by J T Stepleton | 2015-06-01

A multi-million dollar food fight has broken out over whether or not the government should require the labeling of food and beverages produced with genetically modified organisms (GMOs). On the heels of state legislative and legal battles over GMO labeling, the Environmental Working Group just released a report claiming the food and biotechnology industry spent $63.6 million lobbying Congress to oppose GMO labeling, which the Grocery Manufacturers Association says is misleading.

In response to growing interest in this debate, the Institute examined the contributions raised around four recent ballot measure campaigns to require GMO labeling: Proposition 37 in California in 2012, Initiative 522 in Washington in 2013, Measure 92 in Oregon in 2014, and Proposition 105 in Colorado in 2014.

In campaigns devoid of contribution limits, the ballot measure committees built rather large war chests, with money provided predominantly by out-of-state committees, associations, and other non-individual donors. Additionally, most of the campaign money came from the highest echelon of contributors. This is true for both sides of the issue, but it was especially pronounced for opponents of GMO labeling. In the end, money won. Opponents—who raised $89 million more than supporters—successfully defeated all four ballot measures.

Opponents Go All-In

All told, the measures attracted a whopping $138 million, 79 percent of which went to committees fighting GMO labeling. The Institute identified opposing and supporting committees and learned that opponents outraised supporters by more than $30 million in both California and Washington. Supporters raised slightly more than $1 million in Colorado, well short of the $15.3 million pulled in by opponents. Fundraising in Oregon was more competitive, but opposition committees were still operating with $9 million more in the bank.

Figure 1: Contributions to GMO Labeling Ballot Measure Campaigns, 2012-2014

Deep Pocket Donors from Afar

Committees opposed to GMO labeling were financed almost exclusively by a select group of non-individual donors from outside the state where the campaign was being waged. Non-individuals gave more than $113.6 million, 97 percent of which was provided by only 112 out-of-state donors. This small group of contributors each averaged $985,012 in total contributions to the campaigns. All individual donors, on the other hand, gave just $5,076 to these committees.

Table 1: Contributions Opposing GMO Labeling Measures, by Type and Location of Contributor, 2012-2014 INDIVIDUAL DONORS NON-INDIVIDUAL DONORS Location 2012-2014 Total % of Total Location 2012-2014 Total % of Total In-State $2,951 0% In-State $3,326,863 3% Out-of-State $2,125 0% Out-of-State $110,321,349 97% TOTAL $5,076 0% TOTAL $113,648,212 100%

There was more diversity in the financing of pro-GMO labeling committees, but out-of-state entities were still integral. Individuals gave roughly a fifth of the money that went to supporting committees, of which 65 percent crossed state lines. Outside spending by 196 non-individual donors totaled $13.3 million, which is 55 percent of the grand total raised by all supporting committees, with an average contribution of $68,014. In-state non-individual donors gave a hefty $3.5 million.

It should also be noted that, unlike the opposition, committees supporting GMO labeling attracted $2.1 million in small contributions that are exempt from disclosure requirements (unitemized contributions), primarily in Oregon ($1.2 million) and in California ($778,182).

Table 2: Contributions Supporting GMO Labeling Measures, by Type and Location of Contributor, 2012-2014 INDIVIDUAL DONORS NON-INDIVIDUAL DONORS Location 2012-2014 Total % of Total Location 2012-2014 Total % of Total In-State $1,914,635 8% In-State $3,547,460 15% Out-of-State $3,488,101 14% Out-of-State $13,330,699 55% TOTAL $5,402,736 22% TOTAL $16,878,159 69%

The aforementioned trends were fairly consistent across the four campaigns. Individual contributors accounted for no more than 6 percent of fundraising in each state. In-state funding was always modest, but it was more prevalent in California (13 percent) and in Oregon (10 percent), while committees in Colorado and Washington collected only 2 percent and 1 percent of funding from in-state donors, respectively.

Top-Down Financing of the Campaigns

The leading contributors to both sides played a dominant role in several of these campaigns. Ten donors alone gave $83 million to opposition committees, which accounted for 73 percent of the $113.7 million collected altogether. That share increases to 88 percent if one examines the top 20 donors, all of whom gave more than $980,000. Meanwhile, the top 10 donors to supporting committees gave $13.2 million, slightly more than half of the total raised by all committees. Five donors gave $1 million or more to pro-GMO labeling committees.

GMO labeling opponents’ most generous contributors demonstrated a willingness to invest heavily in multiple states. Seven of the top 10 opposing donors invested in all four campaigns, and typically it was a rather large sum of cash in each state. Monsanto Company was the largest opponent, contributing between $3.4 and $8.1 million in opposition. Similarly, Dupont Pioneer was the second-largest donor, contributing between $3 and $5.4 million. Pepsico gave $2.4 million to the campaigns in each Pacific Coast state, as well as $1.6 million in Colorado; meanwhile, its chief competitor, The Coca-Cola Company, distributed $5.7 million in campaign money somewhat evenly across campaigns. The Grocery Manufacturers Association was the one big exception, contributing 93 percent of its $11.8 million in opposition to Washington’s Initiative 522.

Table 3: Top Contributors Opposing GMO Labeling Ballot Measures, 2012-2014 Contributor Proposition 37 (CA) Initiative 522 (WA) Measure 92 (OR) Proposition 105 (CO) Total Monsanto Company $8,112,069 $5,374,484 $5,958,750 $3,351,728 $22,797,031 Dupont Pioneer $5,400,000 $3,880,159 $4,928,150 $3,038,500 $17,246,809 Grocery Manufacturers Association $502,000 $11,034,933 $164,190 $104,000 $11,805,123 Pepsico $2,430,675 $2,352,966 $2,350,000 $1,650,000 $8,783,641 The Coca-Cola Company $1,653,373 $1,520,351 $1,170,000 $1,385,000 $5,728,724 Dow Agrosciences $2,000,000 $591,654 $1,157,150 $306,500 $4,055,304 Kraft Foods Group $2,000,500 $0 $870,000 $1,030,000 $3,900,500 General Mills $1,230,300 $869,271 $695,000 $820,000 $3,614,571 Nestlé SA $1,424,313 $1,528,206 $0 $0 $2,952,519 Bayer AG $2,000,000 $591,654 $0 $0 $2,591,654

Proponents of GMO labeling included some eminent contributors, but they were less likely to be featured in most or all four campaigns. Of the top 10 contributors, three invested in all of the campaigns, four invested in one state alone, and seven directed more than 60 percent of their total to only one campaign. Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, the leading contributor, gave $2.1 million to supporters of GMO labeling in Oregon, which is $1.6 million more than its second-largest contribution total of $546,438. Likewise, the Organic Consumers Association gave more than $1.7 million to committees in the Proposition 37 campaign, which is $667,254 more than it invested in the other three campaigns combined. For some, it was one large contribution to a sole campaign, including $1.2 million from the Center for Food Safety to committees in Oregon and $1 million from Kent Whealy, founder of Seed Savers Exchange, to committees in California.

Table 4: Top Contributors Supporting GMO Labeling Ballot Measures, 2012-2014 Contributor Proposition 37 (CA) Initiative 522 (WA) Measure 92 (OR) Proposition 105 (CO) Total Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps $546,438 $50,000 $2,137,926 $63,389 $2,797,753 Organic Consumers Association $1,685,330 $238,076 $730,000 $50,000 $2,703,406 Mercola Health Resources $1,132,200 $0 $1,075,000 $0 $2,207,200 Center for Food Safety $0 $0 $1,265,500 $0 $1,265,500 Whealy, Kent $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,000,000 Nature’s Path Foods $660,709 $10,000 $119,271 $10,000 $799,980 Food Democracy Action $115,000 $0 $420,000 $240,000 $775,000 Oregon Public Interest Research Group $0 $0 $617,792 $0 $617,792 Presence Marketing $75,000 $0 $268,635 $200,000 $543,635 Hormel, Tom $0 $0 $500,000 $0 $500,000

Conclusion

GMO labeling measures merited very expensive campaigns, but the vastly greater amount from opponents paid off with the defeat of all four measures. The recent campaigns involved a confluence of well-heeled donors that have vested interests in measures that closely divided voters, which maximized the incentive to contribute. Although the Colorado measure was overwhelmingly defeated, the margin of victory for opponents in California, Oregon and Washington was less than 3 percent. Despite the results, it has been reported that “public distrust of genetically modified food seems to be growing. And companies that make and sell food are paying attention.”