Chinese general hits out at use of GM foods

Chinese general hits out at use of GM foods

BEIJING: A Chinese general has publicly criticized growing Chinese dependence on genetically modified crops. 

The general, Peng Guangqian, has said that using the method will enable western companies to take control of China's agriculture. 

"What they call 'solving the food problem for 1.3 billion people' by relying on genetic engineering is a complete lie," he wrote in the state controlled Xinhua news agency. "We can't afford to move on a trial-and-error basis." 

Peng, who holds a non-command rank equivalent of major-general of the People's Liberation Army, said 'western multinational companies' were dumping GM crops in China and thus destroying the country's traditional agriculture. This comes after vice president of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences Wu Kongming publicly called for wider cultivation of GM crops. 

Wu said China cannot afford to stick to traditional farming to feed its millions and the only way out of food shortage was to "use modern technology to support the development of our agriculture". Sources said that the outburst shows emerging differences within the government on sensitive matters and the government's readiness to allow public discussion on some developmental issues. 

China does not allow commercial plantation of GM staple crops. But plantation of GM papaya and cotton has been allowed. Several Chinese officials including those in the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences are asking for wide scale planting of GM crops. 

China relies heavily on imported GM soy beans. Customs data showed 81% of soy beans consumed in China last year were imported mostly from the US and Brazil. TOI

Global call against Monsanto and genetically modified food crops on October 12

Global call against Monsanto and genetically modified food crops on October 12

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: From a global call to march against genetically modified food cropsand Monsanto, to a concrete strategy to conserve freshwater ecosystems, scientists and activists at the international conference on ecosystem conservation, climate change and sustainable Development (ECOCASD) made it clear that indigenous biodiversity protection is crucial to sustenance. 

As part of the global call against Monsanto, participants including green activists from 400 cities across the world including Kochi and Thiruvananthapuram will organise protest marches and rallies on October 12, calling for Safe Food to prevent contamination of food by genetically modified crops and toxic pesticides. "We have no crisis in food security, it is crisis in distribution of safe food and the government has to address that," Green activist Sridhar Radhakrishnan told TOI on Friday. 

Later in the day leading freshwater conservation biologists got together calling for concrete strategies to conserve freshwater biodiversity in a symposium on 'Aichi Targets and freshwater biodiversity conservation in the Western Ghats'. Though freshwater ecosystems occupy less than one per of the Earth's surface, it harbors 10 per cent of the planet's biodiversity. Yet they are one of the most poorly protected ecosystems on earth and face various threats including pollution, overexploitation and alien invasive species. 

Dr. Jorg Freyhof, Scientist at the Leibniz Institute of Inland Fisheries in Berlin, Germany stressed the need for larger holistic data bases to convince and prioritise arguments for biodiversity conservation. He said policy makers and conservationists need to collate data that is easily available including species description, ecological trait data, threatened biodiversity, Red List assessment, protected area network and priority areas for restoration. 

Zoo Outreach Organization executive director Dr. Sanjay Molur said, prioritization of Indian Freshwater fish the AZE (Alliance for Zero Extinction) species for conservation is an achievable undertaking that will cater to Aichi Biodiversity Target 12 dealing with zero extinction. 

IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) Species Survival Commission Freshwater Fish Specialist Group-South Asia Co-Chair Dr. Rajeev Raghavan alerted the lack of attention given to freshwater fish as compared to marine fish in terms of popularity. 

Kerala University Department of Aquatic Biology and Fisheries Head Dr. Biju Kumar told TOI on Friday that the growing menace of invasive species mostly native to Amazon threatens indigenous species in freshwater systems, rivers and canals of Kerala and it needs to be addressed through policy interventions in relation to AICHI 2020 targets. 
Researcher of Conservation Research Group from Kochi, K. Krishnakumar focused on the role of communities in freshwater fish conservation action. He highlighted local communities as a treasure trove of information and community based conservation planning. TOI

Tanzania becomes a battleground in fight over genetically modified crops

Washington Post

Tanzania becomes a battleground in fight over genetically modified crops

Sharon Schmickle/For The Washington Post -

Students line up for lunch at a school in Engaruka, Tanzania in early September. Opponents of genetically modified crops have made a stand in Africa, and now villages such as Engaruka are squarely in the middle of a global ideological war over agricultural technology.

ENGARUKA, Tanzania — When the bell rang at midday, students fetched tin bowls and lined up under trees in the schoolyard for scoops of corn and bean porridge.

Not one of them displayed the food fussiness often seen in American school lunch lines.

After the rainy seasons shortchanged this Maasai village in northern Tanzania, children here suffered too many days when there was no porridge — no food at all to eat in their mud and stick huts. Drought is to blame for a good share of their suffering.

Scientists are developing drought-tolerant corn, something that could ease hunger across Tanzania and sub-Saharan Africa. But because it is genetically modified, the corn cannot be planted here. Opponents of genetically modified crops have made a stand in Africa, and now villages such as Engaruka are squarely in the middle of a global ideological war over agricultural technology.

Since U.S. farmers first adopted GM crops in 1996, 17 million farmers in 29 countries have followed suit. Europe has rejected the crops, though, arguing that farmers would be exploited by large seed companies and that more research is needed into possible risks to the environment and food safety. And European activists have pressured Africa to do the same. Just four African countries — Sudan, Egypt, Burkina Faso and South Africa — have allowed them.

No one denies Africa’s hunger. World crop production has more than doubled in 50 years, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization. But Africa has lagged behind, achieving some gains while losing ground in places such as Engaruka where drought, plant diseases and other problems have knocked down yields and depleted the available food. Now that problem takes on new urgency with U.N. projections that Africa’s population will quadruple by the end of this century.

Still, the question of which approach is best for Africa remains hotly disputed. It tears at Tanzania, where 80 percent of the people live by subsistence agriculture.

African countries and research organizations, working together in the Water Efficient Maize for Africa project, have incorporated a gene from a common soil bacterium into corn, enabling plants to produce kernels even while short of water. The GM corn is expected to increase yields by 25 percent during moderate drought.

Tanzania is a member nation in the project, but regulations it adopted in 2009 have effectively blocked GM crops.

Under a “strict liability” rule, anyone associated with importing, moving, storing or using GM products is liable if someone makes a claim of harm, injury or loss caused by the products. Such a claim could reach beyond personal loss or injury to include damage to the environment and to biological diversity.

Under that policy, no research organization has dared to introduce GM crops into Tanzania’s fields.

At the Mikocheni Agricultural Research Institute in Dar es Salaam, plant virologist Joseph Ndunguru has genetically transformed cassava to resist viruses that are devastating the crop. Instead of starting field trials, Ndunguru is waiting for new regulations.

“There is a lot of fear,” he said.

As for water-efficient corn, Alois Kullaya said research has been on hold since 2009. He is Mikocheni’s principal agricultural research officer and the Tanzanian coordinator of the corn project. Tanzanian scientists have not been able to conduct field trials with the corn they have developed in laboratories.

The scientists have urged Tanzania’s government to shift to a “fault-based” regulatory approach under which a heavier burden of proof would fall on someone claiming harm or injury.

The influence of Europe

Pushing the government from the other side is the Tanzania Alliance for Biodiversity, a coalition of environmental and organic-farming groups.

“Whoever introduces GMOs [genetically modified organisms] should be responsible for what happens on the ground,” said Abdallah Mkindi, alliance coordinator.

Mkindi said scientists serve as a front for multinational seed companies. If regulations were relaxed, he said, companies could hold small-scale farmers for ransom and food security would be threatened.

“Multinational companies are simply here to expand their business,” Mkindi said. “GMO is not a solution to famine.”

Some coalition members argue that Africa’s food sovereignty is at risk if its farmers accept seeds and plant cuttings created by large outside organizations. Some also say that a high-tech fix for Africa’s food insecurity is a false promise given the many other problems begging to be addressed — including poor access to land, water, credit, agricultural extension services, roads and markets.

Of 19 alliance members, 11 are European-based groups or have European affiliations. The expert authority the alliance cites for claims about GM crops is from London-based Earth Open Source.

Beyond grass-roots activism, Europeans have profoundly influenced African attitudes by rejecting GM crops, Ndunguru said.

“People go to the Internet, and they read the information put there by European anti-GM groups, and they ask, ‘If this technology is safe, why don’t the Europeans use it?’ ” he said.

Now, some experts are accusing European activists of placing ideology above Africa’s food security.

“Opposition to biotechnology in Africa started before there was much scientific research on the subject outside South Africa. So Africa’s first import was opposition to the technology before the products got there,” said Calestous Juma, a Harvard University professor of international development and a native Kenyan. “This was because the [European Union] constructed a resistance industry and exported it through a variety of channels.”

U.S. groups make their mark

American advocates for GM crops have been busy in Africa, too.

Support for the Water Efficient Maize project came from the U.S. Agency for International Development as well as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Howard G. Buffett Foundation. The project’s drought-tolerance gene came from Monsanto, which has said the seeds will go royalty-free to African farmers. The project also produces conventionally bred corn.

Other GM research targeted for Africa also is backed by American money and know-how.

One target has been the vitamin-A deficiency that causes blindness in millions of African children. Helen Keller International is involved in engineering orange-fleshed sweet potatoes to deliver extra helpings of the micronutrient that the body transforms into vitamin A. The St. Louis-based Donald Danforth Plant Science Center is working in Kenya and Nigeria to boost that provitamin and other nutrients in cassava.

Another goal is to address deficiencies in the resources available to African farmers. DuPont Pioneer, for example, is helping develop corn that makes more efficient use of nitrogen so farmers could get by with less fertilizer.

Behind the individual projects, GM foes suspect a conspiracy to slip American agribusiness into Africa. In 2012, the Obama administration prompted a flurry of suspicion when it used a Group of Eight summit to announce the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, with the goal of lifting 50 million Africans out of poverty by 2022.

A working group of the German Forum on Environment & Development reacted with a statement saying the initiative “paves the way for radical opening of markets for international seed and agrarian corporations in African countries.”

That response expressed the essence of the tension that persists across Africa, with American technology rolling forward against pushback from Europeans — and from some like-minded Americans.

The controversy flared again this year after the World Food Prize Foundation announced that its prestigious annual award would go to three scientists who laid the groundwork for today’s GM crops 30 years ago by developing techniques for inserting foreign genes into the DNA of plants. The recipients are to be honored at a three-day international symposium in Des Moines beginning Oct. 16.

While the global debate rages, many families in Engaruka remain perilously close to starvation after recent droughts destroyed crops and killed 65 percent of the livestock.

Before 2009, Thomas Saitoti’o owned 30 cows, he said. Now he has just two. His family lost its cushion against the next drought. The family ran out of food in April and was saved by a government handout of corn.

At the end of the dirt path leading to the next house, Juliana Saitoti sat shelling beans. Thanks to rain this year, her family had food in September, even eggs for the children.

But with the dry season, food would run out in October.

“Then we will not have enough to eat,” she said.

Reporting for this article was supported by a grant from the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting. Finnigan wa Simbeye contributed to this report.

China must switch to growing GM food before it's too late: scientist

Agricultural expert warns of crisis if country does not start growing modified crops and continues to rely on foreign imports

Agricultural expert warns of crisis if country does not start growing modified crops and continues to rely on foreign imports. Photo: AP

A leading agricultural scientist's unusually frank endorsement of growing genetically modified food has reignited a debate over whether the country should reconsider its long-time distaste for the controversial food source.

Professor Wu Kongming, a member of the influential Chinese Academy of Engineering, said the country risked increasing grain shortages and a dangerous dependence on foreign food imports if it continued to shun GM food.

"The conflict between food demand and supply in our country does not allow us to put aside the development of GM technology any longer," Wu, who is also vice-president of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, told China National Radio.

"China's situation has determined that we cannot follow the countries with very rich land resources to use traditional methods to satisfy our demand," he said.

"Our way out is to use modern technology to support the development of our agriculture."

China imports about 80 million tonnes of grains, such as soya beans, rice and wheat, each year, some of it genetically modified. To produce that amount of food domestically, the country would need 53 million more hectares of farmland, 44 per cent more than there was now, Wu said.

The imports had not only reduced food security but also strained global food supply, he said, adding that the country was running out of time to switch to GM food production.

Genetic modification, which is banned for staple grains such as rice and wheat on the mainland, could help crops better weather droughts, pests and diseases, as well as help farmers achieve higher yields, Wu said.

"As the imbalance gets worse, we may have to give up cotton and oil production to ensure a stable grain supply," he said. "To China, that is a dangerous signal."

Wu's remarks make him one of the few agricultural scientists to speak up for GM food on the mainland, where opposition to the products is deep-rooted and widespread.

Many mainlanders share the concerns of people elsewhere that using GM crops could cause unforeseen damage to the environment, such as introducing engineered genes into the wild.

Others fear eating such food could endanger health, although the World Health Organisation describes the risk of allergic reactions or transfers of antibiotic resistance as low.

Some hardline communists also argue that GM crops - often produced by large Western multinational companies - could provide a back door for an attack on the country's food supply.

A GM-rice researcher with the Chinese Academy of Sciences' Institute of Genetics and Developmental Biology said most of the mainland's scientific community agreed with Wu, but few dared to speak up.

"If I openly defended the technology, my mobile phone would probably ring from dawn to dusk tomorrow with hate calls. That has happened to a colleague of mine," said the researcher, who declined to be named.

"In this country, public fear over GM food is bigger than the fear of atomic bombs."

Online, Wu's remarks drew mostly negative comments.

"The scientists can't prove GM food is safe unless they eat it every day," an internet user from Hefei , Anhui , wrote on Sohu.com's discussion board.

Yu Jiangli , of Greenpeace China's food and agriculture team, said people feared the inherent uncertainty of the technology.

"GM food may solve the food shortage in the short term, but in the long term it could bring other issues," she said.

"In China, there are many alternatives to improving food productivity, such as improving field management and reducing consumer waste, which are safer and more sustainable."

This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as We need gm food now, says scientist

Washington state battles over GM food

Washington state battles over genetically modified food 

Washington state is the next battleground in an ongoing effort by food activists to get products containing genetically engineered ingredients labeled.

Washington state is the next battleground in an ongoing effort by food activists to get products containing genetically engineered ingredients labeled. California voters rejected a similar initiative 53% to 47% in a bruising and expensive election in 2012.
Initiative 522 goes before voters Nov. 5. It would require that foods containing ingredients from genetically engineered plants be labeled as such. Some opponents believe these foods are dangerous to humans, though there is little scientific evidence of that. Others feel large agribusinesses such as Monsanto, which sell these seeds, have too much control over the food supply.
"We believe that we have a right to know what's in our food," said Elizabeth Larter, the Seattle-based communications director for the Yes on 522 campaign. "This campaign is not about whether GMOs (genetically modified organisms) are good or bad; this is really just providing more information for consumers."
The labeling effort is being funded by grass-roots donations and a large contribution from Dr. Bronner's Magic All-One, a California soap company founded in the 1960s. It is known for labels featuring fine print advocating world peace and admonitions to dilute the liquid soap for multiple uses.
"This is about chemical companies buying up the seed companies," said David Bronner, president of the company, on a video prominently placed on its website. Opponents to labeling "understand that if they lose in Washington state, game over," he said of why the company is supporting the initiative and encouraging others to do so.
The Washington state effort is part of an ongoing fight by those opposed to genetically engineered crops to push for labeling.
"In 2013 alone there have been 26 states that have introduced labeling legislation," says Katey Parker with the Just Label It coalition, a pro-labeling group based in Washington, D.C.
According to The Seattle Times, Washington's Yes on 522 campaign so far has raised $4.8 million.
Squaring off on the other side is a coalition of food manufacturers and seed producers that thus far has raised a war chest of $17.2 million. That's a state record. The top five contributors were the Grocery Manufacturers Association, Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Dow AgroSciences and Bayer CropScience, according to the No on 522 Coalition.
Those opposed to labeling say it will falsely mislead consumers into thinking that products that contain genetically engineered ingredients are "somehow different, unsafe or unhealthy," said Brian Kennedy of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a food industry group based in Washington, D.C.
"I-522 is a complex, costly and misleading initiative that will raise grocery costs for Washington state consumers at a time when few can afford it," he said.
Genetically engineered crops have a gene from another plant inserted into them to give them some ability they didn't have before.
There are two common genetic modifications. One is for herbicide tolerance: Plants are given a gene that protects them from harm when a farmer sprays them with herbicides to kill weeds. The other is a gene from a soil bacteria called Bacillus thuringiensis that allows plants to produce their own insecticide.
In the United States a huge proportion of commodity crops are genetically engineered: 97% of the nation's sugar beets, 93% of the soybeans, 90% of the cotton and 90% of the feed corn, according to the 2013 figures from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
About 60% of the papaya grown in the United States, all in Hawaii, has been genetically engineered to allow it to withstand the ringspot virus, which virtually wiped out papaya production in the islands in the 1980s, according to International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. Very small amounts of genetically engineered zucchini, yellow squash and sweet corn are also sold in the United States.
Connecticut passed GMO labeling legislation in June, but it doesn't go into effect until four other New England states pass labeling laws. Maine has passed a bill that won't go into effect "until five other states, or any amount of states with a total population of 20 million, enact" a similar one. Maine's governor has said he will sign it in January.
"Basically, they don't want to go it alone," says Rebecca Spector with the Center for Food Safety, which supports labeling. "They want other states in their region to pass it, so if there is a legal challenge, they can pool resources to support each other."
The Food and Drug Administration does not require foods containing genetically engineered ingredients to be labeled because it considers them "functionally equivalent" to conventionally grown crops.
That's somewhat disingenuous, said Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition at New York University. "There is plenty of precedent for FDA requiring process labeling. Think of 'made from concentrate' or 'previously frozen.'"
Nestle does not believe GMO ingredients are harmful, but thinks companies should label them because when they don't, it appears they have something to hide. "If they had just labeled from the start, as the original GMO product, the Calgene Flavr Savr tomato did, none of this opposition would have built up," she said.
Gregory Jaffe, who directs the biotechnology program of the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington, D.C., says the real answer would be to give FDA mandatory authority to ensure that these crops are safe to eat before they get to market. Currently FDA oversight is voluntary.
Despite fears on the part of some consumers, "there's an international consensus among the best scientists and regulators around the world that foods made from those crops are safe to eat," says Jaffe. "But that doesn't justify FDA not taking a hard look at them before they get to market."
In September 66% of Washington voters said they would vote for labeling, says Stuart Elway, whose Seattle firm conducts polls in the state.
Those numbers may change as both sides roll out their ad campaigns, he said. "I was watching TV the other night and saw a couple different ones on the anti-side. They've got the former secretary of agriculture for the state and a farmer. They're well produced so they're rolling out the heavy guns," Elway said.
Caitlin Carter of Maple Valley, Wash., says she wants labeling. "I feel I have a right know the source of my food."
Some of the information she's read made the argument that labeling will be costly to consumers, "but I'm not convinced," the marketing executive, 37, said. Even if it did, that's her decision, she feels. "It's like buying organic: I get to make the choice."
Many who study the food industry believe that were labeling to be required, companies would stop using genetically engineered ingredients because of fears consumers would reject them. "It's just like with transfats, when you had to label them they stopped using them," said Nestle, author of Eat, Drink, Vote: An illustrated guide to food politics. 
"There is a segment of the anti-GMO population who thinks that GMOs are really bad, and this is their way of getting rid of them," Nestle says. "Well, we live in a democratic society. If they want to control the way the game is played, they have to be willing to let other players try to control it as well." USA TODAY

I-522: Deceptive ‘truth’ about food and science

I-522: Deceptive ‘truth’ about food and science

byThe News Tribune

An initiative that touts itself as protecting the public’s “right to know” ought to guarantee accurate and complete information. Initiative 522 does the opposite – one of multiple reasons voters should reject it in November.

Initiative 522 would require the labeling of certain genetically modified foods. (Chris West/TVW)

The initiative would mandate that packaged foods with a detectable trace of a biotech nutrient – in the most minor ingredient – be emblazoned with “genetically engineered,” “partially produced with genetic engineering” or “may be partially produced with genetic engineering.”

Its drafters say they were modeling the mandate on Europe’s labeling requirement. But the differences demonstrate the extremism behind I-522. The European Union doesn’t put a screaming headline on the front of the box – it puts the information on the side, along with other nutritional information.

It also exempts food with GE content as high as 0.9 percent. That allowance is critical in an age when scientific equipment can detect molecules at levels of parts per million or lower. I-522 demands 0.0 percent as of 2019. If an unlabeled box tested positive for a minuscule level of a GE ingredient, the initiative would invite “any person” to bring a lawsuit against the farmer, food processor or storeowner who sold it.

The measure specifies that plaintiffs can recover their legal expenses, but doesn’t offer the same remedy to farmers or other defendants who prevail in court. This is a recipe for intimidation and extortion lawsuits, a reason that associations representing the vast majority of Washington farmers oppose the initiative.

Lumping together major GE ingredients and nutritionally insignificant residues is one way I-522 misleads. Another is the fact that I-522 stigmatizes some foods that have no genetically modified ingredients.

The sucrose from genetically modified sugar beets, for example, is chemically and nutritionally identical to the sucrose from “natural” sugarcane. Yet the beet sugar would have to carry the fright headline while the cane sugar wouldn’t. I-522 is targeting the politically incorrect plant – and its farmers – not the nutrient itself.

There’s no consistency. Cheeses, for example, are exempted from labeling even if they are processed with enzymes from genetically modified fungi. All fast food and other restaurant fare – much of our diet these days – is exempted.

So the measure would mislead by omission and also mislead by inclusion. I-522 doesn’t live up to its own truth-in-packaging claims.

What’s most misleading is the premise of the labeling – that there’s something so suspect about genetic modification that the public must be warned on the front of box. All genetic modification for any reason whatsoever – even to enhance a crop’s nutritional value or help the plant survive droughts and farms conserve water. This is crank thinking, not science.

GE opponents will cite a relative handful of studies that supposedly raise alarms about the entire technology. That’s not how science works. It reaches conclusions through broad research and growing scientific consensus, not isolated reports from outliers with Ph.Ds.

Contrary to opponents’ claims, extensive research – many hundreds of studies – has been done on GE crops and foods. Also contrary to their claims, much of that research has been done by independent scientists, not just Monsanto and other vested interests. More than 100 research projects have been funded by the European Union, which as been notably cautious about biotech foods.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and independent panels of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association and the EU’s European Commission have reviewed the studies and concluded that GE foods on the market are fundamentally as safe as others.

That’s another nutritionally important fact that I-522’s sponsors want to keep from the public. There are responsible, science-based ways to label the GE ingredients of foods. The drafters of I-522 chose a scarlet letter.

Biotech Giants Spend Millions to Defeat GMO Labeling

Giant bio-technology corporations like Monsanto Co. and DuPont Pioneer have spent millions of dollars to defeat efforts to label foods that contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Now their efforts turn to Washington state where a vote on the issue is scheduled for Nov. 5. 

More than 40 countries already require that food labels identify whether products contain GMOs. The labeling bill in Washington state seeks to label but not ban foods that contain genetically modified ingredients. 

“Labeling genetically engineered foods would give shoppers more control over their shopping decisions,” reads a statement on the YES on 522 website funded by proponents of a GMO labeling bill in Washington state.

 A woman holds a sign during a demonstration against Monsanto and genetically modified organisms (GMO) in front of the White House, May 25, 2013. (Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images)

Washington Vote Different From California Vote

Washingtonians who support labeling GMO foods initiated a grassroots movement called Yes on 522. The Initiative Measure No. 522 was filed on June 29, 2012.

In November 2012, a similar action was defeated in California by a narrow margin. The opponents of GMO labeling spent $45.6 million and the pro-labeling group $8.7 million, according to Ballotpedia. 

The Washington vote plays out differently when compared to the California vote. The Washingtonians don’t go to the polls, but vote through the absentee ballot during a three-week period.

Washingtonians have also been against GMO food for some time “because of the ongoing industry efforts to gain approval from the Food and Drug Administration for a genetically engineered salmon,” according to Politico. 

The pro-labeling group is winning in polls as of September. They have outpolled those against labeling with a ratio of 3-to-1, according to an Elway Poll.

Millions Spent to Defeat GMO Labeling

The largest and most vocal challengers of I-522 are Monsanto and DuPont Pioneer.

By September, Monsanto and its allies collected $11.6 million and spent $1.7 million, while its opponents raised approximately $5.5 million and spent $1.9 million, according to Ballotpedia. 

In California, Monsanto spent $8.1 million and DuPont $5.4 million to defeat the GMO labeling initiative. The Grocery Manufacturers Association spent $2 million against the effort. The association includes Safeway Inc., Starbucks Corp., Target Corp., Kellogg Co., Kraft Foods Inc., General Mills Inc., Hershey Co., Coca-Cola Co., PepsiCo Inc., and others. 

Biggest Spender Not Necessarily Winner

Proponents of GMO labeling suggest that being outspent does not mean that the measure will be defeated. So far, the odds are in favor of the pro-labeling group. 

Many proponents say that if the opponents have nothing to hide, they wouldn’t spend so much money to defeat a measure that only asks to label GMO products and does not prohibit them. Theepochtimes