A Closer Look at the Opposition to Labeling GMOs

On Nov. 6, 2012, Californians will vote on Proposition 37,  a measure brought to the ballot by the state's citizens--more than 1 million of them--who want to require products containing GMOs be labeled as such. Or, at the very least, they want their fellow Californians to be able to just vote on whether to labels such products. Here's one article from the LA Times about the initiative. Money is being spent on both sides of the issue, but I think it's interesting to see who is fighting against labeling. First, here's a summary of Proposition 37 from a site called Map Light, which says Proposition 37 

"Requires labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways. Prohibits labeling or advertising such food as “natural.” Exempts 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." 

You can view the summary and a graphic on the groups who are spending big bucks to help defeat the measure at http://votersedge.org/california/ballot-measures/2012/november/prop-37. Be sure to open the page fully so that you can see where the money's coming from. In case you don't, though, I'll tell you: Of the $1.2 million raised so far to defeat Proposition 37, $1 million (or 81.1 percent) of it is coming from Washington, D.C.

 In this post, I want to look at the #1 contributor against labeling, but first let me list the major funders of  opposition from the above link. Funding to defeat the measure is coming from the Council for Biotechnology Information; Grocery Manufacturers Association; Pepsico, Inc.; Nestle USA, Inc.; Coca-Cola Company; ConAgra Foods; Kellogg Co.; The J.M. Smucker Co.; Hormel Foods Corporation; and Bimbo Bakeries USA. I'll explore these companies in future posts.


So, who and what is the Council for Biotechnology Information (CBI)? They claim to be a non-profit organization with a mission to communicate "scientific-based information about the benefits and safety of agricultural biotechnology and its contributions to sustainable agriculture." Sounds all warm and fuzzy, doesn't it. A few minutes on the site will likely make you think you've stumbled onto a public relations site for GMOs. Who are the members of the Council for Biotechnology Information, which, incidentally, is located in Washington, D.C.? Their member list consists of the "Big 6 Biotech Corporations": BASF Plant Sciences in Limburgerhoff, Germany; Bayer CropScience in Monheim, Germany; Dow Agro Sciences LLC., in Indianapolis, Ind.; DuPont Pioneer Hi-Bred in Des Moines, Iowa; Monsanto Co., in St. Loius, Missouri; and Syngenta in Basel, Switzerland. What do all these companies have in common? They all provide "innovative technologies", which include developing GMOs, to 'improve' agriculture, and they all develop and sell chemicals used in agriculture. So, when you hear "international scientific research" talking about how wonderful and safe GMOs are, you're likely hearing the reports of THEIR scientists. This is quite a contrast to a group I mentioned in the previous post, Union of Concerned Scientists, which is an organization of scientists from around the globe who conduct independent research, often with different results.


CBI already has a strong presence in Washington, D.C. According to Pesticide Action Network North America's article "Undue Influence,"representatives of several of the above companies are often involved in legislative and legal activities involving key policies and issues. We only need to look at the 2013 Farm Bill to see recent evidence of their involvement. Here's an article from Reuters detailing a little about that. But, let's get back to "Undue Influence." This article lists a few of the government officials making key decisions about agricultural policy and their ties to some of the Big 6. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was a attorney for Monsanto for three years, yet he didn't feel compelled to recuse himself from a case involving Monsanto, Monsanto v. Geertson Seed Farms; Michael Taylor is the  Deputy Commissioner for Foods in the Food and Drug Administration and a former Monsanto attorney; Islam Siddiqui is the Chief Agricultural Negotiator at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and former Vice President for Science and Regulatory Affairs as well as former Vice President of Agricultural Biotechnology and Trade at CropLife America, a lobbying group representing 41 corporations, including DuPont, Monsanto, and Dow; and Ramona Romero is the General Counsel for the U.S. Department of Agriculture and a former corporate counsel for  DuPont. How nice that Big Ag has such influential friends in government offices that set, or affect, agricultural policy.


Those are a few faces connected with some of the Big 6 and agricultural policy in the United States, but there's more. Remember the phrase "Follow the Money?" Well, if we follow the money, the ties between the Big 6 and agricultural policy makers get even tighter. According to Open Secrets.org, lots of money flowed from some of the Big 6--and I would like to add CropLife America to the mix--in 2011. Monsanto spent nearly $6.4 million lobbying on Agricultural Services/Products, the biggest spender in this category according to Open Secrets.org. You can see everyone on the list here. What about the others? Syngenta AG spent nearly $1.4 million, Dow Chemical spent $820,000, and Bayer AG spent $20,000. Remember CropLife America, whose clients include DuPont, Monsanto, and Dow? It spent nearly $2.5 million lobbying for the agricultural industry.


This year, the year Congress votes on the 2013 Farm Bill, spending is still strong. Monsanto continues to lead the pack with $2.93 million in spending followed by CropLife America with $1.04 million, Dow Chemical and Syngenta AG are tied with $570,000 in lobbying dollars, and Bayer AG has spent $20,000 so far. Dow has also been hard at work this year getting a green light for its genetically engineered soybean seeds. You can read about that here. The article also has a link where you can submit your comments to the federal government regarding this new GMO product.


These companies aren't just spending money on lobbyists. They are contributing to political campaigns as well with 60 percent of their money financing Republicans. You can check that out at Open Secrets.org, too, through this link.


Despite all this money flowing to protect biotechnology's interests, at least Californians will be able to vote to label GMOs. Those who want such labeling are slightly outspending those who don't, and with the issue up at the polls, I'm hopeful votes at home (in this case California) will talk louder than lobbyists in Washington.