Yogurt Formulations with Clarinol® CLA for Weight Management
Stepan Lipid Nutrition
The food industry is digging deep to oppose California’s Proposition 37, which would mandate labeling of foods that contain ingredients derived from genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
So far, the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) has contributed $375,000 to the campaign opposing labeling of GMOs, while individual food companies, including many individual GMA members, have brought the total investment in the anti-Prop 37 campaign to about $2m. Some of the biggest food industry donors include PepsiCo ($35,495), Coca-Cola North America ($24,081), General Mills ($19,401), The Kellogg Company ($13,080), Del Monte ($14,400), ConAgra Foods ($56,598), and Nestle USA ($37,286), and there are also many much larger contributions from biotech firms.
In a recent speech to the American Soybean Association, GMA president Pamela Bailey said that defeating the measure is “the single highest priority for GMA this year”, adding that labeling could pose “a serious, long term threat to the viability of agricultural biotechnology”.
Meanwhile, the proposition’s supporters have raised about $2.3m, including an $800,000 donation from nutrition products distributor Mercola .
Californians will vote on The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act in the November ballot, after it attracted nearly a million signatures. It would require such foods to be labeled in a “clear and conspicuous” manner, whether raw agricultural commodities or processed foods.
If voters approve the measure, food manufacturers could be required to label GM foods and ingredients sold in California from July 1, 2014 – and polls suggest that as many as nine in ten consumers support labeling.
What would the bill require?
The bill reads that a food would deemed to be misbranded unless labeled: “In the case of any processed food, in clear and conspicuous language on the front or back of the package of such food, with the words “Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering” or “May be Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering””
In addition, food labeled as ‘natural’ would be deemed misbranded under the legislation if it contains genetically modified ingredients, in line with the precept of a swathe of lawsuits that have been brought against food companies in California. Currently the US Food and Drug Administration has no definition of the word ‘natural’.
Foods containing GMOs have been on US supermarket shelves since 1994, and an estimated 75% of all processed foods in US stores contain GMOs, according to the GMA. According to the US Department of Agriculture, 94% of all soy, over 90% of sugar beet and canola, and 88% of corn in the United States is now grown using GM seeds.
The GMA claims that mandatory labeling of foods containing GM ingredients is unnecessary and may confuse consumers because such foods are “materially no different” from non-GM foods.
‘Boondoggle’
At an American Bar Association debate on the issue, Arizona State University professor Gary Marchant said that if the proposition becomes law, it would be a ‘boondoggle’ for litigation attorneys, because it authorizes citizen lawsuits against alleged violators.
“This will result in employment for lawyers,” he said.
19 comments (Comments are now closed)
the mega corportations and the FDA
So it looks like the mega corportations and the FDA dosen't want prop 37...Humm...
Why? the consumers want labeling and many consumers don't want GMO's..why do you think they are pushing this down or throats???
Report abuse
Posted by fred immendorfer
11 October 2012 | 20h42
The GMA must fear the consumer
These companies must be ashamed of what they are puting in their products,or they are afraid the consumer will make a undesirable decision that would effect their bottom line.
Report abuse
Posted by Greg Hills
18 August 2012 | 02h34
Consumers are the choosers
Whatever the product comes to the market it should be labelled clearly and should be know to the consumers. Hiding of facts should not be allowed. If untested products creat health problems the companies which brooght to market will not come to the help of consumers. So many examples of past incidences are there. So proper labelling of foods and compensation to the consumers if any negative thaings happen in future.
Report abuse
Posted by Rajashekhara Bagalokot
11 August 2012 | 06h02
They Already Label Their Packaging For Export-What's The Issue?
They say it will "Cost Extra-Hurt the Poor, Cause higher Prices for Consumers, and so on. As far as Labeling? The companies protesting send labeled packages nearly everywhere but here-ALL with GMO Discloure. If they already package food products this way, why the fuss? See the "skinny" on it, here:
Link: http://farmwars.info/?p=9040
Report abuse
Posted by R Andrew Ohge
10 August 2012 | 17h36
What are they so afraid of?
It's crazy they are spending so much $ to try to keep the public in the dark. Why are they so attached to continuing to use untested GMOs without telling the consumers? We desperately need this new law, and California might be the only state that has the guts to step up to Monsanto and their demoniac threats to sue anyone who is trying to pass this law in their state.
Btw, John was correct in his statements below.
Report abuse
Posted by Andrew Carter
09 August 2012 | 20h33
A Little FYI
@John: Organic doesn't mean GMO free. Organic are the cultivation practices used to raise the commodity. A GMO engineered seed can be raised organically; however, if the seed is GMO it would require the labeling.
Report abuse
Posted by RIM
08 August 2012 | 18h04
Author response
Thanks to everyone for your comments.
@John: The fact that the proposition's supporters have raised $2.3m does not contradict the fact that the food industry has raised $2m.
@ReedBarnes The link provided gives options to explore the full range of donations. Click the different options at the top to reveal more donors.
Report abuse
Posted by Caroline Scott-Thomas
08 August 2012 | 11h51
Rarely read a more biased article
That's what you learn in journalism class? Dedicate headline, teaser and the first two paragraphs to make your point, then acknowledge the facts that contradict your point in passing… and hope that people do not realize that the organics industry has actually raised more millions, namely $2.3m, to support the labeling campaign – from which it is set to benefit economically. As a matter of fact, with their $2.3m the organic industry has outspent the conventional food industry by a whopping 15%! A longer and better response than I have I saw here in a comment by Rachael Ludwick to another ridiculous article: http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/08/biotech-gmo-labeling-california#comment-612477872
Report abuse
Posted by John
07 August 2012 | 21h27
reply to "GMO is NOT Equivalent to natural food"
"What is done to the genome of these plants has been called "genetic pollution" by scientists, in spite of how "safe" the companies that sell it claim them to be.
Some scientists are the ones making these alterations... You drastically misunderstand genetics. Natural breeding with always cause gene flow and loss. There will always be viruses that can transfer genes to organisms, and insert themselves into the genome of host species. It doesn't matter if some scientists call it genetic pollution, what it is is genetic engineering.
"It produces thousands of potentially toxic effects, including sterility, birth defects, autoimmune disease, etc."
Please show me such? Potentially toxic effects like what? Where is the sterility you talk about, the birth defects and autoimmune disease. Every GMO is NOT the same. Different techniques are used for each, and different genes are insert. Some can be from the same species just different varieties, and some can be from different plant species in the same genus, some in the same family, or some completely different. There can be insertions from bacteria, and there can we ones from animals. Every insertion is different, and that why every gmo is individually accessed. These foods go through more scrutiny than any hybrid crop or plant out there. They also have a mandatory testing for all of the 500 known allergens... which is not mandatory for any non engineered food.
"And don't forget, the largest company involved in genetic modification of your food is also one of the world's largest pesticide and poison manufacturers."
No coincidence. It is an agriculture based company, it makes sense they would diversify out into other areas of agriculture business. Is there any coincidence that the companies that stand to profit the most from this bill are financing it?
Fear of science is not the way. Fear of science gets you backwards societies with disease, dogma, and lower standards of living. With our ever increasing population does it make any sense to not try to improve the crops we grow. To engineer things like increased nutrients? Or herbicide resistance, or an insecticide? Make it so we don't have to spray the pesticides? Why not reduce crop losses?
Also, poison manufacturer? WTF? You do realize pesticides are a fact of life. Do you have any idea what insects, fungi, and weeds and do to world crops? If a crop doesn't have a resistant gene, and none of the genus or species that can form hybrids have a resistance gene, what then? With global warming we are seeing more and more invasive species range extensions, as the climates are becoming more hospitable to these invasive species.
Report abuse
Posted by reedbarnes
07 August 2012 | 19h11
A bit misleading
This article from the get-go is misleading. From the link they provided, the actual amount raised is 1.002 million... not exactly breaking the bank on this one, and that is from 23 financiers, compared to the SIX financiers totalling over 2 million....
This has been called a David and Goliath battle, but the fact is, the Goliath is the yes side! The organic companies stand to profit massively from this, which is why they have financed the bill. This has nothing to do with knowledge, mostly because most of the facts out there about GMOs are false. This has to do with money.
I am not saying GMO's don't require oversight, and maybe label them if the information out there wasn't all fear and sensationalism. Developed world food prices directly affect third world food prices. A ten cent increase in food cost may not seem like much here, but that could mean 100,000's of starving people somewhere else.
The yes side is supported by large organic companies essentially... I am not sure to what extent Mercola has to gain at this yes though. Make decisions based on scientific evidence, not fear. Don't make fallacies like Natural is better, and big corporation makes something evil.
Report abuse
Posted by reedbarnes
07 August 2012 | 18h57
Jeff Nedelman
There is not a person with a working brain who considers Jeff Nedelman's comments anything buy complete and utter nonsense.
Hey Jeff,
The majority of people commenting on this topic have already done the research, are aware of the fictitious and misleading informational links you provide.
If the opinions you express here are honest, then you are misinformed and should consider doing some extensive research and not simply parrot Monsanto's own "studies".
If you know the truth and are here as a dis-informant.. Save yourself the effort as the cognitive reasoning of well informed people is too much for you to overcome.
Report abuse
Posted by catdog
07 August 2012 | 18h32
None of your concern!
The audacity of people! What is wrong with people? Why don't they just shut up and trust Monsanto and our government agencies?
Who cares what chemicals are being ingested in your children? It's not like they aren't going to get sick and die someday anyway.
I've had enough of these nut jobs and conspiracy cranks who think they are entitled to know what's in the foods they eat.
I mean, what kind of person supports this nonsense?
Get a life!
Report abuse
Posted by CatDog
07 August 2012 | 18h17
Rights to know
To my point of view, customers want to know what they're eating to make their decision. It doesn't matter if they know deeply the major, but it's important for us, to be clear towards them.
If people are afraid of GM products the only chance it to give them the chance to understand what that means, instead of not making them know.
Report abuse
Posted by stefano tonetti
07 August 2012 | 17h00
GMO labelling bill (Prop 37) will not cause frivolous lawsuits
Contrary to the assertions of Mr Nedelman and others, serious legal analysis of Prop 37 on GMO labelling shows clearly that it will not cause ‘bounty hunter’ lawsuits.
Dr. James C. Cooper, a former Federal Trade Commission official and an adjunct professor of law at George Mason School of Law, compared Prop 37 with a prior piece of Californian legislation on toxic chemicals, Prop 65, which did trigger frivolous lawsuits. Dr Cooper found that the Label GMO initiative contains “important differences [which] substantially reduce the potential for Label GMO to foster the type of abusive private litigation associated with Proposition 65.”
Dr Cooper’s main findings were:
1) Label GMO provides seven years in which producers can gradually reduce the GMO exposure of their products from no more than 5% to zero.
2) So long as food or supplement producers have a sworn statement from their supplier stating that, to the supplier’s best belief, there are no GMO elements in their ingredients, the producer is immune from suit.
3) The producer is also immune from liability if the food is certified organic and certified GMO-free by an independent organization. No doubt it will make sense for food producers to help create an independent certifier.
4) Once a violation has been identified, the producer has 30 days in which to correct it, in which case there is no liability.
5) There is no “bounty” for plaintiffs who initiate lawsuits.
Read more here: http://www.anh-usa.org/label-gmo-proves-progmo-camp-wrong/
Report abuse
Posted by Adam Smith, Alliance for Natural Health International
07 August 2012 | 12h12
GMO is NOT Equivalent to natural food
What is done to the genome of these plants has been called "genetic pollution" by scientists, in spite of how "safe" the companies that sell it claim them to be.
It produces thousands of potentially toxic effects, including sterility, birth defects, autoimmune disease, etc.
And don't forget, the largest company involved in genetic modification of your food is also one of the world's largest pesticide and poison manufacturers.
Coincidence?
Report abuse
Posted by yourname
07 August 2012 | 11h33
GMO food labeling
This article shows the growing trend of where the future of the food industry is going in a big way. Personally, I believe in fresh foods that don't need nutrition labels.
I also agree with Jeff Nedelman - the consumer wants information and labeling but is generally clueless as to what the labels actually mean! It takes a good amount of time and research to learn and the information available not only is increasing, but it is also conflicting and confusing. Thanks for sharing the article.
Report abuse
Posted by Natalie Rocchino
07 August 2012 | 05h32
Serious need to know
Those of us with food allergies and autoimmune disorders certainly do need to know what we are eating, for our own health and safety. GMOs contain unknown genes and other substances, that can be harmful for our health. If GMOs are so safe, as claimed by industry, then there is no good reason to refuse to label GMO foods and products that contain them. Since industry is fighting tooth and nail to prevent people from knowing if they are eating GM foods or not, we can only conclude that there is a reason they want to keep us from having that information. Since I have Celiac and food allergies, I will use common sense and avoid unknown foods and products, and read labels to eliminate those foods, ingredients and additives that may be made from the adulterated GMOs. Such as corn, soy, canola, unspecified sugar, cottonseed oil, etc.
Report abuse
Posted by Donnie
06 August 2012 | 22h32
Not Brain Dead
Mr. Nedelman seems to suggest that consumers stop being able to think if given "too many warnings". Perhaps he wants to help clear our heads by getting rid of tornado horns, safe handling instructions on chemicals, and doctor's advice on prescription drug side effects, to name just a few of the warnings that clutter the brains of millions of average citizens? Is he suggesting that Big Brother decide for us (and him) what we (and he) should be concerned about, and what not?
Interesting that when Monsanto employs a phalanx of well-heeled lawyers to sue small farmers whose crops receive unwanted GE pollen from drift, it's not a legal or economic problem. But let a citizen sue Monsanto for trying to hide questionable substances (ie, foreign genes and their byproducts) in our food, and that becomes "full employment for bounty hunters." Interesting dichotomy.
Report abuse
Posted by Jennifer Christiano
06 August 2012 | 21h36
Luddities & GMO Food Labeling
IFIC is right, there is no nutritional or food safety reason to label. For more information read: http://bit.ly/SP0uod
The food industry has been polling consumers on what they want on food packages before the Nutrition Facts Box arrived. In short, they want everything under the sun. Whether they understand anything is the question since a warninhg about everything, is a warning about nothing and consumers become braindead when real warnings are issued.
Legislation by Proposition is part of California democracy. But this is not a 'right to know" bill; rather, it is a bounty hunter's full employment act.
Report abuse
Posted by Jeff Nedelman
06 August 2012 | 17h35
Read all comments (19)