Skip to content Skip to footer
|

Monsanto, DuPont Spend Millions to Defeat California Genetically Engineered Food Labeling Initiative

(Photo: lyzadanger; Edited: JR / TO)

With biotech giant Monsanto leading the way, big agribusiness firms and food manufacturers have vastly outspent organic food and alternative health firms in an effort to defeat California’s Proposition 37 ballot initiative that would require special labels on foods made with genetically engineered (GE) organisms.

Monsanto’s contribution of $4.2 million to the No on 37 campaign is more than double the $2 million that the supporters of Proposition 37 have raised in total so far. In all, big agriculture firms, food manufacturers and pro-biotech industry groups have raised $25 million to defeat Proposition 37, according to the nonpartisan group Voter’s Edge California.

Chemical giant Dupont, which ranks second to Monsanto in worldwide GE seed sales, has contributed $4 million to defeat the labeling proposition. Pepsico, Coca-Cola, Nestle and the chemical and GE seed manufacturers Bayer and BASF have all contributed $1 million or more.

“These are the same companies that told us that DDT and agent orange are safe,” said Stacy Malkan, spokesperson for the Yes on 37 For Your Right to Know if Your Food Has Been Genetically Engineered campaign committee.

The big food and agriculture companies are squaring off against organic food and health firms such as Nature’s Path ($250,000), Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps ($290,000) and Organic Valley ($50,000). Mercola.com, an alternative health resource web site, tops the list with $800,000 in contributions to the Yes on 37 campaign.

Despite the vast funding disparity, recent polls suggest that a majority of Californian’s want to know if their food contains GE ingredients and support Proposition 37. But that won’t keep the corporate food coalition from trying to sway voters in the coming months.

Malkan said the Proposition 37’s big business opponents are expected to use their vast resources to bombard Californians with “deceptive” TV ads prior 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.

A spokesperson for the No on 37 Stop the Deceptive Food Labeling Scheme campaign did not respond to an inquiry from Truthout prior to publication. On its web site, the group claims that Proposition 37 would increase bureaucracy at the expense of taxpayers and increase food costs for consumers as food companies and farmers update their packaging and deal with lawsuits.

The stakes are high. Now that the vast majority of corn and soybeans grown in the United States are genetically engineered in some way, labeling could have a big impact on what consumers see in the grocery story. California boasts the largest population of consumers in the US, and a victory for GE food labeling there could pave the way for regulatory changes nationwide.

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.

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.”

The biotech industry, however, claims GE crop technology, such as drought-resistant corn, is necessary to feed the world’s growing population.

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.