Originally published November 9 2014
Big Food and biotech spend $37M to defeat GMO labeling in Oregon and Colorado
by Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
(NaturalNews) The corporate food system has once again pulled the wool over the eyes of low-information American voters with the recent defeat of GMO-labeling bills in Colorado and Oregon. Just like in California and Washington, the factory food industry, drug companies and GMO kingpins like Monsanto poured tens of millions of dollars into crafty campaigns that deceived voters into rejecting their inherent right to know what's in the foods that they eat.
Colorado's Proposition 105 reportedly failed by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, according to the Denver Post, with just under 66 percent of voters somehow rationalizing in their minds that honest food labeling just isn't for them. And in Oregon, Ballot Measure 92 has also been declared defeated.
As of this writing, the Oregon proposal has 49.66 percent support from voters, with the other 50.34 percent reportedly in opposition to GMO labeling. However, many of the votes in Multnomah County, where Portland is located and where a majority of registered voters have been shown in polls to support GMO labeling, still need to be counted. Once the official vote count is released, we will report it here for our readers.
Majority of voters in both states supported GMO labeling prior to propaganda blitz
Interestingly, before Big Food and Big Biotech poured an astounding $37 million into defeating the two GMO-labeling efforts, a vast majority of voters in both states were apparently in support of the effort. Support for GMO labeling in Oregon was at 77 percent back in July, according to Oregon Public Broadcasting, but later dropped to below 50 percent following a misinformation blitz by the opposition.
A similar drop in support occurred in Colorado as well. Denver-based RBI Strategies & Research found back in June that 75 percent of the Coloradans polled were in support of GMO labeling. Less than five months later, that support allegedly dropped to just 34.2 percent, according to the latest tallies reported by the Denver Post.
"We will use this energy to propel us forward, not back," stated Right to Know Colorado following the election, with its head high. "Huge biotech and food industries spent millions to confuse voters about Proposition 105, and continue to keep us in the dark about what we are [feeding] our families."
"These companies include Monsanto, DuPont, Dow, PepsiCo, Coca Cola, Kraft, Land O' Lakes, General Mills, Hersheys, Smuckers, Bimbo Bakeries, [Kelloggs], and ConAgra."
GMOs are dangerous, and the factory food industry couldn't care less
The unfortunate reality with all this is that the two labeling bills were already quite weak to begin with, seeking only to label GMO foods sold at the retail level. Further, the bills did not in any way question the safety of GMOs, nor did they try to ban them -- the only issue was labeling them so consumers might be informed about what they are feeding their families.
You would think that something as simple and commonsense as honest labeling would have 100 percent support among voters. But it just goes to show how powerful corporate propaganda can be, which not only veiled the industry's sinister agenda in the matter, but also once again shrouded the dangers of GMOs from public scrutiny.
"GM foods can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects, including allergies, toxins, new diseases, and nutritional problems," reports the Institute for Responsible Technology, noting that infertility, autoimmune disease, allergies, gastrointestinal disorders and cancer are all associated with GMO consumption.
Sources:
http://readynutrition.com
http://www.denverpost.com
http://oregonvotes.gov
http://seattletimes.com
http://oregonvotes.gov
http://dailycaller.com
http://www.blueoregon.com
http://science.naturalnews.com
http://truthwiki.org/Genetically_modified_cr...
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