« Back to Home Page

GMO Labeling: Does Proposition 37 Pit “Children” Against “Parents?”

RP Siegel | Friday August 24th, 2012 | 12 Comments

Reading Marc Gunther’s piece about certain natural food companies’ role in the Proposisiton 37 battle over GMO labeling reminds me of the old song from the seventies that says that “one bad apple doesn’t spoil the whole bunch.” If that’s true then I suppose one sweet apple can’t redeem an otherwise rotten bunch, either.

Consider the following natural food companies: Naked Juice, Silk, Cascadian Farms, Kashi and Honest Tea. All these companies are mission-driven with strong, well-earned reputations for integrity and corporate responsibility. They are deeply committed to sustainability, transparency and, especially, organic (which means inherently non-genetically modified) foods. And yet, these companies have been strangely silent in the otherwise clamorous fight over GMO labeling.

As it turns out, these five companies are owned, respectively, by PepsiCo, Dean Foods, General Mills, Kellogg, and Coca-Cola, all of whom have made significant contributions against Proposition 37 which, if passed, will require the labeling of products containing genetically modified ingredients.

Gunther says that this is simply a case of children disagreeing with their parents. The parents, though, in this case, are doing a bit more than going to work every day and then coming home to make critical comments about musical tastes or hairstyles. They have, in collaboration with other “grownups,” raised a total of $25 million aimed at defeating the GMO labeling initiative, while the children have apparently been sent to their rooms.

The LA Times says that most of that money has gone to political consultants and media experts.

These associations, which are now being widely circulated by supporters of Proposition 37 such as the Cornucopia Institute, have been used to label these natural food companies as corporate charlatans, which, in turn, has led to talk of boycotts.

What is really going on here? Are these natural food companies really two-faced hypocrites that are truly against the Proposition? Have they been given a gag order by their “parents?” Or is this simply guilt by association, or coercion, like children in the back seat of a car stolen by bank robbers?

The somewhat shocking realization that these familiar “alternative” brands are, in fact, owned by giant corporations may seem to some to represent a deal with the devil. As we can see here, there’s an element of truth to that. But let’s not forget that the parental support also allows these organic, sustainable products much wider distribution than they might otherwise receive. According to the Honest Tea website, their deal with Coca-Cola increased their number of sales channels by a factor of five. We like to romanticize these company leaders as ex-hippies, coming in from the fields in overalls with straw in their beards and who have never heard of the word tradeoff. But the fact is, Seth Goldman and Barry Nalebuff, the founders of Honest Tea, for example, met at the Yale School of Management.

Does this make them somehow less committed to the ideals that the company espouses? Not necessarily. But it clearly does constrain their ability to fight the fight on all fronts. Should we hate them for this? That’s a personal choice. I don’t, but I am saddened by the extent to which the corporate culture with its voracious appetite for profit seems to be taking over everything. And what about those parent companies, who, on other days, try so hard to appear sustainable? How nice, for their clean, green image to have these boutique, green companies to trot out and show the world.

The five companies that Gunther singled out are really just the tip of the iceberg. According to KCET, there are quite a few more of these anti-prop 37 parent & pro-organic child pairings, including:
·         Horizon Organic (Dean Foods)
·         Alta Dena (Dean Foods)
·         Scharffen Berger (Hershey)
·         Dagoba (Hershey)
·         Larabar (General Mills)
·         Muir Glen (General Mills)
·         Nature Valley (General Mills)
·         Mountain High (General Mills)
·         Good Earth (General Mills)
·         Truvia (Cargill)
·         Alexia (ConAgra)
·         Santa Cruz Organic (J.M. Smucker)

Coke and Pepsi were the two biggest donors, giving over a million dollars apiece to defeat Prop 37. But this is small potatoes compared to the $4 million or more that Monsanto and DuPont each gave. Monsanto alone outspent the total amount raised in support of the proposition.

Of course the more grassroots oriented pro-Prop side will probably make up some of the difference with more numerous smaller donations, but whether it’s the number of supporters or the number of dollars that carries the day remains to be seen. Research does show that money spent campaigning does make a difference. The exact mechanism is not well understood, but most people agree that it has something to do with what Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minster once said, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”

In an election like this one, a simple exaggeration or bending of the truth will often do the trick. But Monsanto, in their typical over-the-top, brute force style isn’t taking any chances. Their campaign has been filled with misleading and deceptive claims.

Yet, despite all this spending, so far, supporters of Proposition 37 are well ahead in the polling, despite the fact that they have raised only $3 million, just over a tenth of what the opposing side has amassed.

According to a California Business Roundtable and Pepperdine University School of Public Policy poll released last week, those in favor of labeling are ahead by a margin of 64.9 percent to 23.9 percent. This is why the anti-labeling forces have stepped up their efforts. The companies argue that this shouldn’t be decided at the state level. That’s because they already own the FDA, the USDA, most of Congress and the Supreme Court, so they know that nothing will be done at the Federal level that is not to their liking. They don’t yet own the people of California, which is why this might be the only place where they can be stopped.

Don’t be surprised, if, soon after this proposition passes, they start lobbying for a new federal law or a bringing a case to the Supreme Court designed to overturn the labeling requirement. I guarantee you they’re already working on it.

Meanwhile, the folks at Honest Tea, Naked, etc., will carry on doing what they do well, waiting for this to all blow over, and perhaps wondering what happened to their innocence.

[Image credit: Millions against Monsanto: Flickr Creative Commons]

RP Siegel, PE, is an inventor, consultant and author. He co-wrote the eco-thriller Vapor Trails, the first in a series covering the human side of various sustainability issues including energy, food, and water in an exciting and entertaining format. Now available on Kindle.

Follow RP Siegel on Twitter.

 


▼▼▼      12 Comments     ▼▼▼

Newsletter Signup
  • Dave Shires

    Man, there’s too much anger here. Makes me sympathetic for Monsanto!

    Here’s the thing – there is nothing “evil” about GMOs. What’s playing out here is simply a power game between the big old dogs and the new cats. I happen to greatly favor the new cats – far superior products, most certainly better for the environment, etc. But it’s not really about GMOs, it’s about junky processed food – in general, and the massive control the big old dogs have over the government.

    Anyway, I think prop 37 would do a lot to even the playing field, give organics and advantage. But it’s really just politics going on here. Nothing’s stopping the free-thinking consumer from looking for an “organics” label.

    • Sara

      That’s funny, Monsanto is not sympathetic for you. Oh and it is about GMOs!

      • reedbarnes

        I wouldn’t say they need to “even” the field. Organic is an elitism. “Im buying Organic. It’s better for the environment and better for me. Blah Blah Blah.” You want to help the environment, stop eating meat. It is honestly the best thing you can technically do. I’m not a vegetarian, so I am a hypocrite on this one.

        He has the point though. Organic gets to label, and price higher than the food is worth. Organic, is all around, more expensive. There is too much misinformation about the science of this matter. Not to mention, labelling wouldn’t bother me if they did it right. This bill doesn’t have the labelling rules Id want. How about rules that says if this is transgenic or intragenic? What about if they inserted a gene or silenced one? What about the technique they used? How about that it has been tested for the 500+ known allergens in humans, undergone animal trials, and extensive testing. It passed governmental organizations overview as well. How about that?

  • Sara

    Bad Seed!!!! Now I know which children to stay away from! The seed does not fall far from the tree!! Unless of course it is genetically modified with terminator genes and therefore doesn’t create seeds.

    • reedbarnes

      you honestly don’t know what they did to stop them from producing seeds. Are you familiar with the definition of a “hybrid”. One you may have heard of before are mules, ligers, bananas, cassava

  • Squirrelhead

    There is nothing more evil than GMO’s and the patenting of the right to produce food. Not to mention, a tomato with a fish gene is not a tomato. I have the right to know. It’s like saying you cannot look under the hood of a car before you buy it.

    • reedbarnes

      Gene is a gene. Organisms use the same coding system for all genes. If the tomato has a gene from a fish, and it is found to be safe, it is still a tomato.

      • karen

        It the fish gene was to be with a tomato, won’t nature already found a way? What study said it was safe?

        • reedbarnes

          ugh there are none because there is no fish gene tomatoes… what you are referring to is a strawberry being engineered with a gene from fish that is a natural antifreeze to help prevent frost damage… it isn’t available and I am not capable of getting the information because it is still in testing phases.

  • Zomby

    If GMO sugar beets are the same as cane sugar…..Tell me why Shell oil company is only using “CANE” sugar to produce ethanol? If I can’t burn it in my car, I probably don’t want to eat it.

  • Karen Stark

    You are so correct about the FDA being in the back pocket with these companies!!!

  • Sandy

    Don’t feel sorry for Monsanto, they also want to deregulate the OFPA of 1990 and allow synthetic chemicals to be used in ORGANIC food. Check out what the Cornucopia Institute has to say about this. Additionally, Congress already made amendments to the OFPA in 2005 to weaken regulations on organic foods.