Wednesday, October 24, 2012

we the people: diarise this date 6 November 2012 (PROP 37) - lets see what happens.....

link

Proposition 37, a Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food Initiative, is on the November 6, 2012 ballot in California as an initiated state statute.[1],[2]
If Proposition 37 is approved by voters, it will:
  • Require labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if the food is made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways.
  • Prohibit labeling or advertising such food as "natural." (gotta laugh!!!!)
  • Exempt from this requirement foods that are "certified organic; unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material; made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves; processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients; administered for treatment of medical conditions; sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant; or alcoholic beverages."
Supporters
Supporters include:

The "Yes on 37" logo
The arguments in favor of Proposition 37 in the state's official voter guide were submitted by:
  • Dr. Michelle Pero. Pero is a pediatrician.
  • Rebecca Spector. Spector is the West Coast Director of the Center for Food Safety.
  • Grant Lundberg. Lundberg is the Chief Executive Officer of Lundberg Family Farms.
  • Jamie Court. Court is the president of Consumer Watchdog
  • Jim Cochran. Cochran is the general manager of Swanton Berry Farm.
  • Dr. Marcia Ishil-Eiteman. Ishil-Eiteman is a senior scientist with the Pesticide Action Network.[5]

Arguments in favor

The arguments presented in favor of Proposition 37 in the state's official voter guide include:
  • "You should have the right to know what's in your food."
  • "You'll have the information you need about foods that some physicians and scientists say are linked to allergies and other significant health risks."
  • "Over 40 countries around the world require labels for genetically modified foods."[5]

Donors

Total campaign cash Invest.png
as of October 14, 2012
2012 ballot measure endorsements Support:$7,700,000
Circle thumbs down.png Opposition:$35,600,000
Joseph Mercola is one of the main financial supporters of the initiative. He is an osteopath who lives in suburban Chicago. According to Mercola, "Your health care, your food supply, everything you need to live a healthy life is now being taken away and controlled by a massive industrial complex and corrupt government."[6]
These are the $50,000 and over donors to the "yes" campaign as of October 14, 2012:
DonorAmount
Organic Consumers Fund$1,334,865
Mercola Health Resources$1,115,000
Kent Whealy$1,000,000
Nature's Path Foods$610,709
The Stillonger Trust$440,000
Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps$369,883
Wehah Farm (Lundberg Family Farms)$251,000
Great Foods of America$102,000
Alex Bogusky$100,000
Amy's Kitchen$100,000
Clif Bar & Co.$100,000
Cropp Cooperative (Organic Valley)$100,000
Annie's, Inc.$50,000
Michael S. Funk$50,000
Nutiva$50,000

Opposition


The "No on Prop 37" logo

Opponents

The arguments against Proposition 37 in the state's official voter guide were submitted by:
  • Dr. Bob Goldberg. Goldberg is a member of the National Academy of Sciences.
  • Jamie Johansson. Johansson is a family farmer in California.
  • Betty Jo Toccoli. Toccoli is the president of the California Small Business Association.
  • Jonnalee Henderson. Henderson is affiliated with the California Farm Bureau Federation.
  • Dr. Henry I. Miller. Miller is a founding director of the Office of Biotechnology of the Food & Drug Administration.
  • Tom Hudson. Hudson is the executive director of the California Taxpayer Protection Committee.[7]
Other opponents include:

Arguments against

The arguments in opposition to Proposition 37 presented in the state's official voter guide include:
  • "It's a deceptive, deeply flawed food labeling scheme that would add more government bureaucracy and taxpayer costs, create new frivolous lawsuits, and increase food costs by billions--without providing any health or safety benefits."
  • "It's full of special interest exemptions."
  • "It authorizes shakedown lawsuits."[7]

Donors

Total campaign cash Invest.png
as of October 14, 2012
2012 ballot measure endorsements Support:$7,700,000
Circle thumbs down.png Opposition:$35,600,000
As of October 14, 2012, about $35.6 million has been donated to the "No on 37" campaign effort.[9]
These are the $100,000 and over donors to the "no" campaign as of October 14, 2012:
DonorAmount
Monsanto$7,105,582
E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co.$4,900,000
DOW Agrisciences$2,000,000
Bayer Cropscience$2,000,000
BASF Plant Science$2,000,000
Syngenta Corporation$2,000,000
Pepsico, Inc.$1,716,300
Coca-Cola North America$1,174,400
Nestle USA$1,169,400
Conagra Foods$1,076,700
General Mills$908,200
Del Monte Foods$674,100
Kellogg Company$632,500
Hershey Company$498,006
The J.M. Smucker Company$388,000
Council for Biotechnology Information$375,000
Grocery Manufacturers Association$375,000
Hormel Foods$374,300
Bumble Bee Foods$368,500
Ocean Spray Cranberries$362,100
Sara Lee$343,600
Bimbo Bakeries$338,300
Pioneer Hi-Bred International$310,100
Pinnacle Foods$266,100
Dean Foods Company$253,950
Biotechnology Industry Organization$252,000
Campbell's Soup$250,000
McCormick & Company$248,200
Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company$237,664
Rich Products Corporation$225,537
Cargill, Inc.$202,229
Dole Packaged Foods$171,261
Knouse Foods Cooperative$135,831
Mars Food North America$100,242
Other food companies who have contributed to the "no" campaign (but with checks of less than $100,000) include Sunny Delight Beverages, McCain Foods, Dole Packaged Foods, Heinz, Idahoan Foods, Richelieu Foods, Land O'Lakes, Morton Salt and Godiva Chocolatier.

No comments: