GMO Labeling Movement Pushes On Despite Prop 37 Defeat

Former Fairfax, CA Mayor Frank Eggar campaigning. Photo: S. Bates

Yesterday Californians voted on Proposition 37, a GMO labeling initiative that we've been following for many months now.  Unfortunately, the initiative lost by 6 percentage points, with the no on 37 vote at 53.7% and the yes vote at 46.3% as of early this morning.  This is certainly discouraging news, since labeling only seeks to give consumers the basic right to know what is in their food, and the initiative was favored by a large majority of California voters up until recently.  Agribusiness giants have been able to sway public opinion on GMO labeling by wielding huge sums of money used to advertise the no on 37 campaign.  With such wealthy opposition, the fight to label genetically modified foods in this country might seem like an impossible dream, but in the wake of the Prop 37 defeat, I want to share with you a quote from the San Francisco Chronicle's article written today:

Stacy Melken, a spokeswoman for the Prop, 37 campaign, said supporters believe they will win the labeling debate over the long term. She noted that proponents were outspent by a five to one margin and still managed to capture more than 4.2 million votes.

"We showed that there is a food movement in the United States, and it is strong, vibrant and too powerful to stop," she said. "We always knew we were the underdogs."

That quote helped to put things in perspective for me, and I don't feel nearly as discouraged now as I did this morning.  The fact that the yes on 37 campaign was outspent five to one and still managed to rally nearly half the California vote is really impressive, and proves that money is powerful, but a strong movement is more powerful.  It often takes time to build a movement, and even more time to push the values of that movement through government, so although feeling discouraged is natural and understandable in the wake of a defeat, the truth is that the loss of Prop 37 is really just one part of a much larger picture.

The GMO labeling movement isn't going away.   The issue of labeling will continue to be brought up in the political sphere, forcing agribusiness to spend its money each time to quell it until finally enough people who won't be swayed by costly marketing exist to pass a labeling law.  Proposition 37 shows us how far we have come as Americans who want the right to know what is in our food.  It shows how resourceful and resilient the movement is, and it shows that we really can pass labeling legislation if we keep working toward it.  In the meantime, know what's in your food by knowing where your food comes from.  Buy whole, local, organic, and in season whenever possible, and get to know farmers near you.  Ask your grocery store to stock more local items, and start a garden in your yard, or in containers if you don't have a yard.  And talk to your friends and family about GMOs and why it's important to label them.  Check out justlabelit.org and sign the federal petition, and if you still feel a bit discouraged, read this article.  Labeling initiatives are currently being brought up in other states and nationally.  Gary Hirshberg, co-founder of Stonyfield Farm organic yogurt company, and chairman of the "Just Label It" campaign, puts it very succinctly:

Labeling of GE (genetically engineered) foods is not a question of whether, but when.

Have a great evening!
-Melissa

Roundup's Toxicity Goes Beyond Glyphosate

If you've been to this blog before, you've probably heard of Roundup - Monsanto's herbicide widely used to spray lawns, yards, and crops, especially those crops that have been genetically modified to resist Roundup's active ingredient, Glyphosate.  You've probably also heard of the health dangers of Glyphosate as shown in numerous laboratory tests.  What you may not know, however, is that one of the supposedly inert ingredients in Roundup, called polyethoxylated tallowamine, or POEA, has been shown to not only be more dangerous on its own than Glyphosate, but also increase the damage Glyphosate can do to cells on its own by combining with it to more effectively penetrate clothing, safety equipment, and cell walls in the body.  

This article in Scientific American describes how a French team of scientists came to this conclusion after testing POEA and Roundup on human cells.  An excerpt reads:

POEA, was more deadly to human embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells than the herbicide itself – a finding the researchers call “astonishing.” 

“This clearly confirms that the [inert ingredients] in Roundup formulations are not inert,” wrote the study authors from France’s University of Caen. “Moreover, the proprietary mixtures available on the market could cause cell damage and even death [at the] residual levels” found on Roundup-treated crops, such as soybeans, alfalfa and corn, or lawns and gardens. 

The research team suspects that Roundup might cause pregnancy problems by interfering with hormone production, possibly leading to abnormal fetal development, low birth weights or miscarriages.

The article then goes on to explain why an ingredient that causes more harm than the active ingredient can be  labeled as inert:

The term “inert ingredient” is often misleading, according to Caroline Cox, research director of the Center for Environmental Health, an Oakland-based environmental organization. Federal law classifies all pesticide ingredients that don’t harm pests as “inert,” she said. Inert compounds, therefore, aren’t necessarily biologically or toxicologically harmless – they simply don’t kill insects or weeds.

If you want to avoid POEA and Glyphosate, buying more organic food, and more generally, avoiding Genetically Modified Organisms - a primary use of Roundup -  are great options.  Support mandatory labeling for GE foods, and add your voice to those advocating for the passage of Prop 37 in California.  Here in Connecticut, purchase groceries from a farmers market and get to know the farmer you're buying from.  If you know the farmers who grow your food, and ask them questions, you will know your food as well.

Have a great weekend!
-Melissa

Oppositiion to California's GMO Labeling Initiative

Yesterday's blog post about the California GMO Labeling Ballot Initiative showcases a very important potential step toward eventual GMO labeling across the country.  California has the highest GDP of any state in the nation, a GDP higher than many countries, so passing a labeling initiative there is likely to cause a domino effect culminating in mandatory labeling across the US.  Because of this, one of the nation's largest food lobbies, the Grocery Manufacturer's Association, has made defeating the initiative - called Prop 37 - their "single-highest priority".

According to an editorial on Food Safety News,

In a recent speech to the American Soybean Association (most soy grown in the U.S. is genetically modified), Grocery Manufacturers Association President Pamela Bailey said that defeating the initiative "is the single-highest priority for GMA this year."

You may not know the Grocery Manufacturers Association, but its members represent the nation's largest food makers -- those with the most at stake in the battle over GMO labeling; for example, soft drink and snack giant PepsiCo, cereal makers Kellogg and General Mills, and of course, biotech behemoth Monsanto.

According to state filing reports, so far GMA has spent $375,000 on its efforts to oppose the labeling measure, with its members adding additional out-of-state lobbying power in the tens of thousands of dollars.

Since Prop 37 poses a significant threat to many of the nation's largest food makers, corporations that make a lot of money from the production and sale of Genetically Modified foods, it makes sense that the lobbying group that represents those interests would be fiercely fighting back.  This backlash, however, is promising because it shows just how powerful Prop 37 really is. Lobbying groups might have a lot of money on their side, but no amount of money can compete with a large group of voices speaking out in unison.

Here in Connecticut we might not be able to vote on Prop 37, but that doesn't mean that we can't speak out in support of it.  The more people nationwide who show their support of mandatory GMO labeling, both publicly and to their friends and neighbors, the more likely those in California who can vote on it are to hear us.  After all, the Grocery Manufacturer's Association is a giant national lobbying firm that is currently influencing the outcome of the vote, regardless of whether or not it's employees can actually vote on the ballot itself.  So talk to those around you and be outspoken, because your voice makes a difference.  Let's show California that we support their right to know what's in their food!

Have an outspoken day!
-Melissa

The Right To Know Ballot in California

The GMO-Labeling issue is going to ballot in California! Almost one million Californians signed a petition in favor of adding the provision to the California ballot.

Get ready for the biotech and big ag industry to push back against this legislation, with "grassroots" organizations, a large media campaign and unbelievable amounts of money.  In his Mother Jones article "How California Could Force the Rest of the US to Label GMO Foods", Tom Philpott writes that "A move to labeling would likely create a robust market in non-GMO, conventional versions of those crops, giving large-scale farmers incentive to transition away from GMOs and cutting into the profits of giants like Monsanto, Syngenta, and DuPont. If a substantial percentage of them did, that would be a hard blow to the profit plans of the big agrichemical companies, whose business models are based on constant growth, not shrinkage." 


An article by Organic Consumers Associations' Alexis Baden-Mayer and Ronnie Cummins reposted from the Organic Consumers Association (read original article here):What do a former mouthpiece for tobacco and big oil, a corporate-interest PR flack, and the regional director of a Monsanto-funded tort reform group have in common? They're all part of the anti-labeling PR team that will soon unleash a massive advertising and PR campaign in California, designed to scare voters into rejecting the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act.

In November, California voters will vote 'yes' or 'no' on a law to require mandatory labeling of all genetically engineered ingredients in processed foods, and ban the routine industry practice of mislabeling foods containing genetically engineered ingredients as 'natural.' Polls show that nearly 90 percent of the state's voters plan to vote 'yes.' But when November rolls around, will voter support still be strong? Not if the biotech, agribusiness, and food manufacturers industries can help it.

It's estimated that the opposition will spend $60 - $100 million to convince voters that genetically engineered foods are perfectly safe. They'll try to scare voters into believing that labeling will make food more expensive, that it will spark hundreds of lawsuits against small farmers and small businesses, and that it will contribute to world hunger. . . .

Alexis Baden-Mayer is Political Director of the Organic Consumers Association.
Ronnie Cummins is founder and director of the Organic Consumers Association. Cummins is author of numerous articles and books, including "Genetically Engineered Food: A Self-Defense Guide for Consumers" (Second Revised Edition Marlowe & Company 2004).
© Copyright 1997-2012 Dr. Joseph Mercola. All Rights Reserved.