The Zeroes: Who Is Funding the Anti-GMO Labeling?

Seeking to crush a groundswell movement in America to label genetically modified foods, a small group of multi-billion-dollar pesticide, biotech and Big Food corporations have poured nearly $17 million into Colorado in September and October 2014 to try to defeat Proposition 105, a grassroots voter initiative to label GMO foods that has raised less than $1 million. These out-of-state corporations are literally outspending the underdog pro-labeling side by more than 20 to 1. Who are these corporations trying to buy our elections and keep Americans in the dark about GMOs?

Please see a more complete list below, however, just 15 corporations, including Monsanto, DuPont, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Kraft, Land O'Lakes, General Mills, Hershey, J.M. Smucker, Bimbo Bakeries, Dow, Kellogg, and Conagra, are responsible for more than $15 million of the $16.7 million total contributed to try to defeat the Colorado GMO labeling bill.

Baby formula makers don't want moms to know their products are full of GMOs.

Also of particular note among the anti-labeling donors are Abbot Nutrition and Mead Johnson, corporations that make nutritional formulas for infants and the elderly – companies that do not want mandatory GMO labeling on their packaging.

In contrast, the underdog Right to Know Colorado campaign has raised less than $1 million in cash and pledges, mostly through small business donations along with hundreds of $5, $10, and $25 contributions to the Yes on 105 campaign from primarily Colorado citizens.

The Zeros: Multinational Biotech Seed, Chemical and Big Food Corporations and the Amounts They Have Donated to Defeat Prop 105 to Label GMOs in Colorado*

Monsanto, $4.7 million DuPont/Pioneer, $3.04 million Pepsico, $1.65 million Coca-Cola, $1.1 million Kraft Foods, $1.03 million Land O'Lakes, $900,000 General Mills, $820,000 Target Enterprises, $500,000 The Hershey Co., $380,000 J.M. Smucker Co., $345,000 Dow Agrosciences, a Dow Chemical Company, $300,000 Bimbo Bakeries, $270,000 Kellogg Co., $250,000 Conagra Foods, $250,000 Flowers Food Inc., $250,000 Smithfield Foods, $200,000 Abbot Nutrition, $190,000 Cargill Inc., $135,000 Grocery Manufacturer's Association, $101,400 Hormel Foods, $85,000 Ocean Spray Cranberries, $80,000 Bumble Bee Foods, $50,000 Mead Johnson, $50,000 Shearer's Foods, $35,000 Welch's, $35,000 Knouse Foods, $25,000 Sunny Delight Beverage Co., $25,000 Biotechnology Industry Organization, $14,600 Niagara Bottling, $10,000

 * Source: Colorado Secretary of State Elections Division, reporting as of Oct. 27, 2014:  http://tracer.sos.colorado.gov/PublicSite/SearchPages/CommitteeDetail.aspx?OrgID=26735

Prop 37: A Battle Lost, A Movement Just Begun

Originally published on Nov. 8, 2012 in Supply Side Community by Virgo Publishing. Once a diversified industry comprising hundreds of independent producers, in less than 20 years, ownership of nearly 90% of the global agricultural seed industry has been consolidated into a handful of multinational chemical pesticide companies, including Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, Dow and DuPont.

These same names, the dominant forces in getting their genetically engineered crops into more than 80% of all processed foods, and in selling the pesticides that go along with their patented crops, are also familiar as the leading contributors to the No on 37 campaign, which poured nearly $50 million into killing Proposition 37, the California Right to Know Ballot Initiative to Label Genetically Engineered Foods, this past election day.

Outspending a grassroots Yes on 37 campaign by 6 to 1, biotech and multinational food corporations bankrolled $1.5 million a day during the month of October to inundate the California voter with a deluge of deceptive television, radio and direct mail advertising to defeat Prop 37. Monsanto alone sank more than $7.5 million into killing the initiative, nearly as much as was raised overall by the Yes on 37 campaign to label GMO foods.

The Prop 37 ballot measure was narrowly defeated in the statewide election by a margin of 52% vs. 48%, however, the campaign to label genetically modified foods accomplished a lot in going toe to toe with the chemical companies and multinationals who sought to suppress the consumer’s right to know. Yet, the defeat of Prop 37 is a clear example of the power of corporate money to buy elections in the age of “Citizens United” and unlimited campaign contributions, despite a heroic grassroots effort by the Yes on 37 campaign.

With a coalition of more than 3,800 endorsers, including farm and labor groups, consumer, health and trade associations, organic and non-GMO food and nutritional supplement companies, physicians and healthcare advocates, and more than 10,000 volunteers, the Prop 37 campaign to pass the GMO labeling initiative was successful in raising more than $8 million, and in coordinating a massive awareness-building and get-out-the-vote campaign that has put GMO labeling squarely into the national conversation. Now, post election, the battle to label GMOs will continue via a ballot initiative in Washington State in 2013, and on the national front through JustLabelIt.org, which will continue to pressure FDA and legislators in Washington, DC, for federal labeling of GMOs in food.

Devil Was in (Misinterpreting) the Details Prop 37’s overarching goal was to label foods sold in California supermarkets that contained genetically engineered ingredients. Contrary to the biotech opposition’s relentless argument that it would raise food costs by up to $400 per year, the fact is that there is insignificant additional cost in adding words to the label that say “Contains” or “May Contain Genetically Engineered Ingredients.” From then on, it’s up to the food producer to decide to use GMO ingredients or not. All Prop 37 would have required them to do is to label it. And with a grace period of 18-months allowed under the bill, food producers could easily transition to a newly printed label at little added cost.

The natural products industry was also divided over Prop 37 by varying interpretations and misinterpretations of the use of the term “natural” under Prop 37 ballot language, exacerbated by propaganda from the opposition, which claimed that no processed foods could be called natural. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In essence, under the initiative, if a food producer were to include GMO ingredients in a processed food product, they would not be able call that product “natural.” However, if a food producer can demonstrate that no GMO ingredients were used, either through certificates (e.g., organic, Non-GMO Project Verified) or affidavits from suppliers, then they can call their product “natural” all they want. Period.

This misinterpretation, despite the recommendations of a number of attorneys who issued legal briefs on the subject, ultimately lead to an unfortunate endorsement by the Natural Products Association of No on 37, thus siding the nutritional supplement industry’s leading trade association with DuPont, Dow and Monsanto against the consumer’s right to know.

Losing sight of the forest through the trees, the NPA, with a mission since 1936 to promote the highest quality health food products and protect the consumer’s right to know, missed the mark. Getting hung up in misinterpreted details, NPA and some other supplement and natural foods producers actually advocated against Prop 37, thus hurting fundraising efforts and the vote among a core market segment that should, above all, be protecting the consumer’s right to know – a cornerstone mission of the natural and organic products industry.

Fortunately, the Organic Trade Association’s board of directors, seeing the overall importance of the initiative in protecting the integrity of our food system, galvanized much of the organic industry by endorsing Prop 37 and publicly advocating in favor of the Yes on 37 campaign. OTA remains committed to federal GMO labeling requirements, as well.

Consumers Are Getting Smarter About GMOs Yet, Prop 37 revealed to core consumers and organic advocates that a number of leading organic brands are actually owned by parent companies that contributed millions of dollars to defeat the GMO labeling measure, while their organic brands profited from offering non-GMO options. This has resulted in a lot of negative comments and backlash from consumers in the social media about these wholly owned organic brands, negative publicity and word of mouth that will require much effort to repair. The trouble is, these organic subsidiary brands remained largely silent during the entire campaign, despite numerous appeals to support Prop 37.

Prop 37 also revealed that just because a product calls itself “natural” doesn’t mean that there are no genetically engineered ingredients in the product. In walking the aisles of Natural Products Expo East recently, I was dismayed to see a number of food and supplement companies displaying products that contain genetically engineered ingredients, yet seeking to profit by calling their products “natural.”

More than 90% of consumers surveyed in America say they want labeling of genetically modified foods. Prop 37 furthered this issue not only in California, but also across the US and the world, where many watched the outcome, including natural and organic industry leaders from some of the 61 countries where GMO labeling is required.

Food producers who use GMOs yet profit by calling their products natural, or supplement producers who don’t take a stand on GMO ingredient standards, will ultimately be on the wrong side of history. Prop 37 failed because large money interests massively outspent a grassroots ballot initiative and employed negative, deceptive advertising to obfuscate the truth.

But just as marriage equality finally garnered victories in this past week’s election after failing in numerous states over recent years, the movement toward federal labeling of genetically engineered foods will ultimately succeed. Prop 37 was but the beginning.

Steven Hoffman, Managing Director of Compass Natural Marketing, a full service marketing, business development, PR and communications agency based in Boulder, CO, served on the Prop 37 campaign Steering Committee, and directed fundraising and outreach efforts on behalf of Prop 37 to the natural, organic and sustainable products community.

Say it Ain't So, Mr. President: Tell Me You Didn't Cave on GMOs!

Source: Pexels

Commentary by Steven Hoffman Update: In the second deregulation of GMO crops in a week, on February 4, the USDA announced it will now allow farmers to begin planting “Roundup-Ready” GMO sugar beets in order to avoid a “shortage of U.S. sugar.” This decision, released to the media on a Friday at the end of the business day—a key tactical PR move when you don’t want media attention—is in defiance of a court order made by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White banning the planting of GMO sugar beets until a study of their environmental impact can be done, according to reports in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.

Boulder, CO (February 7, 2011) – The USDA on January 27 announced it would allow the planting of genetically modified alfalfa without any restriction or labeling requirements.

Since then, the organic industry has been up in arms. Alfalfa is the nation’s fourth largest crop and a prodigious pollinator, and as such, it is all but guaranteed that organic alfalfa crops will become genetically contaminated, which could be particularly threatening to organic dairy producers who rely on alfalfa as feed for their cows.

Now, it is reported that the Obama administration itself appears to have used this issue as a trading card to further its own agenda, allowing GMO alfalfa to become completely deregulated, according to a commentary by New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd and a January 27 article in the Wall Street Journal.

Calling the proposal to regulate GMO alfalfa—originally promised by USDA secretary of agriculture Tom Vilsack—overly “burdensome” to business, the Obama administration, led by departing presidential advisor David Axelrod, “abandoned a proposal to restrict planting of genetically engineered alfalfa,” says the Wall Street Journal.

Say it ain’t so, Barack!

The organic industry, in my respectful opinion, should sue the USDA for putting an unreasonable burden on our own market—the only agricultural system in the United States requiring a paper trail from seed to shelf. Now, organic producers are at huge risk that their organic seed stock will become polluted by GMO alfalfa and other pollinating GMO crops, including GMO corn and sugar beets, significantly threatening their ability to produce certified organic product.

The organic industry may not know it is at war with the biotech seed industry, but the biotech industry definitely knows it is at war with organic. This time, through shrewd political lobbying with USDA and the White House, biotech agriculture has won a decisive victory in the continuing onslaught of genetically engineered foods, controlled by only a handful of multinational corporations.

In criticizing the USDA on loosening restrictions on GMO alfalfa, Sen. Patrick Leahy, author of the original Organic Foods Production Act, called it “a big payday for the giant firms that pushed for this rollback,” according to the Burlington Free Press.

Before we lose this battle completely, we must press all our government and business representatives all the way up to the president to push for required labeling of GMO ingredients, just like in Europe, Japan and elsewhere. Over there, GMOs are in hardly any grocery products because they must be indicated on the label—and when they are, nobody buys them.

Here in America, the pro-biotech lobby has been very successful in that there is no labeling requirement at all for GMO ingredients in foods. As a result, most consumers don’t even know that GMO ingredients are in 80% of conventional grocery products, and that virtually 90% of all the corn, soybeans, cotton and sugar beet crops in the U.S. are from GMO seed.

If consumers knew their foods were derived from genetically engineered ingredients, no one would buy them! That is how the biotech seed and herbicide companies have the advantage—and they’ve known that since GMOs were first introduced. “If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it,” said Norman Braksick, president of Asgrow Seed Co., a subsidiary of Monsanto, in a 1994 article in the Kansas City Star. Even then, the biotech lobby knew how consumers would react. Their success is a direct result of violating the consumer’s right to know regarding labeling of what is in their food.

There is more than enough science to show that GMO foods are risky to human, animal and plant health and the environment. The use of toxic, synthetic herbicides has increased by nearly 400 million pounds due to GMO agriculture, and superweeds are already becoming resistant to Monsanto’s Roundup, the primary herbicide used in GMO agriculture. Because of that, GMO farmers are now being recommended to use even more toxic herbicides.

I urge you to read balanced perspectives on this issue, and then write to your congressperson, senators and also to the President to require the labeling of GMO ingredients in foods. The organic industry and organic consumers need to speak loudly on this issue.

Just remember, the same lobby that brought you GMO food had this to say:  “Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job,” said Phil Angell, Monsanto’s director of corporate communications, in a 1998 New York Times article.

And now, it’s only getting worse. Urge organic industry leaders that there is no compromise with GMOs in our food system. It will only backfire on the organic industry. Heck, where are organic dairy farmers going to get organic alfalfa in 10 years, maybe even only five? Let’s see what the cost of organic milk is then. That would be another victory for the biotech lobby – to continue to make organic foods out of reach of most folks’ budgets.

Don’t think that ain’t in their plan.

About Compass Natural - Your Guide to the Natural, Organic & LOHAS Market

Compass Natural LLC, established in 2002 and based in Boulder, CO, brings 30 years’ experience in natural and organic products sales, marketing, public relations, communications, research, event planning, and strategic industry guidance to businesses with interests in the $290 billion market for natural, organic, sustainable, and socially responsible products and services. Visit www.compassnatural.com or call 303.807.1042, info@compassnatural.com.

Article also featured in Elephant Journal: http://www.elephantjournal.com/2011/02/say-it-aint-so-mr-president-tell-me-you-didnt-cave-on-gmo-alfalfa/

© 2011. All rights reserved.

Resources:

Non-GMO Project: http://www.nongmoproject.org/2011/01/29/team-organic-will-never-surrender-to-monsanto-now-we-continue-the-fight-together/

Institute for Responsible Technology: http://www.responsibletechnology.org/news/1092

Chews Wise: http://www.chewswise.com/chews/2011/01/vilsack-gm-alfalfa.html

Grist: http://www.grist.org/article/2011-01-31-media-reports-white-house-pressure-stomped-on-vilsack-over-gmo-a

Whole Foods Market Blog: http://blog.wholefoodsmarket.com/2011/01/no-regulations-ge-alfalfa/#more-14431

Organic Consumers Association: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_22449.cfm

Maureen Dowd, New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/opinion/30dowd.html?ref=maureendowd

Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703399204576108601430251740.html?mod=wsj_share_twitter#printMode

New York Times, on GMO Sugar Beets: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/05/business/05beet.html?src=busln

Rodale: http://www.rodale.com/gmo-alfalfa

Burlington Free Press: http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20110128/NEWS03/110128011/Leahy-criticizes-USDA-ruling-on-genetically-modified-alfalfa