Officially California has voted “No” on Proposition 37, which required labeling of genetically modified foods (GMOs), even though 96 percent were in favor of labeling before elections according to MSNBC poll.
A $46 million ad campaign by Monsanto, DuPont, and the food industry succeeded, claiming that labeling would be a major inconvenience that would raise costs and food prices.
Organic farmers, retailers, environmentalists, consumers, and other groups comprising over 10 million individuals raised $8 million. In the end, the vote was 4.8 million against Proposition 37 to 4.3 million in favor, according to Acres USA, Jan. 2013.
A label on a bag of popcorn indicates it is a non-GMO food product, in Los Angeles, California, October 19, 2012. California has voted against enforced labeling of genetically modified foodstuffs. (Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images)
Because of “unexplained anomalies,” Lori Grace, head of the Institute for American Democracy and Election Integrity, has started a recount, according to independent public television station KCET.
Although it is believed that the basic premise of the majority of “Yes” voters is the desire to be able to make an educated choice regarding food, many feel that GMOs are actually toxic and look to studies done outside the industry for reliable information. One such study came out in September 2012.
According to an article in Le Nouvel Observateur, quoted in the Nation of Change, that study was considered so controversial that the researchers used encrypted emails, banned phone conversations, and even created a decoy study to prevent sabotage.
A two-year study showed increased formation of tumors and early mortality using the rat’s lifespan instead of the usual 90-day safety-testing period. The study, by Gilles-Eric Séralini, et al., was called “Long Term Toxicity of a Roundup Herbicide and a Roundup-Tolerant Genetically Modified Maize” and was published in the peer-reviewed Food and Chemical Toxicology Journal, September 2012. Research.
