California’s Proposition 37, which would have required labeling of GMO foods, died a painful death last night. Despite polling in mid-September showing an overwhelming lead, the measure lost by 53 to 47 percent, which is relatively close considering the No side’s tactics.
Timing of AAAS statement on GMO labeling is highly suspicious
With about a week to go before California voters head to the polls to decide the fate of Proposition 37, which would require GMO foods to be labeled, I expected an already ugly campaign to get even uglier.
But the latest gift to the No on 37 campaign smells especially bad. Last week, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS – goes by “Triple A-S”) released this “statement” on GMO labeling that sounds like it was drafted by Monsanto. The statement ends with the non-scientific but very quote-worthy conclusion that “mandating such a label can only serve to mislead and falsely alarm consumers.” While Prop 37 is never mentioned, what purpose could the timing serve other than persuading Californians to vote no on the measure?
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.
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 …
Instead of a potentially depressing year-in-review post, I decided to look ahead. (But do see Andy Bellatti’s amusing compilation of 2011 food news.) Given all the defeats and set-backs this year due to powerful food industry lobbying, the good food movement should by now be collectively shouting: I am mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore.
If you feel that way, I have two words of advice: get political.
If you use Wesson brand cooking oils, you may be able to join a class action against food giant ConAgra for deceptively marketing the products as natural. These days it’s hard to walk down a supermarket aisle without bumping into a food product that claims to be “all-natural.” If you’ve ever wondered how even some junk food products can claim this moniker (witness: Cheetos Natural Puff White Cheddar Cheese Flavored Snacks – doesn’t that sound like it came from your garden?) the answer is simple if illogical: the Food and Drug Administration has not defined the term natural. Read rest at Food Safety News.
If you had any lingering doubt about who controls the food supply, the answer was made painfully clear yesterday when the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced its “Decision to Fully Deregulate Roundup Ready Alfalfa.” For years, a fight has been waging over Monsanto’s desire to plant genetically-engineered alfalfa seeds. (Most alfalfa is fed to cattle, which is why it’s so lucrative.) The court battle even found its way to the US Supreme Court, that’s how much is at stake. Thanks to organic food advocates fighting however they could, Monsanto has thus far been stymied.
