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.
Industry 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.
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.
McDonald’s and Coca-Cola – An Unhealthy Alliance
This week, the New York City Board of Health is expected to approve Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s proposal to limit the size of sugary soft drinks. Motivated by rising diet-related chronic diseases (along with healthcare costs), the mayor’s attempt to rein in out of control portion sizes caused quite a media firestorm. Predictably, the soda lobby has come out swinging, complete with an industry front group called, “New Yorkers for Beverage Choices.”
A better name would be, “Soda Pushers for Continued Profits.”
Top 10 Lies Told by Monsanto on GMO Labeling in California
The battle in California over Proposition 37, which would require labeling of foods containing GMOs, is really heating up. Millions of dollars are already being poured into the opposition campaign, with much of it going to former Big Tobacco shills. Over at GMO HQ, Monsanto recently posted this missive called “Taking a Stand: Proposition 37, The California Labeling Proposal,” in which the biotech giant explains why it is opposing the measure (to the tune of $4.2 million so far).
List of Groups to Donate to – Courtesy of Corporate Lobbyists
I had been planning to blog about groups that I make end-of-year donations to when a handy list came along that closely overlaps with mine. Ironically, it’s from an industry front group called the Washington Legal Foundation. These corporate shills recently started a silly website called Eating Away Our Freedoms. (They even trademarked the name, that’s how clever they think it is.) The best part (in addition to the creative re-do of the federal MyPlate image above) is the page called, “Who’s Eating Away Our Freedoms?” – a list of my favorite colleagues (such as Marion Nestle and Mark Bittman) and non-profit organizations, complete with links to their websites. Two groups I have close working relationships with and whom I especially recommend you donate to are: Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood and Corporate Accountability International. I also highly recommend Food Democracy Now and MapLight.
Interview by Nourish on Food Marketing
The kind folks at Nourish interviewed me recently. Here it is, cross-posted from their site.
How does marketing influence what we eat?
Michele Simon: It’s quite simple. Food companies convince us to buy unhealthy foods with very sophisticated marketing plans that target specific populations, including youth. Companies want to get children hooked on their brands early so that they will win over life-long customers. The industry says we advocates have no “proof” that food marketing influences people’s eating habits, but if marketing didn’t work, why would food companies spend billions of dollars a year doing it?
Continue reading →
Why the Meat Industry Sells Salmonella
As a lawyer who writes about food policy, one of my biggest frustrations is how reporters often get the law wrong, or omit critical pieces of information. Last week the latest massive food safety recall hit the news – 36 million pounds of ground turkey possibly tainted with Salmonella, courtesy of meat giant Cargill. While some media outlets were asking good questions about why it took the federal government so long to release such vital information (problems began in March), others reported that it’s currently legal to sell Salmonella-tainted meat. While the meat industry might like it that way, that’s not the entire story. Read the rest over at Food Safety News. See also this handy 6-point summary by Mark Bittman of the New York Times.
Who Really Benefits from the Egg Industry Deal?
Last week, the Humane Society of the United States held an unusual press conference. The group announced an agreement with its long-time adversary, the United Egg Producers, to jointly seek federal legislation that would improve the housing conditions of egg-laying hens. As a result, HSUS is calling off its recent efforts to get ballot measures passed in Oregon and Washington State on the issue.
Continue reading at Food Safety News.
Follow me
Hot Topics
Big Food
Public Health
Food Policy
Industry Tactics
Child Nutrition
Marketing to Children
USDA
PepsiCo
Food Safety
FDA
McDonald's
junk food
food safety
GMO labeling
targeted marketing
Food Law
GMOs
California Prop 37
childhood obesity
Obama
Let's Move
Coca-Cola
child nutrition
fast food
lobbying
Monsanto
Corporate Accountability International
Uncategorized
Alcohol Policy
Ask a Food Lawyer
Labor
Media