Blog: California prepares for GM labelling decision
Michelle Russell | 5 November 2012
A decision that could potentially see the implementation of the first labelling requirement for genetically modified (GMO) food in the US is expected tomorrow (6 November).
The California initiative, known as Proposition 37, could frame the growing national movement over labelling foods containing genetically engineered ingredients.
Major food and seed companies, however, may be on the verge of defeating the California ballot, after managing to sway public opinion through an opposition campaign funded by Monsanto Co, DuPont, PepsiCo Inc and others, according to Reuters.
The campaign, unleashed in recent weeks, seems to have managed to turn the tide of public opinion, the publication reported.
A poll from the California Business Roundtable and Pepperdine University's School of Public Policy found support has "plummeted" from two-thirds to 39% in the last four weeks, while opposition had surged to almost 51%, Reuters noted.
While some supporters believe success at the ballot box would bring one of the biggest consumer markets and food producers in the country in line with labelling laws in 61 other countries, opponents are making the case that labelling the food implies health dangers that haven't been proved.
Adverts by the recent opposition campaign claim the "badly written" initiative would increase the average family's grocery bills by $400 annually and "hobble" California farmers, Reuters noted.
Mark Kastel, co-director of The Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based farm and food policy research group, recently commented: ""The sad reality is that the Obama administration has done nothing more to make GMO labeling happen than the Bush administration, while accelerating—at the behest of the biotech companies—the review and approval process for an increasing number of genetically modified food crops by the USDA."
The question of whether the use of GMOs in food production is safe has exercised producers, retailers, consumers, campaigners and politicians for more than two decades.
Under certain conditions and contingent on testing, the technology is increasingly being used in food production but campaigners would suggest the questions over whether GM is safe to eat or is safe for the environment, have not yet been comprehensively answered.
Some analysts might be breathing a sigh of relief at news Danone is rejecting speculation it is about to swoop for infant-formula giant Mead Johnson. ...
It is an unseasonably mild and bright morning here in Paris as this year's SIAL expo gets under away. Will the mood of exhibitors match the sunnier weather?...
Raisio, the Finland-based food group, is to lower the sugar content of UK cereal brand Sugar Puffs - and at the same time remove the ingredient from the product's name....
With sales under pressure and margins precarious, PepsiCo should sell off its Quaker North America business, Jefferies analysts argued today (16 October)....
- Comment: Paying the price for eating healthily
- Focus: Will Danone return to growth in dairy?
- Why Nestle is relaxed about the China "drag"
- M&A Watch: Emmi shareholders should consider sale
- Focus: Why French retail deals could hit suppliers
- Nestle organic sales fall on Asia, Europe
- Danone "eyes acquisition of Mead Johnson"
- Heinz jobs in Australasia to go in restructuring
- Symington's acquires Tanfield Foods
- Heinz silent over Polish factory expansion talk