SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
(Photo: Millions Against Monsanto/cc/flickr)
Prop 37 Redux? BigAg Dumps Millions to Defeat GMO-Labeling in Wash.
Monsanto, DuPont among those working to defeat Washington's I-522
Sep 12, 2013
Once again, a state is putting forth a ballot measure to label genetically modified foods, and once again, a familiar cast of characters is spending millions to defeat the measure.
The battle this time is in Washington, which has on its ballot this November I-522. As MapLight summarizes, the initiative
would require most raw agricultural commodities, processed foods, and seeds and seed stocks, if produced using genetic engineering as defined, to be labeled as genetically engineered when offered for retail sale.
In the past week, Monsanto gave a $4.5 million dollar donation to the 'No' on 522 campaign, while DuPont gave $3.2 million. Other big donors hoping to defeat the measure are Bayer CropScience and the Grocery Manufacturers Association.
With these latest contributions, the No campaign has raked in over over $11 million in donations, compared to just under $3.5 million raised by the 'Yes' campaign.
Despite this outspending, a new poll shows 66% of voters in favor of the measure to label GMOs.
"It is the return of the big money, but we're not surprised," Katherine Paul, spokeswoman for Organic Consumers Association (OCA), told Politico.
OCA is among those supporting the 'Yes' campaign, which also includes Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps and Mercola.com.
In California's closely-watched battle last year over Prop. 37, another GMO labeling effort, the same large agribusiness powers now pouring millions into Washington's measure, spent millions and ultimately defeated the proposition.
_____________________
An Unconstitutional Rampage
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Once again, a state is putting forth a ballot measure to label genetically modified foods, and once again, a familiar cast of characters is spending millions to defeat the measure.
The battle this time is in Washington, which has on its ballot this November I-522. As MapLight summarizes, the initiative
would require most raw agricultural commodities, processed foods, and seeds and seed stocks, if produced using genetic engineering as defined, to be labeled as genetically engineered when offered for retail sale.
In the past week, Monsanto gave a $4.5 million dollar donation to the 'No' on 522 campaign, while DuPont gave $3.2 million. Other big donors hoping to defeat the measure are Bayer CropScience and the Grocery Manufacturers Association.
With these latest contributions, the No campaign has raked in over over $11 million in donations, compared to just under $3.5 million raised by the 'Yes' campaign.
Despite this outspending, a new poll shows 66% of voters in favor of the measure to label GMOs.
"It is the return of the big money, but we're not surprised," Katherine Paul, spokeswoman for Organic Consumers Association (OCA), told Politico.
OCA is among those supporting the 'Yes' campaign, which also includes Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps and Mercola.com.
In California's closely-watched battle last year over Prop. 37, another GMO labeling effort, the same large agribusiness powers now pouring millions into Washington's measure, spent millions and ultimately defeated the proposition.
_____________________
Once again, a state is putting forth a ballot measure to label genetically modified foods, and once again, a familiar cast of characters is spending millions to defeat the measure.
The battle this time is in Washington, which has on its ballot this November I-522. As MapLight summarizes, the initiative
would require most raw agricultural commodities, processed foods, and seeds and seed stocks, if produced using genetic engineering as defined, to be labeled as genetically engineered when offered for retail sale.
In the past week, Monsanto gave a $4.5 million dollar donation to the 'No' on 522 campaign, while DuPont gave $3.2 million. Other big donors hoping to defeat the measure are Bayer CropScience and the Grocery Manufacturers Association.
With these latest contributions, the No campaign has raked in over over $11 million in donations, compared to just under $3.5 million raised by the 'Yes' campaign.
Despite this outspending, a new poll shows 66% of voters in favor of the measure to label GMOs.
"It is the return of the big money, but we're not surprised," Katherine Paul, spokeswoman for Organic Consumers Association (OCA), told Politico.
OCA is among those supporting the 'Yes' campaign, which also includes Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps and Mercola.com.
In California's closely-watched battle last year over Prop. 37, another GMO labeling effort, the same large agribusiness powers now pouring millions into Washington's measure, spent millions and ultimately defeated the proposition.
_____________________
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.