Local GMO Fights Smash Records as Monsanto's Millions Bankroll Opposition
Published on Wednesday, October 29, 2014
by Common Dreams
Local GMO Fights Smash Records as Monsanto's Millions Bankroll Opposition
Citizen-led initiatives to regulate GMOs in Hawaii, Oregon and Colorado face deep pockets of outside industry groups
by Lauren McCauley, staff writer
As voters in Oregon, California, Hawaii and Colorado prepare to weigh in on whether genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, should be banned or regulated in their states or communities, grassroots campaigns are being overwhelmed by millions that agrochemical and food industry titans are pouring in to defeat such measures.
Monsanto alone spent roughly $14 million in various local races this election year.
According to reports filed with the Hawaii Campaign Spending Commission on Monday, Monsanto has put over $5 million dollars into the campaign against a citizen-led Maui County ballot initiative to ban GMOs on the island. The measure, titled the Maui County Genetically Modified Organism Moratorium Initiative, stipulates that only until a comprehensive environmental and public health survey concludes that the cultivation of GMOs is safe and harmless can agrochemical companies continue to plant and test GMO seeds on the Hawaiian island.
Monsanto is the largest donor to the group Citizens Against the Maui County Farming Ban (CAMCFB), which opposes the moratorium. Despite billing themselves as a "citizens group," as of October 10, CAMCFB has raised nearly $8 million in donations, the vast majority of which was paid by Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences—both of which own large operations on the island that will be affected by the legislation. In contrast, supporters of the ballot initiative have raised less than $90,000 in donations from residents, local businesses and a crowd-sourced online fundraising campaign.
Big Ag's fight to suppress GMO legislation has become a routine narrative in campaign seasons. In 2012, the world's six leading pesticide makers spent over $20 million to defeat Proposition 37 in California, with Monsanto leading the way with over $8 million in donations. And again in 2013, outside industry groups spent over $22 million to defeat Washington's proposed labeling initiative.
More:
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/10/29/local-gmo-fights-smash-records-monsantos-millions-bankroll-opposition
= new reply since forum marked as read
Ukraine, for example.
The 64 Countries that Require GMO Labeling
Australia
Austria
Belarus
Belgium
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Brazil
Bulgaria
Cameroon
China
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Ecuador
El Salvador
Estonia
Ethiopia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malaysia
Mali
Malta
Mauritius
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Peru
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Africa
South Korea
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Tunisia
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
Vietnam
The GE Food labeling Law map shows the laws in more than sixty countries regarding genetically engineered food labeling.
Hard to believe that the people in Slovakia are more educated about their food than in the US
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/reports/1413/genetically-engineered-food-labeling-laws-map#
http://naturalsociety.com/64-countries-require-gmo-labeling-not-united-states/
GMO labeling foes spend big on campaigns in Oregon, Colorado
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/17/us-usa-gmo-labeling-idUSKCN0I621H20141017
China pulls plug on genetically modified rice and corn
China’s Ministry of Agriculture has decided not to renew biosafety certificates that allowed research groups to grow genetically modified (GM) rice and corn. The permits, to grow two varieties of GM rice and one transgenic corn strain, expired on 17 August. The reasoning behind the move is not clear, and it has raised questions about the future of related research in China...
...China has nearly reached self-sufficiency in producing rice using conventional varieties, so the ministry has decided there is no need to commercialize Bt rice in the near future, says Huang Jikun, director of the Chinese Academy of Sciences' Center for Chinese Agricultural Policy. He says that with commercialization off the table, there was no point in renewing the certifications. Huang says "rising public concerns safety of GM rice" likely also played a role...
http://news.sciencemag.org/asiapacific/2014/08/china-pulls-plug-genetically-modified-rice-and-corn
> Huang says "rising public concerns safety of GM rice" likely also played a role...
Now just what does *that* say about the US & UK politicians who argue in favour of their sponsors
rather than their constituents?
