Campaigners seeking mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods in California claim that food processing giants and agribusinesses have paid millions of dollars in an attempt to stifle them.

The California Right to Know campaign, which is backing Proposition 37 on labelling GM food and ingredients has disclosed campaign finance reports which show major agrochemical and food companies have spent over $7 million (£4.5 million) to oppose their campaign. According to the California Secretary of State disclosure forms, the largest contributions so far have been made by agribusinesses Dupont Pioneer ($2,441,500), Bayer Cropscience ($1,064,000) and BASF Plant Science ($996,500). 

Other major food players have also spent large amounts to oppose the labelling campaign. Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Nestle USA and General Mills have each spent $500,000.

Payments were made to the counter-campaign ‘No on 37: Coalition Against the Deceptive Food Labeling Scheme, Sponsored by Farmers, Food Producers and Grocers’. The 'No on 37' group claims that food labelling laws would “increase food costs by billions, add more government bureaucracy and [give rise to] frivolous lawsuits, without providing any health or safety benefits.”

image expired

The campaign has said the current Proposition 37 is flawed and funded press statements advising voters vote against introducing new legislation. These statements include testimonies from a number of eminent scientists who express support for GM food and condemn the proposed labelling laws.

However, the United States’ Center for Media and Democracy’s PR Watch service revealed at the beginning of the month that the 'No on 37' group, “formerly known as the ‘Coalition Against the Costly Food Labeling Proposition’ receives significant support from the Council for Biotechnology Information (CBI) and Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA),” which it claims are both well-known front groups for the "Big 6" pesticide and genetic engineering companies.

Pesticide question

Both sides in the prop 37 debate claim the other is disseminating misinformation. The ‘No on 37’ campaign claims labelling laws would lead food manufacturers to switch to conventionally grown  ingredients (thereby acknowledging GM products are unpopular even in the United States, where they have been cultivated for nearly twenty years). They state this would lead to rises in food prices and even to increased use of damaging agricultural chemicals.

However, in addition to pointing out that an increase in pesticide use would at first glance seem beneficial for the agchem companies fighting to ensure the proposition fails in California, Dr Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, a senior scientist at Pesticide Action Network, retorted, "Rather than reducing the need for hazardous pesticides, [GM] herbicide-resistant seeds have driven a massive increase in herbicide use that has been linked to significant environmental and public health concerns."

She continued, "It's clear that genetically engineered, herbicide-resistant seeds are the growth engines of the pesticide industry's sales and marketing strategy. These seeds are part of a technology package explicitly designed to facilitate increased, indiscriminate herbicide use and pump up chemical sales."

The Right to Know campaign claims the “Genetically Engineered Food Act will have no cost impact on consumers or food producers. It simply adds a label to genetically engineered food.”

Although the debate over transparency in food labelling has come to a head in California this year, Professor Tim Lang, a food policy expert and former hill farmer based at London’s City University, outlined the dichotomy which exists within the Californian situation. Speaking at the Royal Geographical Society in 2009, Professor Lang said, “The neoliberal model, which was introduced in the 1970s and which is now in a mess, has introduced the notion that consumer information is the root of social change.”

He said that, although labelling would surely help provide greater awareness around a given issue, be it the carbon or water footprint, or food miles behind certain foodstuffs, more fundamental changes are needed to ensure a sustainable food system. The professor concluded, “Do I think that putting lots of things on a label will resolve complex problems? No… that’s putting the responsibility onto the individual consumer, who maybe hasn’t got the time, hasn’t got the money, hasn’t got the inclination to make that decision; so we’re actually dumping onto consumers what is a structural problem.”

Voting on Proposition 37 will take place on 6th November. The results will apply only to California, but supporters of GM labelling have said that, if successful, the campaign could spark a groundswell of support and lead to similar consumer awareness campaigns elsewhere. Polls in California currently show 69 per cent support for prop 37, though the ‘Yes on 37’ campaign claims in excess of 90 per cent support.

In Europe only one GM crop is cultivated commercially and any food or feed containing GM material must have the approval of the European health authorities and be labelled as GM before it is sold by retailers.

Tweet