On Nov.6, the voters of California HAD the opportunity

[DoubleDogFarm]

Vote for GMO labeling
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/magaz ... -food.html

Eric

[DoubleDogFarm]

bump

[Tonio]

Yes sir-y

[Sequoia]

I'll be voting yes on this.

[DoubleDogFarm]

Looks like big money wins again. It would have hurt the family farmer is just crap! This is big Ag.

Eric

[rainbowgardener]

[Tonio]

You should have seen all the BS fliers I got. Totally outrageous claims also on the radio/tv against labelling.

sheesh

[cynthia_h]

For people outside California, the final vote seems to have been 53% no, 47% yes. That's actually pretty good, considering the big money that Monsanto, Dow, Dupont, Bayer, et al. sank into sinking this proposition.

This means that almost half of the people who voted saw through the huge amounts of corporate money and wanted to be treated like people are treated in other countries: What's in the food? Have the grains and other ingredients in processed food been derived from GMO stock or not?

I heard an interview with a co-coordinator of the proposition effort. He said they were also encouraged and they'll be back next time (2014) with another, differently written, proposition.

Cynthia H.
Sunset Zone 17, USDA Zone 9

[PunkRotten]

When I saw that it lost it actually angered me. I was really expecting to win this. I also thought there would be more of us in numbers but I guess they managed to brainwash some folks by saying it would raise costs of produce etc.

[rainbowgardener]

That's always "their" excuse - when there first started being fleet mileage requirements for car companies, they fought that saying it would be too expensive, no one would be able to afford a car and the economy would tank. Course that was at a number well below where we are now. But every time it is suggested to raise the requirement, the old "too expensive" argument is trotted out again.

When pollution control for factories is suggested, it is "too expensive." and on and on.

I think "too expensive" just means "we are worried it will subtract some pennies from our bottom line."

[GardenRN]

When I saw that it lost it actually angered me. I was really expecting to win this. I also thought there would be more of us in numbers but I guess they managed to brainwash some folks by saying it would raise costs of produce etc.

There are lots of "us", but when you divide who actually live in Ca to vote n it, the number gets a lot smaller. The best thing everyone can do in the mean time is try your best to stay away GMO and do a bit of research on how to avoid them. Every dollar spent can be considered money put toward fighting the effort next time. The bottom line is, even as big as monsanto is, they are a business. And a business can't STAY in business if they are not patronized. I'm sad it didn't pass too. I would think that if Cynthia's margins are correct, it will pass next time around.

[cynthia_h]

The California Secretary of State has a county-by-county breakdown of the margins of victory/defeat of Prop. 37 here. It's interesting to note that, although the overall state count went 47.1% YES, 52.9% NO, only two counties mirrored this margin. One of them is the one I live in; the other is San Diego County, in the southwest corner of the state.

The most anti-Prop. 37 county was Colusa, in the center of a block of counties which voted negatively. Colusa County's vote broke out 28.3% YES, 71.7% NO. Lots of advertising $, not much factual information, I guess....) The most pro-Prop. 37 county was San Francisco, with 67.6% YES, 32.4% NO. Not far behind was Humboldt County, with 65.2% YES, 34.8% NO. Humboldt is the center of a pro-organic, CSA (community supported agriculture) web and has been for a long time, back to the '70s Back to the Land people, before I moved to California.

Look at it this way: I had to explain to DH why dairy milk would not be labelled but soy milk would. He's a physicist and he works for the USDA! I mean, if anyone should have an inkling of what's what, wouldn't it be him? But no, he lives in his own little world, he does (fantasy role-playing games world, specifically). Hint for people who didn't follow this campaign with their every breath: soy and corn are the two most frequently interfered-with grains.

Cynthia

[DoubleDogFarm]

When it comes to FDA, USDA and both sides of middle, one has to be aware of who's bed they are in.

http://rense.com/general33/fd.htm
http://dissidentvoice.org/2012/06/its-a ... overnment/

Influential corporations that have lobbied on both the House and Senate bills include Kraft Foods, McDonald's, Wal-Mart Stores, PepsiCo, the Snack Food Association, and the Food Marketing Institute.
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/05 ... ition.html

I have not checked sources. You'll have to decide if it's worth the energy spent.

Lack of knowledge is consuming.
Eric

[Thomas CA]

These are the $100,000 and over donors to the "no" campaign as of Saturday, November 3, 2012:

Donor / Amount

Monsanto $8,112,867
E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co. $5,400,000
Pepsico, Inc. $2,145,400
Grocery Manufacturers Association $2,002,000
DOW Agrisciences $2,000,000
Bayer Cropscience $2,000,000
BASF Plant Science $2,000,000
Syngenta Corporation $2,000,000
Kraft Foods Global $1,950,500
Coca-Cola North America $1,700,500
Nestle USA $1,315,600
Conagra Foods $1,176,700
General Mills $1,135,300
Kellogg Company $790,000
Smithfield Foods $683,900
Del Monte Foods $674,100
Campbell's Soup $500,000
Heinz Foods $500,000
Hershey Company $493,900
The J.M. Smucker Company $485,000
Bimbo Bakeries $422,900
Ocean Spray Cranberries $387,100
Mars Food North America $376,650
Council for Biotechnology Information $375,000
Hormel Foods $374,300
Unilever $372,100
Bumble Bee Foods $368,500
Sara Lee $343,600
Kraft Food Group $304,500
Pinnacle Foods $266,100
Dean Foods Company $253,950
Biotechnology Industry Organization $252,000
Bunge North America $248,600
McCormick & Company $248,200
Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company $237,664
Abbott Nutrition $234,500
Cargill, Inc. $226,846
Rich Products Corporation $225,537
Flowers Foods $182,000
Dole Packaged Foods $171,261
Knouse Foods Cooperative $164,731


These are the $50,000 and over donors to the "yes" campaign as of Saturday, November 3, 2012:

Donor / Amount

Organic Consumers Fund $1,334,865
Mercola Health Resources $1,115,000
Kent Whealy $1,000,000
Nature's Path Foods $660,709
Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps $566,438
Mark Squire/Stillonger Trust $440,000
Wehah Farm (Lundberg Family Farms) $251,500
Ali Partovi $219,113
Amy's Kitchen $200,000
Great Foods of America $177,000
Alex Bogusky $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


Source: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/C ... %282012%29

[rainbowgardener]

Wow!! Monsanto spent $8 million to win the right to feed us GMO everything without labelling it as such. Very cheap for them:

For the quarter ended May 31, Monsanto reported a profit of $937 million, or $1.74 a share, up from a year-earlier profit of $692 million, or $1.28 a share. ...[for the third quarter] Net sales jumped 35% for corn seeds and traits and 15% for soybean seeds and traits.
http://www.4-traders.com/MONSANTO-COMPA ... -14389275/

note the seeds AND traits-- that's the GMO stuff, which is making them buckets of money. In the kind of money they are making $8 million to protect that revenue stream is like a rounding error.

Democracy in twenty-first century America!