Monsanto supports GMO labeling in the UK but not in the US


“Monsanto fully supports UK food manufactures and retailers in their introduction of these labels.  We believe you should be aware of all the facts before making a purchase.”

This quote comes from an advertisement that Monsanto ran in the UK in the late 1990′s when consumers demanded that genetically engineered food be labeled.  Monsanto may not have initially  liked the idea, but as the policy became inevitable, they began running ads in support of labeling, to pretend they supported it all along.  The European Union mandated labeling of all genetically engineered foods in 2003.

Nearly a decade later, California may become the first state in the US to require genetically engineered food to be labeled.  With only a few days until the proposal is put to a vote, Monsanto has already given over $8 million to a front group that is blitzing California’s airwaves with anti-labeling advertisements. The “No on 37″ group has raised well over $40 million so far, with Monsanto as the largest donor.

What gives? Do Monsanto executives think it’s okay for British parents to know what’s in the food they feed their kids, while treating America’s children as “guinea kids”?

Vote Yes on Proposition 37 to ensure the labeling of genetically engineered food in California, because we have the right to know.

Read more about how companies like Monsanto have power over your food options at the grocery store.

take action

California Prop 37: The Right to Know

take action

With less than a week to go before California voters decide whether they want food that contains genetically engineered (GE) ingredients to be explicitly labeled as such, the board of the American Association for the Advance of Science (AAAS) has proclaimed from its prestigious perch that those who want Frankenfoods to be labeled are little more than emotional nuts who know nothing about science.

That the AAAS would enjoin this battle is hardly a surprise, given its longstanding ties to Monsanto and other companies with a direct interest in the outcome. But the group says that its real motivation for opposing mandatory labeling is because doing so would “mislead and falsely alarm consumers.”

“Our concern is that ideology not trump science here,” AAAS Chief Executive Alan Leshner told the LA Times. “We do regulation of foods to protect the public health.” Continue reading