The biggest names in biotechnology and processed food products have spent millions of dollars fighting efforts in Washington and California to label genetically engineered foods, and they are spending big to fight labeling efforts in Congress as well.
In April, Sen. Barbara Boxer, a Democrat from California, and Rep. Peter DeFazio, an Oregon Democrat, introduced companion bills that would reverse the Food and Drug Administration’s two-decade-old policy on labeling and require the agency to clearly label foods that contain genetically engineered ingredients, which are also known as genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Both bills are awaiting consideration in committees.
Since the bills were introduced, key opponents of the state GMO labeling initiatives have reported considerable increases in lobbying expenditures, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
The Grocery Manufacturers of America, a trade group that recently was sued by the state of Washington for concealing donors to the anti-labeling campaign there, reported the highest increase in quarterly lobbying expenditures of any lobbying entity tracked by the watchdog group.
The trade group’s federal lobbying expenditures jumped from $1.2 million in the second quarter of 2013 to more than $7.4 million in the third quarter. Through the first three quarters of 2012, the trade group spent about $2.6 million, compared with the $9.3 million it has spent lobbying Congress so far this year.
The Grocery Manufactures of America also funneled more than $11 million from its members to the campaign opposing GMO labeling in Washington and $2 million to opponents of California’s Proposition 37, a GMO labeling initiative that saw a dramatic drop in support and ultimately failed after big corporations injected millions of dollars into the high-profile campaign.
Voters appear to have rejected Washington’s Initiative 522 by a narrow margin Tuesday, but its supporters have to yet concede, according to wire reports on early election results. The initiative is GMO labeling proponents’ second serious attempt at passing a statewide labeling initiative.
After Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson slapped the Grocery Manufactures of America with a lawsuit, the group voluntarily disclosed the companies it had raised money from to defeat Initiative 522. Familiar names emerged on the list, including Pepsico ($2.4 million), Coca-Cola ($1.5 million) and Nestle ($1.5 million).
On the federal level, Nestle also made the list of firms that reported considerable increases in lobbying expenditures this year. The company’s lobbying costs jumped by 87 percent from the second quarter to the third quarter. Nestle has spent $3.2 million lobbying Congress on GMO labeling and other issues this year.
Biotech giant Monsanto, which pioneered many of the agrichemicals and genetically engineered crops used across the globe, has spent nearly $5.5 million lobbying Congress this year and ranks fourth on the list of firms that reported high increases in lobbying expenses. Monsanto’s lobbying costs jumped from $1.4 million in the second quarter of 2013 to more than $2.4 million in the third quarter, and its lobbying reports name “regulation of agricultural biotechnology products” as a key issue.
Bayer and Dupont, leaders in the pesticide and GMO crops markets, have spent $3.2 million and more than $5.1 million, respectively, on lobbying this year. Bayer AG specifically lobbied on the Senate labeling bill, the Center for Responsive Politics reports.
Monsanto, Bayer, and Dupont also spent millions to fight the labeling initiatives in Washington and California. Monsanto spent $5.3 million in Washington alone.
These companies clearly think the effort to keep GMO labels off of groceries is worth some serious investment. Labeling opponents argue that new labels will create bureaucratic red tape and increase food costs, but labels on food products are updated all the time. They also argue that GMO foods are harmless and no different than conventionally grown foods, so labels would mislead consumers. But when the biggest opponents of labeling are the profit-driven food producers themselves, it appears that they are more worried that GMO labels may lead consumers away from their products.
The question of whether GMO foods – and the chemical-laden industrial agriculture techniques that produce them – are unhealthy for people and the environment is still the subject of hot debate. But the costly battles over labeling in Washington, California and Congress have made it clear that the same companies that compete for customers on grocery store shelves also are ready to compete politically.
Just as Monsanto and purveyors of junk food have come out swinging against GMO labeling, much of the large donations in support of the California and Washington labeling initiatives came from organics, health foods and natural products companies.
Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, which sells soaps made from organic oils, tops the list with $2.3 million of donations to committees supporting GMO labeling in Washington, according to the Organic Consumers Association, which his supports labeling. Nature’s Path, a purveyor of organic and health food products, spent $178,700 in Washington and $660,709 in California.
Thanks to the biotech and processed foods companies, however, the opponents of the Washington initiative have significantly outraised labeling supporters. The No on 522 war chest has grown to nearly $22 million, while proponents raised $7.7 million.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.