Ad blitz pummels support for California GMO labelling

Successful Support for the GMO labelling proposal plummeted 
to 48.3 per cent from 66.9 per cent two weeks earlier

An intense advertising blitz, funded by Monsanto and others, has eroded support for a California ballot proposal that would require U.S. food makers to disclose when their products contain genetically modified organisms.

If California voters approve the measure in November, it would be the first time U.S. food makers would have to label products that contain GMOs.

For more than a week, the opposition group — funded by Monsanto and PepsiCo — dominated television and radio airtime with ads portraying the labelling proposal as an arbitrary set of new rules that will spawn frivolous lawsuits and boost food prices, positions disputed by supporters.

Experts say the real risk is that food companies may be more likely to stop using GMOs, than to label them.

That could disrupt U.S. food production because ingredients such as GM corn, soybeans and canola have for years been staples in virtually every type of packaged food, from soup and tofu to breakfast cereals and chips.

As of Oct. 10, support for the GMO labelling proposal had plummeted to 48.3 per cent from 66.9 per cent two weeks earlier, according to an online survey of likely California voters conducted by the California Business Roundtable and the School of Public Policy at Malibu-based Pepperdine University.

At the same time, the proportion of respondents likely to vote “no” on the measure — known as Proposition 37 — jumped to 40.2 per cent from 22.3 per cent two weeks earlier, according to the survey results.

“Clearly the ‘No’ side has more money and the advertising is having an effect,” Michael Shires, a Pepperdine professor who oversees the survey cited above, told Reuters.

Funding for the effort to defeat the “Right to Know” ballot initiative is led by chemical giants Monsanto and DuPont, whose businesses also are the world’s top sellers of genetically modified seeds.

Monsanto has contributed just over $7 million to fight the proposal, while DuPont has kicked in about $5 million. In all, the “No on 37” camp has raised a total of $34.6 million, according to filings with the California Secretary of State.

“Yes on 37” supporters — led by the Organic Consumers Association and Joseph Mercola, a natural health information provider — have donated just $5.5 million.

“When there’s an initiative that’s going to affect an industry that can rally resources, they’ve usually been able to stop it,” said Shires. “It still could go either way.”

If passed, California would join dozens of countries that already have some requirements for labelling of genetically engineered foods.

Supporters of the ballot initiative, including food and environmental activists as well as organic growers, say consumers have the right to know what’s in the food they eat.

Many want GM products, which do not require pre-market safety assessments in the United States, cut from the food chain.

Industry says the products are safe, but there is a fiery debate raging around the science.

Because foods made with GMOs are not labelled, it is impossible to trace any food allergies or other ill effects suffered by humans or animals, critics say.

About the author

Comments

explore

Stories from our other publications