Originally published November 27 2012
Fight back against Big Food: How to boycott all the brands that helped kill Prop. 37
by Jonathan Benson, staff writer
(NaturalNews) Though there are still quite a few absentee, mail-in and provisional ballots left to be counted, it appears as though California's Proposition 37, the genetically-engineered (GE) foods labeling initiative, has indeed failed to pass by a very narrow margin. But that does not mean the labeling fight is over, nor does it mean proponents of honesty in food labeling cannot get even with the opposition by actively boycotting the corporations responsible for helping kill the initiative.
If even half of the nearly six million Californians that voted in favor of Prop. 37 decided to stop purchasing the following "natural" and organic food brands, all of which are owned by companies that spent millions to defeat Prop. 37, the financial damage incurred by these corporate traitors would be significant enough to send the message that the people want to know, and have a right to know, whether or not the foods they eat contain genetically-modified organisms (GMOs).
The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) is calling on honest food advocates everywhere, not just in California, to boycott the following brands for betraying their customers by opposing GMO labeling. OCA Director Ronnie Cummins is urging the public not only to stop purchasing the following brands, but also to call their corporate hotlines and demand that they reverse their position and begin supporting GMO labeling initiatives nationwide, including upcoming GMO labeling ballot initiatives in Vermont, Washington state, Connecticut, and elsewhere.
1) Naked Juice, Tostitos Organic, Tropicana Organic. Each of these popular brands is owned by PepsiCo, which donated $2.5 million to the No on 37 campaign.
2) Boca Burger, Back to Nature. These two brands are owned by Kraft Foods, which donated $2 million to defeat Prop. 37.
3) "O" Organics. This organic brand is owned by the grocery store chain Safeway, which is a member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA). GMA spent $2 million to defeat GMO labeling in California.
4) Honest Tea, Odwalla. Both of these popular "natural" brands are owned by the Coca-Cola Company, which donated $1.7 million to the No on 37 campaign.
5) Muir Glen, Cascadian Farm, Larabar. All of these brands are owned by General Mills, which donated $1.2 million to defeat Prop. 37.
6) Orville Redenbacher's Organic, Hunt's Organic, Lightlife, Alexia. Each of these brands is owned by Con-Agra, which spent $1.2 million to defeat Prop. 37.
7) Kashi, Bear Naked, Morningstar Farms, Gardenburger. These popular "healthy" brands are all owned by Kellogg's, which spent $791,000 to kill Prop. 37.
8) R.W. Knudsen, Santa Cruz Organic. These two brands are owned by Smucker's, which spent $555,000 to defeat Prop. 37.
9) Ben & Jerry's. This ice cream favorite is now owned by Unilever, which spent $467,000 to defeat Prop. 37.
10) Horizon, Silk, White Wave. These three brands can be found in health food stores all across the country, but their parent company, Dean Foods, donated $254,000 to the No on 37 campaign.
When these companies start to feel the consequences of a nationwide boycott in the form of decreased profits, it just might cause them to think twice about deliberately blocking future efforts to bring truth and honesty to food labeling.
You can also make your voice heard more loudly by directly contacting each of these companies and expressing your thoughts using the following petition portal. It explains that, in order to regain your business, these anti-labeling conspirators must agree to publicly speak out in favor of all future GMO labeling efforts, as well as contribute more money to each of these campaigns individually than they spent fighting Prop. 37: http://www.capwiz.com
Sources for this article include:
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml