YES ON 37 Know GMO
Monsanto, Pesticide Companies Spend $5.5 Million More to Defeat Right to Know GMO Labeling Measure; Opposition Funds Total $32 Million
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: : Monday, Sept. 17, 2012
CONTACT: Gary Ruskin (415) 944-7350; email@example.com
Sacramento, Calif.– Monsanto just gave an additional $2.89 million to defeat Proposition 37, which would require labeling of genetically engineered foods in California. Monsanto’s total contribution against Proposition 37 now stands at $7.1 million, according to campaign finance disclosure records filed with the California Secretary of State.
Other major pesticide companies also just made major additional contributions to defeat Proposition 37, including DuPont ($874,800), Dow AgroSciences ($815,200), Bayer CropScience ($381,600), BASF Plant Science ($357,700) and Syngenta ($178,700).
CaliforniaProposition 37, Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food (2012)
If Proposition 37 is approved by voters, it will:
- Require 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.
- Prohibit labeling or advertising such food as “natural.”
- Exempt 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, refers to it as “The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act.”
Prop.37 Blazes Wayfor GMO Labeling
Proposition 37 may make California the first state to label products derived from GMOs.
Published: Sep 19, 2012
Prop. 37: Another example of the perils of the initiative process
September 16, 2012|Michael Hiltzik
There’s scant science and much nonsense in the debate over Propositon 37, would require some food sold in California and produced via genetic engineering to be labeled as such.
Love it or hate it, the one thing you can say for sure aboutCalifornia’s ballot initiative process is that it’s the absolute worst way to craft policy dealing with complex scientific issues.
That doesn’t stop advocates on one side or another from constantly trying, with the result that the public’s understanding of the underlying facts plummets faster than you can say, well, “Proposition 37.”
The food industry’s big problem with genetically engineered food
By Karin Klein
September 7, 2012, 5:30 a.m.
The No on Proposition 37 campaign emailed Thursday to tout a new study by UC Davis professors. It concludes that the proposition on the November ballot to require the labeling of genetically engineered foods would cost the food industry more than a billion dollars and lead to higher food costs from consumers.
The study doesn’t read like the usual, carefully couched work of academics. It’s a spitfire of a report that boldly starts out, “A Costly Regulation with No Benefits.” That sounds more like No on 37 campaign literature than a university study. But wait. This calls for scrolling back to the title page, where it is revealed that “the work for this project was undertaken with partial funding support from No on 37.”
That doesn’t mean the study is without interest for voters. Its top point appears to be that costs will be high because consumers will avoid foods that have the “genetically engineered” label on them, so farms and food companies will go to great lengths to avoid such foods in their offerings. In other words, the No on 37 campaign is praising a study that concedes that food companies have a problem: They might like genetically engineered foods, but they are very aware that many consumers don’t.
Prop 37 would require many foods sold in Californiato be specially labeled if they were “made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways,” according to the California’s official ballot summary. Although several foods will be exempt for a variety of reasons, calling some genetically changed products “natural” will not be allowed. For all the details, read our Prop 37 Cheat Sheet.
No On 37
Stop the Deceptive Food Labeling Scheme
Prop. 37 would add another layer of bureaucracy and red tape for food producers and increase food costs.
Respected scientific and medical organizations throughout the world have concluded that biotech foods are safe.
Trial lawyers would line their pockets by filing frivolous lawsuits at the expense of the taxpayer.
Prop. 37 is full of politically motivated exemptions to its requirements that make no sense.
Prop. 37: genetically altered food fight
Campaign 2012 Proposition 37
Updated 10:17 a.m., Tuesday, August 21, 2012
With big money pouring in to defeat a November state measure requiring food companies to label genetically modified foods, both sides are gearing up for an airwaves war that is expected to pit farmer against farmer to win votes.
Political insiders say the “no” campaign’s recent influx of money – it is up to $25 million, compared with the proponents’ $2.7 million – shows that it is quickly mobilizing and will probably start buying air time for attack ads as early Labor Day.
So far, Monsanto and DuPont, leading producers of genetically engineered seeds, collectively have kicked in more than $8 million to beat Proposition 37. The food and beverage industry – companies such as PepsiCo and NestléUSA – has contributed $10.6 million, according to an analysis by MapLight, a nonpartisan political money tracker.
Prop. 37: WillCaliforniabe first state to label genetically modified food?
Proponents of Prop. 37, which is on the California ballot in November, say consumers have a right to know what kinds of food they are eating. But similar labeling laws have failed in 19 states.
By Daniel B. Wood, Staff writer / August 20, 2012
Proposition 37 inCalifornia: A high-stakes food fight
Posted: 08/24/2012 01:18:12 PM PDT
This one snuck up on everyone,” said Bob Stern, aCaliforniacampaign finance expert. “No one was paying attention, and all of a sudden proponents turned in their signatures. It takes a lot of money to get something on the ballot, but once it’s on the ballot it takes a lot of money to defeat it.”
Stern noted that in 2008,Californiapassed Proposition 2 — which prohibits the close confinement of farm animals like chickens in crates — with 63.5 percent
of the vote. He sees similarities with Proposition 37, saying both are “feel-good” initiatives.
Spending on Proposition 2 was roughly equal. Supporters spent $10.6 million, opponents $8.9 million.