So there's a proposition —
Proposition 37 — on the ballot in California that would make the state the first in the nation to require the labeling of food products containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). When you turn on the TV here in the Golden State, you'd think these extra few words on our instant coffee, granola, canned soup, or soy milk containers are going to bankrupt poor food producers and send millions of people into instant poverty.
All of a sudden, the airwaves are swamped with doctors, researchers, farmers, and fake university professors predicting the demise of civilization were the poor people of California to be subjected to this truly radical concept of knowing what's in their food. Apparently, the cost of adding a few more words to the ingredient list on the packaging is going to be so astronomical that each of our grocery bills is going to go up by a zillion dollars a year and farmers will drop out of farming like rain out of a monsoon sky.
Also too, everybody is going to be so confused about everything that the whole country will be spinning in circles: Logistics people will lose their minds over custom-labeling California-bound food, truck drivers will crash into supermarkets in utter desperation, and shoppers will be screaming in exasperation over their futile quest to understand which products are GMO-labeled and why.
Listening to these Monsanto-sponsored fables on the Teevee, you'd think it's going to be the end of food and eating, and we're all going to have to beam ourselves to another galaxy to escape the vicious fangs of labels and enjoy a sea of shiny big spotless grains and vegetables provided by a handful of caring, benevolent multi-billion dollar corporations. Awesome, trust us!
What's the Big Deal?
Now at first glance it wouldn't seem like a controversial issue: For one, people seem to appreciate knowing what's in their food, not only out of basic human curiosity, but so they can make educated choices about what they're putting into their bodies. For many, knowing how much sugar, salt, or fat is in a product is a matter of survival. Knowing which product contains what ingredients is an important choice the consumer has and needs in order to make the right decision that's best for his or her health.
Also, over 50 other countries — including all of Europe, Russia and China — require labeling of genetically engineered food, and last time I checked, they're still eating food over there, quite happily so. In fact, I just got back from visiting my mom in Southern Germany, and the (GMO-free!) food was not only affordable, but delicious. Take a look:
Another thing they do in Europe that takes up tremendous amount of label space but doesn't seem to have bankrupted any food companies yet or driven up food prices is to not only write the ingredients on the product in several languages but include the country of origin for each ingredient. This is the label on a Swiss biscuit brand...
Here in California, knowing what's in your food and where it comes from has become a big deal and has become an actual selling point. My local Safeway now takes up a lot of store space featuring information about the origin of their produce, posting even snappy photos of the farmers who grow our avocados, peaches, and tomatoes.
Other California companies who take a lot of pride in their products have made it their mission to tell consumers exactly what they're buying. For example, Patagonia offers its Footprint Chronicles, mapping and providing transparency of their entire supply chain. Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps tells you exactly where their ingredients come from, who produced them and how.
And of course, anyone who's ever held a bottle of Dr. Bronner's in their hands knows how much info you can fit on a label...
What's Big Ag Hiding?
So, this really begs the question: Why are the makers of genetically engineered food so adamantly opposed to Proposition 37 that they have already sunk over $35 million into defeating it?
Why are agrochemical titans Monsanto and DuPont emerging as the top two opponents of GMO-labeling with contributions totaling $7.1 million and $4.9 million, respectively?
Why would Monsanto, a company that calls itself "A Sustainable Agriculture Company" and proudly claims that "food derived from genetically-modified crops is as safe as non-GM-derived food" not embrace the chance to have their safe and wonderful technology advertised on the product?
Why would multi-gazillion dollar "food" companies like Dow, Syngenta, Bayer, BASF, Pepsi, Coca Cola, Nestle, and Conagra not stand behind what's in their product and let consumers make their own, free-market based decision?
Money (That's What I Want)
The answer, of course, is pretty easy: M-O-N-E-Y. These food conglomerates are not very confident that their products would stand the test of consumer scrutiny and are afraid that they'll lose a lot of money if people actually know what's in their products. While the U.S. Senate, heavily influenced by Big Ag lobbyists, voted down a GMO amendment to the recent Farm Bill by 73 to 26, polls show that over 90% of Americans favor GMO labeling.
This doesn't mean that 90% of Americans would refuse to buy food containing GMOs (just as they don't refuse sugary, salty and fatty junk food), but people want to at least know what they're putting in their bodies, which is exactly what a Yes on Prop 37 vote would do. But, with people finding out more and more reasons to avoid GMOs, chances are quite a few will choose GMO-free products if given the knowledge and the choice.
Because really, why on earth should we blindly trust the same companies that said tobacco, DDT and Agent Orange were safe when they say genetically engineered food is completely harmless?
As is usually the case with consumer protection initiatives, the big corporate interests who are fighting them tooth and nail — because the only thing worse for them than making a little less profit is to reveal their dirty big secret — are spending millions to nitpick over technicalities of the measure to sow doubt and fear in voters. It's right out of Sarah Palin's "death panel" playbook that inflates, distorts and misconstrues one little part of the proposition — in this case Big Ag is going gaga over certain exemptions — to discredit the entire spirit of the proposed law.
The reason Monsanto, Dupont, Dow and Co. are freaking out and are literally throwing the kitchen sink is that they know as California goes, so goes the nation. Since Californians consume about 12% of all food in the country and about 20 other states are considering similar legislation, passage of Prop 37 could have a profound effect nationally.
Farmers have as much of a stake in this as consumers, trying to escape from Big Ag's tight grip and the vicious cycle of patented GMO seeds. Troy Roush, an Indiana farmer featured in the 2009 documentary Food, Inc. who grows GMO corn and soybeans explains why he would love it if his crops were GMO-labeled.
The stakes are as high for these industrial chemical corporate behemoths as they are for us citizens who have been forced to eat their frankenfoods without knowing. Both sides know that this is ultimately much bigger than food labels:
If they defeat Prop 37 they can go on using planet and people as their unwilling labrats to cement their twisted patents and monopolies on soil, seeds and crops to turn billions of dollars of profit in a dangerous and irrevocable genetic manipulation gamble.
If we pass Prop 37, we will finally be able to call attention to these dangerous games these companies have been playing with the diversity of the earth's ecosystem and the health of our bodies, and through the power of knowledge and education push back on the secret sauce they've been feeding us.
An educated citizen and consumer is like garlic for the corporate vampire. As Just Label It Chair and Stonyfield Farm co-founder Gary Hirshberg quoted former Nixon counsel John Dean:
When people keep secrets, it's usually for a reason.
So as always when contemplating two sides of a referendum, the key question to ask yourself is: "Who is benefiting?"
::::::::::::::::
crossposted at A World of Words