Why did Monsanto engage in a multimillion dollar ad campaign to defeat a California proposition that would require disclosure of whether food is genetically modified such that the ads showed family farmers saying the disclosure would force them to shut down their farm and go bankrupt. How evil and dishonest can you get? Naive Californians believed the lie.

Expert response from George Gough

Director, State and Local Government Affairs, Bayer Crop Science

Wednesday, 16/12/2015 16:24

While some ads did highlight the increased costs farmers would have to endure to comply with the requirements imposed by Proposition 37, none stated the initiative would force farmers to shut down or go bankrupt.

Monsanto was a member and contributor to the NO on 37 campaign, a broad coalition of farmers, doctors, scientists, food producers, grocers and others who opposed Proposition 37 on the November 2012 ballot. Prop 37 called for the mandatory labeling of foods that do or may contain genetically engineered ingredients.  Although proponents tried to characterize Prop 37 as simply a referendum on consumer right to know, it was the excessive and expensive provisions of the ballot measure that turned the tide against the measure. Nearly every major daily newspaper in California urged a no vote on Prop 37. For example, the Los Angeles Times cited the following as flaws: the sloppy language, impact on mom-and-pop groceries, lawsuit provisions and “…a more important reason is that there is no rationale for singling out genetic engineering… as the only one [food production method] for which labeling should be required.”    

Since 1996, farmers had realized the environmental and economic benefits of modern food technologies and food companies saw Proposition 37 as threatening the public’s confidence in the safety of their products. Both encouraged us to join with them in the effort to oppose Proposition 37. We agreed and believed that supporting the NO on 37 coalition was the right thing to do. The principles that guided our decision remain valid today.

Expert response from George Gough

Director, State and Local Government Affairs, Bayer Crop Science

Wednesday, 16/12/2015 16:24

While some ads did highlight the increased costs farmers would have to endure to comply with the requirements imposed by Proposition 37, none stated the initiative would force farmers to shut down or go bankrupt.

Monsanto was a member and contributor to the NO on 37 campaign, a broad coalition of farmers, doctors, scientists, food producers, grocers and others who opposed Proposition 37 on the November 2012 ballot. Prop 37 called for the mandatory labeling of foods that do or may contain genetically engineered ingredients.  Although proponents tried to characterize Prop 37 as simply a referendum on consumer right to know, it was the excessive and expensive provisions of the ballot measure that turned the tide against the measure. Nearly every major daily newspaper in California urged a no vote on Prop 37. For example, the Los Angeles Times cited the following as flaws: the sloppy language, impact on mom-and-pop groceries, lawsuit provisions and “…a more important reason is that there is no rationale for singling out genetic engineering… as the only one [food production method] for which labeling should be required.”    

Since 1996, farmers had realized the environmental and economic benefits of modern food technologies and food companies saw Proposition 37 as threatening the public’s confidence in the safety of their products. Both encouraged us to join with them in the effort to oppose Proposition 37. We agreed and believed that supporting the NO on 37 coalition was the right thing to do. The principles that guided our decision remain valid today.