Each election season, proponents and opponents of the various initiatives on the California ballot hope for the state’s major newspaper endorsements. While you can’t expect every paper to endorse your side, Proposition 37, which would require labeling of foods produced using genetic engineering, seems to have had a string of incredibly bad luck. So incredible, in fact, that the reasoning behind several California newspaper endorsements of a No vote has me scratching my head.
Food Policy
Did Monsanto Write This Op-Ed Signed by a UC Davis Professor?
As I recently explained, University of California at Davis agriculture researchers are heavily influenced by the funding they receive from Monsanto and other big biotech players. This conflict of interest explains in part why we are seeing several UC Davis professors author reports and op-eds opposing California’s Proposition 37, which would require labeling of foods containing GMOs.
Prop 37 Sparks Clash Between Organic Brands and Parent Companies
Even if you don’t live in California, you have probably heard of Proposition 37, which if passed in November, would require labeling of foods containing genetically engineered ingredients. The state-wide initiative has been causing quite a stir, in part because of the companies that are opposing the measure. Read rest at New Hope …
Why PepsiCo is Fighting GMO Labeling in California
Nation’s largest peddler of soda and junk food has the most at stake in ballot measure
Most people just think of soda when they hear the name “Pepsi.” But in fact, PepsiCo is the nation’s largest food company and second largest in the world. Its annual earnings top $60 billion, from a dizzying array of brands. Walk down almost any supermarket aisle (soda, snacks, cereal, juice) and you’re likely to bump into a PepsiCo-owned product.
Center for Food Safety Comments at New York City Soda Limits Hearing
Last week I had the pleasure of lending my support, on behalf of the Center for Food Safety, to New York City’s proposal to limit the size of sugary beverages sold at food service outlets. (I wrote previously about why this policy makes sense.) The hearing room at New York’s health department was packed with media outlets and hundreds of folks eager to witness the showdown with Big Soda.
Fighting GMO Labeling in California is Food Lobby’s “Highest Priority”
Grocery Manufacturers Association Long-time Obstructionist of Public Health
In case you had any doubt that California’s Prop 37—which would require labeling of food containing genetically-modified organisms (GMOs)—is a significant threat to industry, a top food lobby has now made it perfectly clear.
Produce Industry Funders of Let’s Move Salad Bars to Schools are Putting Children at Risk: A Plea to Michelle Obama
The United Fresh Produce Association Foundation says it’s “proud to be a Founding Partner of the Let’s Move Salad Bars to Schools Initiative.” I thought the First Lady should know this trade group is responsible for killing a vital produce testing program that helps keep kids safe from infection.
Dear Mrs. Obama,
I am writing out of deep concern over Let’s Move’s partnerships with the United Fresh Produce Association and the Produce Marketing Association. These two groups have lobbied to kill a vital pathogen testing program. While the Let’s Move Salad Bars to Schools program is to be applauded, its association with these trade groups is not.
Farm Bill Jackpot – How Much do Corporations Benefit from SNAP?
As Congress proposes cuts to hungry families, my new report raises questions about how much food makers, retailers, and big banks profit from food stamps.
With the debate over the 2012 Farm Bill currently underway in the Senate, most of the media’s attention has been focused on how direct payments—subsidies doled out regardless of actual farming—are being replaced with crop insurance, in a classic shell game that Big Ag’s powerful lobby is likely to pull off.
Meanwhile, the Senate may hurt the less powerful by cutting $4.5 billion from the largest piece of the farm bill pie: the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly called food stamps). Reducing this lifeline for 46 million struggling Americans (more than 1 in 7—nearly half of them children) has become a sideshow in the farm bill circus, even though SNAP spending grew to $78 billion in 2011, and is projected to go higher if the economy does not improve.
Press Release: Food Stamp Subsidies for Junk Food Makers, Big Box Retailers, and Banks?
Contact: Haven Bourque 415.505.3473 haven@havenbmedia.com
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
As 2012 Farm Bill debate rages in Congress, a new report demands SNAP program transparency
Oakland, CA, June 12, 2012 — Are food stamps lining the pockets of the nation’s wealthiest corporations instead of closing the hunger gap in the United States? Why does Walmart benefit from more than $200 million in annual food stamp purchases in Oklahoma alone? Why does one bank, J.P. Morgan Chase, hold exclusive contracts in 24 states to administer public benefits?
Lawsuit Alleges Frito-Lay’s GMO Snacks Aren’t “Natural”
In August, I reported on a lawsuit against ConAgra for deceptive labeling of its Wesson brand of cooking oils as “natural.” The case alleges that the products contain genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), which are not by any stretch of the imagination, natural. A similar case was recently filed in California (by the same class action firm – Milberg) against Frito-Lay — the snacks division of food and beverage giant PepsiCo.
Follow me
Hot Topics
Big Food
Public Health
Food Policy
Industry Tactics
Child Nutrition
Marketing to Children
USDA
PepsiCo
Food Safety
FDA
McDonald's
junk food
food safety
GMO labeling
targeted marketing
Food Law
GMOs
California Prop 37
childhood obesity
Obama
Let's Move
Coca-Cola
child nutrition
fast food
lobbying
Monsanto
Corporate Accountability International
Uncategorized
Alcohol Policy
Ask a Food Lawyer
Labor
Media