California’s Proposition 37, which would have required labeling of GMO foods, died a painful death last night. Despite polling in mid-September showing an overwhelming lead, the measure lost by 53 to 47 percent, which is relatively close considering the No side’s tactics.
Timing of AAAS statement on GMO labeling is highly suspicious
With about a week to go before California voters head to the polls to decide the fate of Proposition 37, which would require GMO foods to be labeled, I expected an already ugly campaign to get even uglier.
But the latest gift to the No on 37 campaign smells especially bad. Last week, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS – goes by “Triple A-S”) released this “statement” on GMO labeling that sounds like it was drafted by Monsanto. The statement ends with the non-scientific but very quote-worthy conclusion that “mandating such a label can only serve to mislead and falsely alarm consumers.” While Prop 37 is never mentioned, what purpose could the timing serve other than persuading Californians to vote no on the measure?
Each election season, proponents and opponents of the various initiatives on the California ballot hope for the state’s major newspaper endorsements. While you can’t expect every paper to endorse your side, Proposition 37, which would require labeling of foods produced using genetic engineering, seems to have had a string of incredibly bad luck. So incredible, in fact, that the reasoning behind several California newspaper endorsements of a No vote has me scratching my head.
Read rest at Center for Food Safety…
As I recently explained, University of California at Davis agriculture researchers are heavily influenced by the funding they receive from Monsanto and other big biotech players. This conflict of interest explains in part why we are seeing several UC Davis professors author reports and op-eds opposing California’s Proposition 37, which would require labeling of foods containing GMOs.
I recently wrote about how two reports out of the University of California at Davis made questionable claims regarding Proposition 37, a California initiative that would require GMO foods to be labeled. The author of the one of the articles, Colin Carter, wrote to inform me that his article “was an independent analysis” and that he “did not receive any funds from the No on Proposition 37 campaign.”
Even if you don’t live in California, you have probably heard of Proposition 37, which if passed in November, would require labeling of foods containing genetically engineered ingredients. The state-wide initiative has been causing quite a stir, in part because of the companies that are opposing the measure. Read rest at New Hope …
Last week I wrote about how the No on 37 campaign – the California ballot initiative that would require labeling of GMOs foods – is relying on experts with questionable credentials to do its bidding. Over the past few weeks, two expert reports have emerged from the No campaign that also warrant closer scrutiny.
Last month, I wrote about how the food industry has hired powerful consultants with ties to Big Tobacco to oppose California’s Proposition 37, which would require labeling of all genetically engineered foods. Now, the No on 37 campaign (ironically named the “Stop the Deceptive Labeling Scheme”) is putting up alleged scientific experts to do its bidding, once again taking a page from the tobacco industry playbook.
The battle in California over Proposition 37, which would require labeling of foods containing GMOs, is really heating up. Millions of dollars are already being poured into the opposition campaign, with much of it going to former Big Tobacco shills. Over at GMO HQ, Monsanto recently posted this missive called “Taking a Stand: Proposition 37, The California Labeling Proposal,” in which the biotech giant explains why it is opposing the measure (to the tune of $4.2 million so far).
Last week I wrote about why PepsiCo was the largest food maker to donate money to the “No on 37″ campaign, to oppose a California initiative that would require foods containing GMOs to be labeled. New campaign finance reports show just how much hiding the truth is worth. The largest contributions are from biotech giants Dupont Pioneer ($2M) and Bayer Cropscience ($1M). Other contributions include $500K each from Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Nestle, General Mills, and ConAgra. Read this press release from the Yes on 37 campaign for the complete run-down on this latest investment in secrecy from Big Food.
