You are viewing the NationofChange archives. For the latest news and actions, visit the new
Get Email Updates | Log In | Register

Monsanto Dishes Out 4.2 Million to Squash California GMO Labeling Initiative

Anthony Gucciardi
Natural Society / News Analysis
Published: Saturday 18 August 2012
“Monsanto obviously does not care much about the general public, however, as exemplified by the company’s utter lack of concern over public health and baseline human rights.”
Article image

Monsanto is doing its absolute best to ensure that you do not know what you are putting into your mouth, now confirmed to have donated $4.2 million in an attempt to fight the California GMO labeling initiative that could very well put them out of business. You see, if people actually knew that they were consuming genetically modified ingredients, they would simply stop buying the engineered products on a massive scale. Monsanto simply cannot have that, which is why it is doing its best to squash any possibility of a successful labeling initiative (along with a conglomerate of corporate entities).

It is already well known that the general public is highly supportive of GMO labeling in general, with many polls finding that around 93% of the population is supportive of knowing what is in their food. Monsanto obviously does not care much about the general public, however, as exemplified by the company’s utter lack of concern over public health and baseline human rights. And if over 90% of support is not enough, then there is the Just Label it Campaign. While the actual end result of the mission is debatable, the massive support is not.

The GMO labeling campaign was backed by over 1 million signatures from around the country, all individuals who were seeking to help others learn what is in their pantry.

Whether its censoring research on their GM products, ignoring evidence that links the engineered crops to serious biological and environmental damage, or managing ‘slave-like’ workers on their corn fields for withheld pay, Monsanto has continually shown its true allegiance does not lie with the citizens of the world. The biotech giant has already made several moves to crush GMO labeling initiatives in the past.

Back in April following the announcement of a bill centered in Vermont known as the ‘VT Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act’ that would require the labeling of genetically modified ingredients, Monsanto threatened to sue the entire state in order to prevent its passing. As a result, the bill went on hold despite a majority (6 to 5) of Agriculture Committee members actually supporting the passage of the bill. Officials actually refused to take a vote. It sounds like mafia-styled intimidation, but it is actually just business as usual.

Instead of allowing Monsanto to win once more through intimidation and financial influence, vote “YES” on the 37 Right to Know California GMO labeling initiative.

Author pic
ABOUT Anthony Gucciardi

Anthony is an accomplished investigative journalist whose articles have appeared on top news sites and have been read by millions worldwide. A health activist and researcher, Anthony’s goal is informing the public as to how they can use natural methods to revolutionize their health, as well as exploring the behind the scenes activity of the pharmaceutical industry and the FDA.

@KevinFolta Are you working

@KevinFolta Are you working for Monsanto or any other company that is similar or works for Monsanto? You keep saying that people are accusing you of this without evidence but you are not denying that you are.

If GM foods are so great,

If GM foods are so great, Monsanto should be happy to have the publicity derived from printing the GM brand on every label and container. Free advertising. Free press. Why would an optometrist not want people to know he operates on eyes? Only if his practice is shoddy, dangerous and harmful.

Excuse me Mr Folta, you seem

Excuse me Mr Folta, you seem to be doing exactly what Monsanto does: spreading disinformation. How much are they paying you for spouting this crap?
Oh, I get it, you've been eating those GMO's again, haven't you? Well, bon appetit! We're not buying it!
So stick your head back up your tutu and inspect the state of your gut flora, probably all been killed off by the pesticide your own body now produces thanks to your boss!
Now can we get some f*****g labelling around here, or what?

Your shameful verbal

Your shameful verbal invective only makes me wonder how much is Monsanto paying your for your inappropriate rant?

Wow Rebel, you accuse me of

Wow Rebel, you accuse me of spreading disinformation? I provided sources for information presented. One is the National Academies of Science, the other an excellent book on biotech/organic farming that references its content. When you say, "We're not buying it" that's great. Keep in mind that's the same thing that right wing kooks say about climate change. You are a science denier. I'm always glad to help understanding on this topic, and I speak from the peer-reviewed literature and not uninformed opinion. Thanks.

And remember, when you make the claim that I'm being paid to say things like this, when you have no evidence of that, it shows that you are willing to make up information to suit a cause. It shows that your points are not backed y evidence.

I always ask this question to

I always ask this question to you Pro-monsanto guys and never get a response. There is this idea that fruits and vegetables are good for you because when they are attacked by 'pests' they have an immunological chemical response the byproduct of which is good for humans. If we do this job for the plant by spraying herbicide we are then reducing the health benefits of eating the plant. What is your opinion on that?

Let me guess you will call this 'pseudo-science' too? Dude I know what you're doing. You are creating and managing the perception that you 'know what you're talking about and then once you've dropped enough scientific terminology to lay that foundation you argue that labelling foods is bad. The overall purpose of this behaviour is to make labelling foods a silly idea to the educated and to communicate subtly that we here are uneducated and therefore do not know what we are talking about when we say that GMO foods should be labelled.

No matter what you say or what you've done in the field of 'science' your argument is not valid because it is arguable that food labelling is wanted by a large portion of the population. That alone justifies food labelling. The people in Europe will most likely not change their minds and start using GE crops nor would they not label GMO foods as such. That is a silly thing to say. And since you are throwing around the word 'evidence' please provide your 'evidence' that Europe will embrace GE crops in 10 years. Nonsense. It's Europe dude. They are light years ahed of you!

Indeed Californians are

Indeed Californians are usually not fooled by Big Money, be it propositions or candidates. Although big tobacco got by them this last election (increased cigarette tax to fund cancer research)

I find it harder and harder

I find it harder and harder to eat foods that do not contain some GM
O products. Many of those vague symptoms that you have are problems caused by these foods. I have major pain from corn and corn by products, It is in everything. I will spread the word and will trty my damest to get rid of it.

@Kevinfolta; there are

@Kevinfolta; there are existing studies that show GMOs induce infertility and cause organ damage in animals. They will do the same thing to humans. The bacteria gene that produces insecticide in the plant is not supposed to survive the human digestive tract. Yet, it does, and is incorporated by the bacteria in the human digestive tract, which are now producing insecticide in our guts. Why is labeling such a hot topic? People should be able to know what they are eating. Let the market decide.

Hi Lawrence. I know the

Hi Lawrence. I know the literature inside and out and I regret to inform you that the work you have accepted as the basis for your opinion is a joke to scientists. It appears in low-impact journals, is never repeated, and is fading into ancient history. The studies are done in tiny numbers of animals with poor or atypical statistics. Produces insecticide in our guts? Do you understand how bt protein works? I guess not! It is not an insecticide, it is a protein that binds a specific receptor in the lepidopteran gut that causes ion leakage and death. This means it is a lock-and-key protein-receptor binding that affects certain larvae-- not other animals and not you.

This is why labeling is a bad idea at this juncture. People do not even have a clue about the technology, they believe the BS, not the science. Please read more about Bt and how it works, you'll feel much better about its use. In fact, it stops literally TONS of broad-spectrum, human-toxic pesticides from being used. 78,000 TONS on cotton alone in China in 2001 (tomorrow's table, pp71). Many other benefits since used

bcbossarte's picture

kevinfolta you must be

kevinfolta you must be working for the 'man'..... This is SUPPOSE to be a free market, if everything is 'as it should be' what are they afraid of? People have the right to know what they put in their body- good or bad- PERIOD. If you don't want sugar in your body you have the right to know what is in something so that you can avoid it. It goes without saying for anything else, why should GMO food be excluded.
It will not cost hundreds per family, that is just fear tactics. Labeling already exists for European countries that require GMO labeling. Are we not just as entitled? Monsanto just bought the whole flipping bee research lab. WHY!
Come on, read what farmers are slowly finding out on their own without science. GMO's do not produce more. The roundup they use in order to farm 'sustainablely' (joke) to grow the GMO has developed resistant weeds and insects, and now they have to add another 'concoction' to roundup to do the same. Just how long do you think you can keep dumping those poisons on the ground. Common sense man. NO degree needed. What they did in Vermont should be a crime, and those who put it on hold voted out.
FYI Splenda has two factories, one is made from GMO corn that is sold in the states and the other factory uses standard old hybridized corn and that ships to Europe. ... Those that hide and lie should be fed a steady diet of their own slop.

You bring up a bunch. Let's

You bring up a bunch. Let's go! I'm not working for "The Man". I'm a scientist that can talk to you about science. If you choose to deny facts that's fine, welcome to the world of right-wing climate science denial. Then, for you to make up an allegation that I work for corporate ag, with no evidence, reminds us that you are the one speaking from no evidence as a basis. My username is my name, and anyone can see that I'm a public scientist working for you.

I agree with you in that labeling is fundamentally not a bad idea, but Prop37 is. If you read it, there is no way that you can consider this good legislation. First, "findings" is all based on fantasy, not facts.

It will increase food costs. The surveillance alone will be $1M and more to run the massive court costs that will come. Look at what economists say about this law-- they are very critical.

Europe will turn to GE within 10 years. It is protectionism because their farmers can't compete against ours that have safe biotech.

If they don't yield more, why do farmers use it? Farmers are some of the smartest people I work with and they speak greatly of the benefits and labor savings. I could connect you to several if you'd like to talk to them.

Resistant weeds and insects are not a GMO only issue. Yes, a problem, but a problem for organic and conventional ag too.

I'm always glad to discuss the topic, but come from the scientific literature, not opinion. Please consider the same evidence base for your thinking, at least as a complement to anti-GMO websites and other propaganda. Thanks.

One reason long-term research

One reason long-term research is so important is that crop yields decreasing, despite claim genetic engineering can feed the world. Also, I've read that increasing use of pesticides required to get rid of increasingly tolerant and giant weeds emerging.

The blurb about the author

The blurb about the author states that he is 'an accomplished ivestigative journalist' whose activities are 'centered around informing the public' about environmental issues. It would be more accurate and would sound like he knows what he is talking about if he could distinguish between GMOs (which humans have been creating for thousands of years) and GEOs, which involves inserting DNA from one species into another that is unrelated. It's irritating to those of use who might be inclined to agree with him except for the confusion.

Keep in mind that it is not

Keep in mind that it is not just Monsanto against this Act. It is many food companies, just about every scientist, economists, farmers, and their associated organizations. Those for it are activists and lawyers. Why? If you actually read it you see how awful it is. 1. It is not justified with scientific evidence. 2. The need to maintain two production streams will be difficult for farmers 3. It even covers somatic hybrids, which are not transgenic 4. Item #10-- it cannot be repealed and can only be altered by a 2/3 majority if the change is to advance the depth of the law. 5. Many things are exempt. We can have labels, more information is better, but this Act is absolute trash. Even if it passes, it is hopefully DOA after court evaluation. MON is for once doing the right thing and opposing this Act- everyone should.

GMO is responsible for the

GMO is responsible for the honey bee population reduction, it's been shown to cause reproductive harm, and, it requires more pesticides than normal crops, how wonderful is that?

Hi Joe. There is no science

Hi Joe. There is no science behind the association with honey bee decline. Check PubMed, not anti-GMO websites. I'm super interested in this and read the literature-- while many make this claim, it is not backed by science. I'm not sure where you get your 'more pesticides' data. Please refer to a citation. Chapter 2, figures 7 and8 of the National Academies book on GM crops says that Bt causes a significant decrease in pesticides, like 80% down. The stat from "Tomorrow's Table" (page 71) says that Bt cotton in China alone in 2001 kept 78,000 tons of pesticide out of the environment. I know Jeff Smith and other non-scientist activists say otherwise, but scientists are pretty clear on the benefits of lowered pesticide use. Thanks.

I'm tired of corporations

I'm tired of corporations bribing our elected officials. These people could care less about the potential dangers to their own family members let alone the citizens they represent. Pure, evil greed.

Monsanto says, "Ignorance is

Monsanto says, "Ignorance is Bliss."

Indeed, I think Monsanto will

Indeed, I think Monsanto will realize no matter how much they spend they will not be able to brainwash people on this one. This could be the first step in using the empire's own momentum to steer it into the dirt.

Hopefully organic dirt.

Hopefully organic dirt.

Comment with your Facebook account

Comment with your Disqus account

Top Stories

comments powered by Disqus

NationofChange works to educate, inform, and fight power with people, corruption with community.

If you would like to stay up to date with the best in independent, filter-free journalism, updates on upcoming events to attend, and more, enter your email below:

7 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Support NationofChange

Our readers often tell us why they’ve decided to step up and become supporters. Here are some of the top reasons people are giving.

1. You’re keeping independent journalism alive
The corporate owned media has proven that it can’t be trusted. In a media landscape wrought with spin and corruption, NationofChange stands in very scarce company.

2. You’re sticking it to the rich, powerful, and corrupt
When you have money in this country you can get away with damn near anything, and they do. NationofChange isn’t afraid to expose these criminals no matter how powerful they are.

3. Your donation is 100% tax-deductible
NationofChange is a 501(c)3 charity. People tend to assume that many other organizations are (most nonprofits are NOT) but it’s that 501(c)3 status is a bit more rare than you think.

Read the rest...