Over the past few months, I’ve been writing about Proposition 37, the California initiative that would require foods made through genetic engineering to be labeled, a policy that is common sense in 61 other countries, but has been denied to Americans thanks to lobbying by Big Biotech. One of the most prominent food myths perpetuated by the likes of Monsanto is that we need genetic engineering “to feed the world.”
Archive for 2012
California Newspaper Editorial Boards Spread False Claims and Faulty Logic on Proposition 37
Each election season, proponents and opponents of the various initiatives on the California ballot hope for the state’s major newspaper endorsements. While you can’t expect every paper to endorse your side, Proposition 37, which would require labeling of foods produced using genetic engineering, seems to have had a string of incredibly bad luck. So incredible, in fact, that the reasoning behind several California newspaper endorsements of a No vote has me scratching my head.
How Did My Profession’s Conference Get Hijacked by Big Food? (Guest post by Andy Bellatti)
Booth displays at Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Expo. (photos by Andy Bellatti)
I recently attended the annual gathering of the largest trade group of nutrition professionals, which I also covered last year. Look out for complete report from me in the coming months. Meantime, I am pleased to share the experience of one registered dietitian, Andy Bellatti.
The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND) hosted its 2012 Food & Nutrition Conference and Expo (FNCE) earlier this month. Sadly, the event once again (see last year’s report) demonstrated how this registered dietitians’ accrediting organization drags its own credential through the mud by prioritizing Big Food’s corporate interests over sound nutrition and public health.
My talks at the American Public Health Association Annual Meeting
This year’s American Public Health Association Annual Meeting is in San Francisco, from October 27-31. (I live in that other city by the bay, Oakland.) The event draws about 13,000 public health professionals each year. I am honored to have been asked to participate in three stellar panels, so if you’re attending or can drop in for the day, please come say hello. (Check the printed program for room locations.)
Panel 1: Monday, October 29, 2012: 10:30 – 12:00
3167.0: Snack Food and Beverage Industry and Global Noncommunicable Chronic Disease
My talk: Case study of industry lobbying on junk food marketing to children
(Additional panelists include Marion Nestle and Jennifer Pomeranz from the Rudd Center.)
Panel 2: Monday, October 29, 2012: 12:30 -2:00
My talk: Food stamps, follow the money: Are corporations profiting from hungry Americans
Panel 3: Wednesday, October 31, 2012: 12:30 -2:00
My talk: Understanding food industry lobbying and countering corporate tactics
Did Monsanto Write This Op-Ed Signed by a UC Davis Professor?
As I recently explained, University of California at Davis agriculture researchers are heavily influenced by the funding they receive from Monsanto and other big biotech players. This conflict of interest explains in part why we are seeing several UC Davis professors author reports and op-eds opposing California’s Proposition 37, which would require labeling of foods containing GMOs.
Addendum to Article on UC Davis Reports on California’s Prop 37
I recently wrote about how two reports out of the University of California at Davis made questionable claims regarding Proposition 37, a California initiative that would require GMO foods to be labeled. The author of the one of the articles, Colin Carter, wrote to inform me that his article “was an independent analysis” and that he “did not receive any funds from the No on Proposition 37 campaign.”
“Pink Slime” Lawsuit May be Frivolous, But Could Chill Speech
To no one’s surprise, Beef Products Inc. (BPI) – maker of the ground beef product that took on the moniker of “pink slime” – filed a defamation lawsuit earlier this month against ABC News and several individuals. Read rest at Center for Food Safety…
Prop 37 Sparks Clash Between Organic Brands and Parent Companies
Even if you don’t live in California, you have probably heard of Proposition 37, which if passed in November, would require labeling of foods containing genetically engineered ingredients. The state-wide initiative has been causing quite a stir, in part because of the companies that are opposing the measure. Read rest at New Hope …
University of California at Davis Reports Make Dubious Claims on Prop 37
Last week I wrote about how the No on 37 campaign – the California ballot initiative that would require labeling of GMOs foods – is relying on experts with questionable credentials to do its bidding. Over the past few weeks, two expert reports have emerged from the No campaign that also warrant closer scrutiny.
Meet the Scientific “Experts” Claiming GMO Foods are Safe
Last month, I wrote about how the food industry has hired powerful consultants with ties to Big Tobacco to oppose California’s Proposition 37, which would require labeling of all genetically engineered foods. Now, the No on 37 campaign (ironically named the “Stop the Deceptive Labeling Scheme”) is putting up alleged scientific experts to do its bidding, once again taking a page from the tobacco industry playbook.
Hot Topics
Big Food
Public Health
Food Policy
Industry Tactics
Child Nutrition
Marketing to Children
USDA
Food Safety
PepsiCo
FDA
McDonald's
junk food
targeted marketing
GMO labeling
food safety
Food Law
GMOs
California Prop 37
childhood obesity
Obama
Let's Move
child nutrition
Coca-Cola
lobbying
fast food
Monsanto
Corporate Accountability International
Uncategorized
Ask a Food Lawyer
Alcohol Policy
Media
Labor
Follow me
