GMO Labeling News & Blog:

GMO Labeling News Archives

Campbell Soup, General Mills, Coca-Cola, contributes to $10 million anti-GMO-labeling campaign

Major bio-tech companies and manufacturers of household food products, including Campbell Soup, General Mills and Coca-Cola, have pumped almost $10 million into the campaign to defeat Proposition 37, the November statewide ballot initiative to require labels for genetically engineered crops and processed food products.

The California Secretary of State’s office reported that a members of the Coalition Against the Deceptive Food Labeling Scheme, sponsored by farmers and food producers, had contributed $9.98 million since the close of the Jan. 1-June 30 reporting period.

The large cash infusion swelled the “No on 37″ group’s total campaign kitty to $11.9 million.

The Yes campaign has reported receiving recent large contributions of $756,000 as of Friday in addition to an earlier $2 million during the first half of the year. The Yes campaign, with what it calls the “California Right To Know” initiative, already has spent a substantial amount of money to qualify the measure for the ballot by gathering around 1 million signatures from registered voters.

The campaign is backed mainly by organic farmers, health food retailers, makers of processed organic foods and consumer advocates.

Campaign spokeswoman Stacy Malkan said she was surprised that big agriculture and grocery manufacturers have raised so much money so quickly.

“It clearly shows they are going to start running television advertisements soon,” she said. “The fact is they are nervous about being behind in the polls.”

A statewide poll by Pepperdine University and the California Business Roundtable showed the Yes campaign has a commanding lead with 69.4% of respondents in support. Opponents accounted for only 21.8%, with 8.9% undecided. The Internet poll of 873 likely voters was released Aug. 2.

Read more…

2 comments to Campbell Soup, General Mills, Coca-Cola, contributes to $10 million anti-GMO-labeling campaign

  • Mireille

    When raising conventional food, one uses pesticides as compared to natural pesticides with organic (organic less expensive). Chemical fertilizers compared to organic fertilizers (organic natural and less expensive ie manures etc) How can this justify the higher cost of organic food as compared to commercially grown (less expensive) and having to purchase chemicals etc. Doing artificial pollination as opposed to natural pollination. The list goes on and on. This boggles my mind. I know from my own garden by not having to spend money on poisons and artificial fertilizers it costs me less to grow vegetables than if I used chemicals and other artificial means.Then why are we being charged more for a vegetable or a piece of meat that has no chemicals that are costly to produce, distribute, and apply as compared to natural herbicides, fertilizers, etc. that are plentiful and less expensive to use?

  • Duh

    The answer to your question is an easy one. Yah it maybe cheaper for you to grow organic but think about how much a farmer actually gets for a crop? Where a Monsanto/gmo crop can be mass produced an organic one can’t. It falls into supply and demand.

    Big companies only care about share holders and profit and not you or I, that is fact.

Leave a Reply to Mireille Cancel reply




You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>