Occupy Activists Attempt Another Shutdown of Davis Monsanto Plant Amid Campaign to End GMOs

According to their release, “Occupy Monsanto worldwide will confront the industrial agriculture system head-on. Some protests could result in widespread arrests of people who choose to engage in non-violent civil disobedience.”

They add, “Occupy Monsanto protests will feature costumes made of bio-hazmat protective gear that can also protect against pepper spray from police who have routinely attacked occupy protests in the past year.”

“There is something wrong when a chemical manufacturer, the same company who made Agent Orange, controls the US food supply,” says Jaye Crawford, a member of the Genetic Crimes Unit in Atlanta.

“Wall Street and the American political elite have underestimated and even ignored our potential to effect rational policy change on GMOs which would include labeling for GMOs and restrictions on GMO cultivation,” says Gene Etic, an anti-GMO campaigner based in Washington, DC. “In the context of the Presidential election, and the power of that office to determine food policy…the media and increasingly more voters (should) ask tough questions about these experimental GMO crops.”

The Occupy action is a more radical approach to an issue that is quickly emerging as a top ballot fight.  Amid ballot measures featuring the governor’s budget, union membership, the death penalty and three strikes, Prop 37 is emerging as a top ballot measure in terms of money.

According to an AP article from August, “The nation’s largest agribusiness and biotech companies are pouring millions of dollars into California to stop the first-ever initiative to require special labels on foods made with genetically modified ingredients, a sign of their determination to keep the measure from sparking a nationwide movement.”

Monsanto, Dupont Pioneer and Cargill have already contributed $25 million to defeat this ballot proposition that would simply require the labeling of foods that are made of genetically modified foods.

Kathy Fairbanks, spokesperson for the No on 37 campaign, told the AP that grocery bills would increase if the initiative succeeds.

“Everyone is impacted because everyone buys groceries, and one of the impacts is going to be higher grocery bills,” Ms. Fairbanks said. “Prop. 37 leaves consumers with the incorrect impression that there is something wrong with GE crops, when that is not true.”

Leading the way was Monsanto, which has already contributed $4.2 million as of August.

Stacy Malkan, Media Director for the Yes on 37 campaign, said, “The same corporations and political operatives that made false health claims about cigarettes, DDT and Agent Orange are now bringing us the No on 37 campaign.”

“The fact is that 50 countries around the world now require labeling genetically engineered foods because of concerns about health risks and harm to the environment,” Ms. Malkan said.

In the face of the $25 million campaign, The Yes on Proposition 37 California Right to Know Campaign launched a $150,000 early media blitz last week directly challenging the record of deceit of the big corporations that are now working to deny Californians the right to know what’s in their food.

The 30-second ad – which will run in select online news venues and on broadcast and cable television stations in major California media markets for 10 days – presents the history of notoriously inaccurate corporate health claims, including falsehoods from some of the very same corporations now funding the No on 37 campaign.

“Californians have a right to know whether or not their baby formula, corn chips or soy milk contains ingredients that have not been proven safe,” Ms. Malkan added.

According to the video text: “We’ve heard the false corporate health claims before…. Cigarettes aren’t harmful. DDT is safe. Agent Orange is harmless. Now they say genetically engineered food is safe. If Monsanto and Dow think these foods are safe, why are they fighting our right to know what’s in our food? Vote yes on 37 for the right to know what’s in our food.”

Among the major backers of the No on 37 campaign are Monsanto at $4.2 million, Dow Chemical at $1.2 million, DuPont at $4 million, plus a number of tobacco industry giants as well.

Henry Miller, of the Hoover Institute, is a leading spokesperson for the No on 37 campaign.  He “has called for the reintroduction of DDT in the U.S. and is linked to a tobacco industry front group that worked to discredit science on tobacco health risks.”

In an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle August 24 he argued, “The World Health Organization, American Medical Association, National Academy of Sciences and other respected medical and health organizations all conclude that genetically engineered foods are safe.”

According to supporters of this measure, “None of these organizations has concluded genetically engineered foods are safe. The American Medical Association and World Health Organization/United Nations have said mandatory safety studies should be required — a standard that the U.S. fails to meet. Numerous studies in the scientific literature suggest genetic engineering is linked to allergies and other adverse health effects. Despite these scientific warnings, the U.S. federal government requires no safety studies for genetically engineered foods, and no long-term human health studies have been conducted.”

A National Academy of Sciences report concludes that products of genetic engineering technology “carry the potential for introducing unintended compositional changes that may have adverse effects on human health.”

Moreover, they dispute the notion that Proposition 37 will raise the cost of groceries by hundreds of dollars per year.

Instead, they argue, “Disclosing the presence of genetically engineered ingredients on food labels will not force food companies to raise the cost of groceries.”

In a recent study of the economic impact of Proposition 37, Joanna Shepherd Bailey, Ph.D., Professor at Emory University School of Law, concluded: “Consumers will likely see no increases in prices as a result of the relabeling required.”

Nor will it ban the sales of thousands of groceries as proponents note, it will only require that they be labeled with the phrase “Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering.”

At the same time as Monsanto has become a focal point in the Prop 37 battle, a big article appeared this weekend that the Monsanto facility in Woodland is greatly expanding.

The plant has added a $31 million investment which, according to the article in the Daily Democrat, “will see the facility grow to 200,000 square feet, about the same size as three and a half NFL football fields – is set to be completed in August 2013. Construction began in April.”

“It’s a great thing for Yolo County,” said Wes Ervin, manager of economic development for Yolo County to the Daily Democrat. “This Monsanto expansion happens to be very large by seed industry standards. This is great. It’s a critical mass that we have here. We have the world’s largest concentration of vegetable seed research companies in Yolo County.”

Carly Scaduto, vegetable communications manager for Monsanto told the paper: “When it comes to our vegetable seeds business, the Woodland site is truly the backbone of Monsanto’s vegetable research.”

The goal, according to Mr. Ervin, is to make Yolo County the backbone of the industry on seed research.

“Silicon Valley is a widely accepted brand,” Mr. Ervin told the paper. “I don’t think ‘Seed Central’ is as widely known. It’s certainly well known to the seed industry, but not to the general public – yet.”

The paper adds: “In fact, technology advancements in the seed industry are analogist to advancements in communications technology, said Ervin, in that, “everything is getting faster.””

“Plant breeding is the heart of Monsanto’s vegetable seed and row crop research, ranging from conventional breeding, to the use of cutting-edge molecular science that precisely identifies and locates genetic markers that correspond with desirable characteristics such as disease resistance, according to Scaduto.”

“The research completed in the new building will help bring new beneficial seeds to farmers around the world faster,” Ms. Scaduto said.

No wonder Monsanto is fighting this initiative, at the same time they are expanding their operations here locally.

—David M. Greenwald reporting