October 4, 2022 Breaking News, Latest News, and Videos

Big Food Company Bucks Make Prop. 37 Unpredictable:

There will be plenty of ballot proposition battles in California this fall that look like food fights, with figurative rotten tomatoes slung via all manner of media over issues from the death penalty to taxes and car insurance, but only one initiative fight revolves around actual food.

That’s Proposition 37, which pits most of America’s largest food producers against the natural and organic foods industry in a fight over whether all food in California should bear labels when made from plants or animals whose genetic material has been changed, or engineered.

So far, this is a one-sided battle, financially. Lined up against the initiative is a virtual who’s who of huge food companies – and well-known ones that are not so huge. Among large donors to the “no” side are Coca-Cola, DuPont, Monsanto, Del Monte, General Mills, Kellogg, William Wrigley Jr. Co., J.M. Smucker, Morton Salt, McCormick spices, Dow Chemical Co., Bayer, Hershey and Mars candies, Godiva Chocolate, Land O’Lakes dairy products, Ocean Spray Cranberries, Sara Lee bakeries, Dole fruits, Nestle USA and Campbell Soup, among others.

On the “yes” side, meanwhile, are Nature’s Path Foods, Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, a Chicago osteopath and a host of small donors, including organic farms, of which the largest donor as of the Aug. 15 reporting date was the Earthbound Organic Farm of San Juan Bautista.

Opponents – most based in other states – poured more than $25 million into their war chest, about 10 times what supporters raised. That much money arriving so early indicates the final figure for spending on the “no” side will likely top $50 million. Even at that level, this won’t be the most expensive campaign of the fall – that distinction will likely go to Proposition 32, a conservative effort to politically emasculate organized labor in California – but it will surely involve some of the most complex issues and claims.

Attempts at labeling bioengineered foods have had mixed luck around America and the world, so the California outcome is difficult to predict precisely, even though summertime polls showed Proposition 37 with about 60 percent support before many campaign ads had appeared.

Labeling of genetically engineered products has been defeated by legislators in 19 states, but is required in more than 40 countries including Japan, Australia and most of Europe.

Labeling would remain far from universal here even if Proposition 37 passes; it exempts restaurant foods, alcoholic beverages and foods made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves – cow’s milk and most meat are thus exempt, but soy milk would have to be labeled.

Among the arguments against the measure is a claim that enforcement will increase government costs. But the official ballot pamphlet estimate indicates enforcement may not run more than a few hundred thousand dollars, a pittance in state government terms.

Stores would do most enforcement, with the proposed law requiring they get sworn statements of purity from any suppliers not labeling their foods as genetically engineered. Opponents say this could open the door to myriad nuisance lawsuits against grocers and their suppliers, besides increasing costs to farmers and food processors by a purported $1.2 billion yearly.

Backers’ main argument is that all food shoppers should have the right to know exactly what’s in every product they buy. This will cost next to nothing, they say, because manufacturers will have almost two years to phase in new labels or change their products.

There are, of course, competing scientific claims: The big food companies insist there’s no harm in bioengineered foods. Bob Goldberg, professor of molecular, cell and developmental biology at UCLA, writes on the opposition website that “Foods made using modern biotechnology are thoroughly tested and proven safe. Labels are misleading and unnecessary.”

The unspoken but unmistakable implication of labels, opponents insist, is that genetically engineered foods are unsafe.

Interestingly, the single largest donor to the “no” side is Monsanto Co., which bills itself as “a sustainable agriculture company” while selling many brands of seeds and weed killers. In England in the 1990s, the same company backed labeling of the precise sort it’s now fighting. One of its ads then said “Before you buy a potato, or any other food, you may want to know whether it’s the product of food biotechnology…We believe you should be aware of all the facts before making a purchase.”

Monsanto says the reverse now, while Proposition 37’s proponents virtually echo the company’s long-ago ad as their principal argument. They also say some genetically engineered foods might cause allergies.

Voters will have to sort through all of this and amid a one-sided barrage of campaign commercials, as the “no” side vastly outspends backers, before making what amounts to a scientific decision.

All of which makes the outcome here highly unpredictable, despite Proposition 37’s apparently wide early support.

in Opinion
Related Posts

Letter to Editor: Proposal to Reroute LAX Jet Traffic Over Santa Monica

October 4, 2022

October 4, 2022

Unbeknownst to the entire Santa Monica Airport Commission, FAA plans have been actively underway since before May of 2022 to...

Food for Thought: Santa Monica Brew Works’ Milkshake Beers Are ‘Udderly’ Good

September 29, 2022

September 29, 2022

Brewery teams up with Johnny Rockets to make a Strawberry Milkshake Porter and a Chocolate Peanut Butter Milkshake Porter By...

Assemblyman Richard Bloom Endorses Erin Darling for LA City Council!

September 20, 2022

September 20, 2022

Former Santa Monica Mayor joins long list of elected officials backing the Venice local By Nick Antonicello Richard Bloom, the...

SMa.r.t. Column: Gelson’s – Compliant? Or Not!

September 17, 2022

September 17, 2022

The poster child for over-development known as The Gelson’s project, located at Lincoln & Ocean Park Blvd’s has had its...

SMa.r.t. Column: The Big Reset

September 14, 2022

September 14, 2022

Part 2 of 2 articles Last column we considered the illusions that keep us from facing the real dangers of...

Column: “Justice Does Matter”

September 7, 2022

September 7, 2022

Judicial candidate Patrick Hare seeks “collaborative versus adversarial” court system for LA County! By Nick Antonicello LA Public Defender Patrick...

Column: Time to Crack Down on Vacant Homes’ Owners

August 12, 2022

August 12, 2022

By Tom Elias, Columnist ​​There is no doubt California has a housing shortage. That’s fact even in the wake of...

OpED: Santa Monica Police Officers Association on Downtown Presence

August 12, 2022

August 12, 2022

By The Santa Monica Police Officers Association Recently, there has been increased public dialogue around the topic of crime and...

Review: A Santa Monica Restaurant’s New Happy Hour is Top-Notch

August 10, 2022

August 10, 2022

By Dolores Quintana Birdie G’s in Santa Monica has a new Happy Hour and it is something special. For one...

SMa.r.t. Column: Ode to the Future of My City

August 8, 2022

August 8, 2022

How sad it is to journey to Santa Monica and I can’t find it.The open blue sky hides behind canyon...

SMa.r.t. Column: Why Native Gardens?

July 22, 2022

July 22, 2022

Voltaire said it best at the end of his 1759 novel  Candide: “We must cultivate our own garden”. This simple...

SMa.r.t. Column: We’re All Wet – Not!

July 15, 2022

July 15, 2022

Don’t you think that if you heard, or read, statements from controlling government agencies that said you were threatened by...

Affordability Answer: A New Tax on Housing Speculators?

July 8, 2022

July 8, 2022

By Tom Elias, Columnist The TV commercials and online ads are fast becoming ubiquitous: “We’ll buy your house as is,”...