January 27, 2020 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

The Myth of “Public” Art in Santa Monica

February 8, 2019

February 8, 2019

Over the past few years, the Stanton MacDonald Wright murals at the entrance to Santa Monica City Hall have stirred...

Beausoleil: First Parole Test for Newsom

February 10, 2019

February 10, 2019

Not many Californians under 60 can recall just who is the 71-year-old Bobby Beausoleil and what evils he did back...

AI in the Year 2020… Almost

February 11, 2019

February 11, 2019

By Nektar Baziotis In 1966 Gene Rodenberry’s “Star Trek” made its television debut on NBC. Audiences young and old were captivated...

Is Santa Monica’s Heart for Sale?

February 15, 2019

February 15, 2019

Note from SMa.r.t.: This article, in a longer form, was originally published four years ago but is still as pertinent...

Column: Adapting to Westside Vacancies

February 18, 2019

February 18, 2019

By Avi Sinai We all see the vacant storefronts around the Westside and it begs the question – why are...

SMa.r.t. Column: Gridlocked Best Intentions

February 22, 2019

February 22, 2019

On any given evening (and especially weekends) pay a visit to north-bound 2nd Street between Broadway Avenue and Santa Monica...

No Excuses: Stop the Crime Wave

March 1, 2019

March 1, 2019

My mother turned 91 last Saturday. Happy Birthday, Mom! She has walked the streets of Santa Monica her whole life...

Column: Can we Solve Westside Traffic with more Housing Development?

March 5, 2019

March 5, 2019

About the author: Avi Sinai is the principal of HM Capital, a Los Angeles company specializes in hard money real...

Open Space… Is There Any Left?

March 9, 2019

March 9, 2019

Yes there is. Small as it is, there is about 2.5 acres in the heart of downtown waiting to be...

Letter to Editor: Former Mayor on Voting Rights Case

March 13, 2019

March 13, 2019

By Paul Rosenstein Former Mayor of Santa Monica I hope the judge’s order for district elections is stayed during the...

I Eat, Therefore I Risk:

June 24, 2010

June 24, 2010

Let’s start with the water bottle. Because that’s just such a strange modern mentality to begin with… the notion that...

Hometown Hero: Ted Winterer:

June 24, 2010

June 24, 2010

2010 will be the first time Ted, his wife, the designer Beck Taylor, their children, Eleanor and Steele, and their...

There’s LUCE, and Then There’s “loose”…:

July 2, 2010

July 2, 2010

Class stratification doesn’t have to be part of the dialogue about every single thing in America. Or does it? You...

SMa.r.t. OpEd: A Sense of Place:

September 2, 2016

September 2, 2016

By SMa.r.t In the mid-19th century, America’s West held the promise of cheap land and riches. In some ways, this...

Insurance Arrangement Shows PUC Hasn’t Change:

November 7, 2015

November 7, 2015

State commissions, like people and corporations, rarely change unless they’re given strong motivation; sometimes change has to be forced on...