Corporate cash sways voters on GMO foods

Monsanto and the junk food industry team up to trash GM labeling.

Item 1 is a MUST WATCH video, taken from The Rachel Maddow Show. Highly recommended.

The industry's playbook is revealed in item 3: swamp state lebeling initiatives with corporate cash while lobbying at the federal level for purely voluntary GMO labels and destroying the rights of states to order mandatory labels.

1.Corporate cash sways voters on GMO foods

2.What really happened to GMO labeling in Washington

3.Food Companies Claim Victory Against Labeling Initiative in Washington State

4.Washington state grassroots leaders call for boycott of PBS station KTCS 9

EXTRACTS: They dumped more than $22 million into fighting against GMO labeling. Exactly $550 of the “no” campaign’s dollars came from inside Washington State. This was a classic example of out-of-state corporate interests pouring massive money into maintaining control of our food systems. (item 2)

Their strategy, laid out in partly redacted documents filed with the Washington attorney general’s office, aims for a federal ban on mandatory labeling, which would frustrate labeling efforts percolating in some 20 states....

“It’s no surprise they would want a federal solution that will pre-empt states from labeling,” said Michele R. Simon, a public health lawyer and food blogger who obtained the documents through a public records request and shared them with The New York Times.

“But they want to have their cake and eat it, too,” Ms. Simon said, “by stopping the states without having to do anything at the federal level.” (item 3)

---

---

1. Corporate cash sways voters on GMO foods

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/corporate-cash-sways-voters-on-gmo-foods-61888067621

Rachel Maddow shows how the power of corporate opponents of GMO food labeling can cause a popular initiative to lose at the polls.

Watch the video here: http://on.msnbc.com/1dPdEfD

---

---

2. What really happened to GMO labeling in Washington

Ocean Robbins

Food Revolution Network, November 6 2013

http://www.foodrevolution.org/blog/gmo-labeling-update/

Monsanto and the junk food industry teamed up to shatter Washington state records. They dumped more than $22 million into fighting against GMO labeling. Exactly $550 of the “no” campaign’s dollars came from inside Washington State. This was a classic example of out-of-state corporate interests pouring massive money into maintaining control of our food systems.

And based on returns so far, it looks like a campaign full of misleading ads and laundered money may have done the trick.

There are still hundreds of thousands of votes to be counted, and it will be several days before we have the final results. But with over half of the ballots counted, the “no” side was winning with over 54% of the vote.

The pattern in Washington has been very similar to what happened to California’s proposition 37 a year ago. Early polling found the initiative way ahead – consistent with national polls which find that a huge majority of the American public supports labeling of GMOs.

But then the misleading ads started pouring in.

The anti-labeling ads that blanketed Washington’s air waves recycled the same themes, and even some of the same content, that had been found most effective in California. They also included some extremely dubious statements.

For example, the “no” ads told consumers that this initiative would increase food prices by an average of $350-$400 per family per year. But Consumers Union (publisher of Consumer Reports) determined that this statement was untrue, and that this initiative would not raise the price of food.

The “no” ads told Washington voters that Initiative 522 contained all sorts of exemptions and special interest loopholes. And it is true that there were exemptions in the law for restaurant and medical foods. But these exemptions, far from being special interest loopholes, are consistent with generally recognized labeling standards practiced nationally and globally. Are we really supposed to believe that the “no” campaign thought the trouble with I-522 was that it was not strict enough?

The largest single donor to the “no” campaign, the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), is currently facing a money laundering lawsuit from the state Attorney General. They channeled more than $11 million into this effort, and tried to hide their actual donors from the public. It would appear that companies like Coke and Pepsi wanted to keep us all in the dark, but did not want to face a consumer backlash so they tried to use the GMA as a cover.

The attorney general’s lawsuit generated some degree of disclosure, but the damage from millions of dollars in outside spending of laundered money had been done, and the legal proceedings, which seek punitive damages, will not be complete until months after the election is long finished.

What the GMA’s shenanigans tell us is that a growing body of companies fear consumer backlash if they oppose GMO labeling. Monsanto may not care, since they don’t sell direct to the consumer anyways. But with a lot of “natural” brands like Odwalla, Kashi, and Naked Juice owned by companies like Coke, Kellogg, and Pepsi, there is a growing fear that boycotts could hit their bottom line.

The non-GMO certified food sector has grown from nothing to $3.5 billion in sales in just the last three years. Whole Foods has reported a sales bump of 15% to 30% when products are certified non-GMO.

Consumer pressure, then, may be able to accomplish what ballot initiatives have not yet achieved. If non-GMO products can establish a stronger footing in the marketplace, and if companies (including “natural” brands) face boycotts when they or their parent corporations attempt to keep consumers in the dark, then the tide could turn very quickly.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/bytes/ob355.htm

Here’s an infographic highlighting some of the top companies that opposed, and supported, GMO labeling in the state of Washington: http://on.fb.me/HIkNUn

Labeling initiatives are underway in at least 20 more states. Monsanto and the junk food industry may have managed to keep Washington voters in the dark a little longer. But it is going to be hard keep convincing the American people that we don’t want to know how our food was produced.

“Win or lose, this is a long war,” said David Bronner, CEO of Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, the initiative’s biggest donor. “Labeling is inevitable.”

Ocean Robbins is co-author of Voices of the Food Revolution, and serves as adjunct professor for Chapman University and CEO and co-host (with best-selling author John Robbins) of the 100,000+ member Food Revolution Network.

---

---

3. Food Companies Claim Victory Against Labeling Initiative in Washington State

STEPHANIE STROM

New York Times, November 6 2013

www.nytimes.com/2013/11/07/us/politics/food-companies-claim-victory-against-labeling-initiative-in-washington-state.html

Some of the nation’s major food companies declared victory on Wednesday over an initiative in Washington State that would have required labeling of some foods that contain biotech ingredients, although supporters of labeling held out hope that hundreds of thousands of uncounted votes might yet turn the tide.

With roughly 990,000 votes counted, Washington residents appeared to reject mandatory labeling of genetically engineered products, with 55 percent voting against the initiative and 45 percent for it.

The Washington secretary of state has not declared a result for the initiative, because roughly 300,000 mail-in ballots remain to be counted. But the food companies contend that the outstanding ballots will not affect the outcome.

Major grocery suppliers considered this their second win against such individual state proposals, amid their three-year plan to try to stymie labeling efforts across the country.

Their strategy, laid out in partly redacted documents filed with the Washington attorney general’s office, aims for a federal ban on mandatory labeling, which would frustrate labeling efforts percolating in some 20 states. Genetically engineered ingredients are found in more than 70 percent of foods sold in grocery stores.

“It’s no surprise they would want a federal solution that will pre-empt states from labeling,” said Michele R. Simon, a public health lawyer and food blogger who obtained the documents through a public records request and shared them with The New York Times.

“But they want to have their cake and eat it, too,” Ms. Simon said, “by stopping the states without having to do anything at the federal level.”

In Washington, the Grocery Manufacturers Association spent about $11 million donated by food companies that include PepsiCo, Hormel and Bumble Bee, meaning that the food industry collectively contributed even more to defeat the labeling effort than did Monsanto, which sells genetically engineered seeds.

“In two consecutive years, there have been two different ballot measures in two different states that have been rejected by voters,” said Louis Finkel, executive vice president for government affairs at the grocery association, referring to a labeling effort in California last fall that failed. “We should understand now that labeling is not a political issue.”

Mr. Finkel said the group had been working to educate members of Congress about the problems companies would face if they had to deal with 50 different labeling requirements across the country, and to remind them that the Food and Drug Administration is responsible for food labeling policy.

According to the documents filed in Washington State, the association’s board “has directed G.M.A. staff to seek federal pre-emption with no mandatory label” as part of its broader strategy, called “Defense of Brand,” against proposals by states.

The trade group’s plan was adopted in February after companies spent tens of millions of dollars defeating the California labeling measure.

The goals included trying to avoid “an endless cycle of expensive campaign efforts” to defeat labeling efforts around the country, and to promote their case after California’s battle stirred criticism among some consumers.

Saying it was indeed committed to “transparency and disclosure,” the association created a website, factsaboutgmo.org, that provides consumers with links to some research and opinion on the issue of biotech foods. Mr. Finkel said it would be rolling out other efforts to explain genetic engineering and its role in foods.

Last winter, as the trade group started the Defense of Brand fund, it kept the names of donor members underwriting the strategy, like Coca-Cola and Land O’Lakes, under wraps. “The creation of this fund would allow for greater planning for the funds required to combat certain threats and better shield companies from attack that provide funding for specific efforts,” Pam Bailey, the chief executive of the association, wrote in a memo to its board on Feb. 18.

The association also removed its members’ names from its website. “This was more about finding a mechanism to fund multiple engagements than it was about hiding,” Mr. Finkel said.

But that plan ran afoul of Washington State laws on public disclosure, and the group eventually revealed the companies contributing to the Defense of Brand fight there. And some companies that contributed to the fight against the California labeling initiative — including Mars, Goya and even Syngenta, which sells biotech seeds — sat on the sidelines in Washington.

“As states continue to debate this issue, Mars Inc. will neither oppose nor fund opposition of GMO labeling proposals at the state or federal levels, where those initiatives seek only to inform consumers of whether a product contains GMOs,” Mars said in a statement, referring to genetically modified organisms. Mars contributed nearly $500,000 to the California battle.

Whole Foods will require labeling of all products it sells in its stores in 2015, as more grocery retailers are pressing companies on the issue. Mark Lynas, an advocate for genetic engineering who was the keynote speaker at an association conference this summer, recently reversed his position and said he supports labeling.

---

---

4. Washington state grassroots leaders call for boycott of PBS station KTCS 9

Nancy Swanson

Seattle Examiner, November 6 2013

http://www.examiner.com/article/washington-state-grassroots-leaders-call-for-boycott-of-pbs-ktcs-9-over-airing-o

Today the Washington State Grassroots Coalition for Yes on I-522 are calling on their members and supporters of the Washington state Initiative 522 (label GMOs in food) to cancel their subscriptions to the Public Broadcast Station KTCS 9 and to refuse to donate during their telethons. And tell them why.

As reported here last week, KCTS 9 in Seattle changed their programming schedule to air a one-sided Quest program on genetically engineered (GE) crops called, “Next Meal: Engineering Food,” on Wednesday,Oct. 30, 7:30 PM. This program was originally scheduled to air on Wednesday, November 13 at 7:30 PM. Instead it was switched with the program, “Lake Tahoe: Can We Save It?”.

The programming change was made despite hundreds of calls and e-mails in protest from the Washington State Grassroots Coalition for Yes on I-522. Then, despite the article, “Et tu, PBS?” which clearly outlined why the program is biased propaganda, and despite hundreds more calls and e-mails, KTCS 9 aired it again on Monday, November 4 at 7:00 PM on the eve of the election.

There were no other PBS stations airing the Quest program this week. Most significantly, KCTS 9 broadcasted this one-sided program on the purported safety of GMOs, while every other PBS station in America apparently broadcasted “Antiques Roadshow.” Public Broadcast Station listings for Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Denver, Chicago, Boston, New York, Miami, and Atlanta did NOT air the Quest program when KCTS 9 did its broadcasts. Why only in Washington? And why the switch?

Executive Director of Programming, Randy Brinson insisted that it was his decision to change the programming and that it had nothing to do with the election, though he has since regretted his decision. If it was his decision, and his decision alone, which he came to regret, then why not change it in the face of public outrage and the appearance of impropriety?

The airing of this program, without also airing an alternative viewpoint on the eve of an election, appears to violate section V of the KTCS 9 articles of incorporation, “No substantial part of the activities of this corporation shall be devoted to attempting to influence legislation by propaganda or otherwise and the corporation shall not participate in, or intervene in any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office."

Mr. Brinson also insisted that there were no underwriters for this programming change and KTCS 9 received no compensation from anyone related to the airing of the Quest episode. T. Matthew Phillips, Attorney-at-Law, has filed a complaint with the Washington State Attorney General's (WSAG) office stating that, “I believe KCTS violates its charter by unlawfully participating in a political campaign.” In addition he petitioned the Attorney General to investigate the matter and to subpoena the financial records to determine if there was compensation made to KTCS 9.

Anyone can file a complaint with the WSAG's office and the Grassroots Coalition urges you to do so. As one activist so aptly put it, “KTCS 9 has taken the 'P' out of PBS, leaving us with the BS.” We are quite used to that by now, we just didn't expect it from this quarter.

See also: http://www.examiner.com/article/et-tu-pbs