya de Puerto Rico, Sargento and Godiva Chocolatier. 

Editorial opinion 


The Bay Area Reporter: "Prohibited in many countries (e.g. France), no one really knows the health risks of genetically engineered food. This is a transparency measure, which will allow the consumer to make an informed decision. It would be the first such measure of its kind in the United States."[18] 

The Marin Independent Journal: "Consumers have a right to know what they are buying and consuming."[19]

The North County Times: "Proposition 37 is as common-sense a measure as Californians have had a chance to approve in quite some time."[20]

The San Francisco Bay Guardian: "Prop. 37 doesn't seek regulations or limits in any way. It just mandates that GMO food be labeled — the way it is in at least 50 countries worldwide, including all of the European Union, China, Japan and Russia."[21]

"No on 37" 

The Contra Costa Times: "Proposition 37 purports to be a simple law that requires proper labeling to identify so-called genetically modified food. If that was all it did, we would be for it. Unfortunately, it does much more, and we think voters should send it back to its creators for some modification."[22]

The Daily Democrat (Woodland, California): "While we support identification of genetically modified food, this measure is so convoluted as to impose excessive costs on our state's farmers and agricultural industries."[23]

The Fresno Bee: "Under Prop. 37, no food that uses genetically engineered ingredients could be called natural. That seems to make certain sense. But it contains wording that could prohibit 'natural' labels on any food that that has been pressed or milled. That might include grain, which is milled, or olive oil, which is produced by pressing olives. Proponents say that wasn't their intent. But that's no guarantee against lawsuits."[24]

The Long Beach Press Telegram: [25]

The Los Angeles Daily News: "...once you get past the pleasing outside surface of this proposition (more information is good, right?), it reveals a rotten interior that pits the organic food industry against the non-organic food industry, includes special interest exemptions and sets up a system ripe for lawsuit abuse."[26]

The Los Angeles Times: "Unfortunately, the initiative to require labeling of those ingredients is sloppily written. It contains language that, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office, could be construed by the courts to imply that processed foods could not be labeled as 'natural' even if they weren't genetically engineered. Most of the burden for ensuring that foods are properly labeled would fall not on producers but on retailers, which would have to get written statements from their suppliers verifying that there were no bioengineered ingredients — a paperwork mandate that could make it hard for mom-and-pop groceries to stay in business. Enforcement would largely occur through lawsuits brought by members of the public who suspect grocers of selling unlabeled food, a messy and potentially expensive way to bring about compliance."[27]

The Merced Sun-Star: "The initiative would grant authority over labeling to the California Department of Public Health, which already has plenty of work combating food-borne pathogens. For state government, the cost of the additional duty would be relatively small, but the initiative provides no funding to cover the additional work."[28]

The Modesto Bee: " This flawed measure would set back the cause of labeling."[29]

The Orange County Register: "Voters should be concerned that Prop. 37 would likely spawn waves of lawsuits, with the litigation and enforcement costs passed on to grocers and the consumers. The initiative's language invites abuse."[30]

The Press-Enterprise: "Prop. 37 is the wrong approach to addressing the merits or dangers of genetically engineered food. Whatever its intent, this badly written, logically muddled initiative stands to do more mischief than good."[31]

The Redding Record Searchlight: "But as written, Proposition 37 would create a fertile new field of litigation. Retailers would be mainly responsible for ensuring the proper labeling of the products they sell, overseen by the state Department of Public Health, but private lawyers and activists would have the power to sue over alleged violations and collect their costs and fees — even if nobody's suffered any damages. More work for creative plaintiff's lawyers and more hassles for businesses? That is not what California needs."[32]

The Sacramento Bee: "Proposition 37 is a classic example of an initiative that shouldn't be on the ballot. It is an overreach, is ambiguous, and would open the way for countless lawsuits against retailers who sell food that might lack the proper labeling."[33]

The San Bernardino Sun: "The most concerning aspect of Prop. 37 is its method of 'enforcement.' It allows every member of the public to become an enforcer, dropping lawsuits if they only suspect noncompliance but have no evidence...What a nightmare scenario for grocers small and large who, under the terms of the initiative, would have to keep reams of paperwork certifying that all the food they sell is properly labeled as to which might contain genetically modified organisms or not."[34]

The San Diego Union-Tribune: "Should genetically modified food be labeled and face more thorough regulation? That is a completely valid question, one that should be the focus of congressional hearings and possible federal legislation. It is not, however, an issue that should be addressed via a weakly crafted state ballot proposition whose leading donor appears to stand to gain from its passage."[35]

The San Francisco Chronicle: "Prop. 37 is fraught with vague and problematic provisions that could make it costly for consumers and a legal nightmare for those who grow, process or sell food."[36]


The Santa Cruz Sentinel: "Citizens would be empowered to sue grocers they believe to be selling unlabeled GE foods, without needing to prove any damages. Clearly, this provision would create even more lawsuits. And who would this benefit? Lawyers."[38]

The Ventura County Star: "Such a law would create mistrust and confusion about the foods that Californians eat."[39]

The Victorville Daily Press: "Proposition 37 is, at bottom, another means of adding income to those lawyers — and they seem to be legion — who seek remuneration by bringing suit under what would otherwise be frivolous circumstances."[40]

Polling informationSee also: Polls, 2012 ballot measures

A USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll was conducted from September 17-23, 2012.[41]

Jayson L. Lusk and Brandon R. McFadden from Oklahoma State University conducted a survey from September 20-27, 2012. The survey collected responses from 822 likely voters and found 76.8% intend to vote in favor of Proposition 37. The study found that possible increases in food prices slightly diminish support. Additionally, the study measured the effect of advertisements used in media campaigns by supporters and opponents of the proposition and found that the opponent advertisement was more effective in swaying likely voters.[42]

Path to the ballot 


James Wheaton submitted a letter requesting a ballot title for Version #11-0071 on November 9, 2011. 

Wheaton submitted a letter requesting a ballot title for Version #11-0099 on December 20, 2011. 

The ballot title and ballot summary for Version #11-0071 was issued by the Attorney General of California's office on January 5, 2012. The issue date for Version #11-0099 was February 14, 2012. 

504,760 valid signatures were required for qualification purposes. 

The 150-day circulation deadline for #11-0071 was June 4, 2012, while the 150-day deadline for Version #11-0099 was July 13, 2012. 

Supporters filed about 970,000 signatures in early May on Version #11-0099.[43]

The measure was certified for the November 6, 2012 ballot on June 11, 2012. 

Cost of signature collection: 

The cost of collecting the signatures to qualify Proposition 37 for the ballot came to $1,463,968. 


Lawsuits 

Analysis lawsuit 

Supporters of Proposition 37 filed a lawsuit in Sacramento Superior Court on August 9, 2012. The lawsuit was successful. The purpose of the lawsuit was to force the California Secretary of State to revise the state's "impartial analysis" of Proposition 37 that appears in the state's official voter guide. 

The correction asked for by Proposition 37 supporters, and ordered by the court, amounts to the change of one word. Specifically, the court ordered that the word "some" replace the word "all" in this sentence: "Given the way the measure is written, there is a possibility that these restrictions would be interpreted by the courts to apply to some processed foods regardless of whether they are genetically engineered." (In the actual voter guide, the word some will not appear in underlined bold form.)[44]

External links 


Basic information: 

















Proposition 37 on California Choices (sponsored by Next 10, IGS at UC Berkeley, the UC San Diego Political Science Department, the Bill Lane Center for the American West at Stanford, and the Center for CA Studies at Sac State) 


Supporters: 







Opponents: 





Additional reading: 




Source: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_37,_Mandatory_Labeling_of_Genetically_Engineered_Food_(2012)

SUMMARY


Bottom line, the huge monopolies that control the global food supply and profit from it, put out enough propoganda that people who were not informed voted against their own interest and health, in order to continue something that is a hazard to public health, animal health, the environment, insects, and more.

WHAT YOU CAN DO; ENDORSE, LEARN, TRANSFORM, DONATE, SHARE, SUPPORT, SPONSOR, CONNECT, COMMENT, AND/OR COLLABORATE

DONATE

Please help AGRP get this news out... thanks for your generous and very appreciated support! What you support grows and expands. What you withhold support from shrinks, shrivels and disappears. Even .50 cents per month is a great help. What is teaching the science of sustainable health worth?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Donate To A Green Road Project; Help Dr. Goodheart Teach How To Make A Positive Difference For Seven Future Generations Of Children, Animals, Plants And The Planet

TRANSLATE

Click to Translate; 60 languages - German, French, Russian, Spanish

JOIN THE NETWORK OF OTHER ACTIVISTS; PLUG INTO AGRP


* Join the AGR Network. Forward this or any other article by clicking on the social media facebook, google plus and/or twitter buttons below any AGRP article. The first step for activists is to bring awareness of an issue to the public, by being informed yourself. Which news and information network do you prefer to plug into and network with?








 Email AGRP

RSS Feed

Subscribe to; A Green Road Project Magazine, monthly issues
It is easy to join the AGRP network, and your email will never be rented, sold or shared.

Subscribe/sign up, give feedback, or offer news tips or story ideas by sending an email to agreenroad@gmail.com . Subscribe by typing the word subscribe in the subject line.

COPYRIGHT

Wayne Dyer - What You Think, You Become (Wayne Dyer Meditation)

"Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, "ALLOWANCES ARE MADE FOR FAIR USE" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute, that otherwise might be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use." For more info go to:www.lawcornel.edu/uscode.

Copyright protected material on this website is used in accordance with 'Fair Use', for the purpose of study, review or critical analysis, and will be removed at the request of the copyright owner(s). Please read Notice and Procedure for Making Claims of Copyright Infringement.

WHAT YOU CAN DO: SHARE THIS ARTICLE

A Green Road; Teaching the Science of Sustainable Health. 

Keep asking - what works for 7 future generations without causing harm? 

Support AGR and share this article via by copying and pasting title and url into;

Website and contact page

Index, Table Of Contents

End

Why was 45 Million Spent By Huge Corporations To Defeat A GMO Labeling Law, Compared To  8 million Donated By Average People, Non Profits Supporting Labeling GMO's? California Proposition 37, Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food Voting Results and Analysis 
at