HEALTHY LIVING
The state of California entered a bitter war over whether GMO
foods should be labeled. Now, that fight is
spreading nationwide. ::
Genetically Modified Food Fight BY CHRIS GONSALVES C
onsumer advocates are nothing if not doggedly determined. Undeterred by a crucial
loss in California’s November elections, they are vowing to keep up the fi ght to mandate labeling of genetically engineered foods. Food activists and others had been
counting on a California referendum eff ort called Proposition 37 to require labeling of foods containing genetically modifi ed organisms, or GMO, because they claim safety for human consumption has never been thoroughly studied. It would have required foods containing them to carry labels reading, “Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering.” Proposition 37 failed 53 percent
to 47 percent after agribusinesses mounted an expensive public relations assault against it. “Corporations may have misled
voters in California about GMOs, but they can’t change the fact that over 90 percent of Americans support the
86 NEWSMAX MAXLIFE | MARCH 2013
labeling of foods with genetically engineered ingredients,” says Alisa Gravitz, CEO of the environmental advocacy group Green America and one of the founders of the new GMO Inside, a public awareness campaign launched in the wake of the Proposition 37 defeat.
RIGHT TO KNOW According to industry analysts,
nearly 80 percent of processed foods sold in the United States are made with genetically engineered ingredients including corn, soybeans, and sugar beets whose seeds have been manipulated genetically to make them insect and weed resistant. Industry advocates say there is no
evidence GMOs pose a health risk and are as safe as traditionally grown foods. A French study released in September, published in the Food and Chemical Toxicology journal, claimed a connection between genetically engineered corn and cancer in lab rats. Critics have dismissed the study as fl awed, however.
Here in the United States, GMO
labeling supporters say they were outspent and outgunned politically in the Proposition 37 campaign. Few were surprised when major
biochemical manufacturers including Monsanto, Dow, DuPont, and Con- Agra, and corporate food advocates such as the Grocery Manufacturers of America, poured millions of dollars into California’s “No on Prop. 37” eff ort. Monsanto alone contributed more than $8 million. But as the campaign wore on, the donor list expanded into a Who’s Who of mainstream food makers: Bumble Bee, Campbell Soup, Coca-Cola, General Mills, Heinz, and Welch.
E
ven the parent companies of such well-known “all-natural” brands
as Kashi (owned by Kellogg) and Back to Nature (a Kraft Foods product) got in on the act. By Election Day, the anti-
Proposition 37 forces had amassed nearly $47 million, dwarfi ng the $6.7 million raised by proponents. More
PROTESTERS/STEPHEN LAM/REUTERS/LANDOV / LABEL/AP IMAGES
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92