Posted on 10/28/2013 1:46:29 PM PDT by Theoria
The Coca-Cola Company isn’t smiling about the latest effort to force labels on foods and beverages that contain genetically modified organisms – this time in Washington State. It’s on a long list of manufacturers that sell products using ingredients derived from either corn or soy, both of which are nearly impossible to source in the United States without using genetically modified crops.
In fact, should Washington pass its ballot initiative 522 next week, good luck finding any processed foods or beverages in an Evergreen State grocery store that don’t have GMO warning labels.
Coca-Cola and PepsiCo both are on a list of 34 companies that now have contributed to a combined $11 million donation made by the Grocery Manufacturers Association to the campaign against I-522, which would require products in Washington to be labeled when they contain GMOs, GMA revealed earlier this month. Coke and Pepsi were identified as giving $1.52 million and $1.35 million respectively. In total, the “No on I-522” campaign has raised $21.4 million, and — at press time — had spent only $13 million of that amount.
Other top donors include: Nestle USA Inc. ($1,528,206), General Mills ($869,270), ConAgra Foods ($828,521), Campbell Soup ($384,888), The Hershey Company ($360,450), The J.M. Smucker Company ($349,977), Kellogg Company ($322,049) and Hormel Foods Company ($76,803).
Ballots are being collected through Nov. 5. The law, if passed, would go into effect on July 1, 2015, in Washington, though experts believe the vote ultimately could force companies to begin labeling for GMOs nationwide rather than create separate labels for one state.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Because the sugar monopoly allowed in the US raises the cost too much to use it. Hersheys shifted some candy making to Canada too.
What's the protectionist position on this issue?
Open the market to "good sugar" imports, or protect domestic "bad HFCS"?
I think GTO is genetically tinkered oatmeal... That laughing Quacker on the box is a clone.
Thanks protectionists. LOL!
Exactly!
This is a VERY Crass Love song by the Macc Ladds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yT_aF8q81sU
The issue is more complicated than protectionism. Sugar is protected to prevent funding communist Cuba.
Retricting trade with communist regimes was a strategy that worked well in defeating the Soviet Union. But was completely abandoned when it came to China.
And I understand but could be wrong that domestic HFCS gets more subsidies than does domestic sugar.
The issue is more complicated than protectionism. Sugar is protected to prevent funding communist Cuba.
Retricting trade with communist regimes was a strategy that worked well in defeating the Soviet Union. But was completely abandoned when it came to China.
And I understand but could be wrong that domestic HFCS gets more subsidies than does domestic sugar.
All part of the “war on capitalism”.
Cuba is the only other sugar source?
And I understand but could be wrong that domestic HFCS gets more subsidies than does domestic sugar.
HFCS is cheaper than the inflated price of protected, domestic sugar. Foreign sugar imports are restricted. If imports were opened up, cane sugar prices would fall and it would be used in more, but not all, food products.
Don't think HFCS gets any subsidy.
HFCS may not directly, but I believe corn growers get substantial subsidies.
Tufts study: Corn subsidies are a sop to HFCS industry, but don't alone make bad food cheap
If we raised the import tariffs, there woudldn't be as much need for domestic subsidies for agriculture.
By the way, Agriculture used to be considered a military sensitive industry. Because if you don't grow your own food, you are dependent on others to field an army.
Wouldn't Brazil have an incentive to make sure "Brazilian Sugar" sent to the US was from Brazil?
If we raised the import tariffs, there woudldn't be as much need for domestic subsidies for agriculture.
You want to invite retaliation against our wildly successful ag exports, to protect a few rich sugar growers? Are you Bill Clinton? LOL!
Because if you don't grow your own food, you are dependent on others to field an army.
Yeah, because if Cuba or Brazil cut off our sugar, we have no corn to make HFCS.
So there will now be a GMO label on all gas pumps?
I’m pretty sure that Cuban productivity is lousy anyway. They are hardly likely to be cornering the world market on sugar. We have sugar tariffs because there are sugar producers who buy politicians in sugar producing states. Any rubbish about Cuba is just smoke and mirrors.
Amen!!
Actually....it’s your fellow Free Trade Liberals that put in the restrictions on imported sugar in NAFTA. It’s also your fellow Free Trade Liberals in the environmental movement who put enviro restrictions on Florida grown sugar....which jacked up the price. Al Gore covers both butt cheeks....Free Trade and Enviro Wacko
Danny...excellent summary....obviously way over our Free Trade Liberals head there.
Oh...and Bill Clinton signed NAFTA...he supports Free Trade...
Rarely does one find that much crap piled onto one page and called a "study." Calling it a study doesn't change the fact that it is, in reality, unmitigated crap.
High fructose corn syrup is not Karo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.