And just for backup info, here's some deeper info on it. If you go to the link, it'll show you who the lobbyists are, and who the sponsors are in Congress and some good insight on what the bill is about. A handy link for just about any congressional bill.
BKB
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015...-gmo-labeling/
Three times as much agribusiness money, on average, for House members voting to bar GMO labeling
by Alex Lazar on July 24, 2015
(AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)
(AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)
Thursday’s House passage of a bill that would keep states from requiring genetically modified foods to be labeled was a big — and not at all close — win for agribusiness and food and beverage interests.
The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015, known to its critics as the DARK (Deny Americans the Right to Know) Act, sailed through by a vote of 275 to 150. While the bulk of its support came from the GOP and most of its opponents hailed from Democratic districts, the vote didn’t break cleanly along party lines. Among its 107 sponsors were 92 Republicans and 15 Democrats.
But a more telling predictor of where lawmakers came down was the amount of support they’d received from interests with a stake in the legislation.
For example, the campaigns of Reps. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), Rodney Davis (R-Ill.), Mike Conaway (R-Texas) and Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.), all cosponsors of the legislation (most of whom also sit on the House Agriculture Committee), received six-figure dollar amounts from providers of agricultural services and products — one segment of the agribusiness sector — during the 2014 election cycle. That put them high among the top 20 recipients of funds from the industry.
Cosponsors such as Reps. David Valadao (R-Calif.), Steve Fincher (R-Tenn.), Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) and Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) aren’t on the Agriculture Committee, but nevertheless pulled in six-figure dollar amounts from the crop production and basic processing industry (another part of agribusiness; think Cargill Inc. and the National Corn Growers Association) during the midterm cycle — landing them among the 20 members who received the most from that industry.
Reps. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) and G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.), two original sponsors of the legislation, were the top two current House members receiving the most money from the Grocery Manufacturers Association in 2014. The grocery manufacturers — who have spent $4.1 million lobbying on all issues so far this year, almost as much as they spent in all of 2014 — have lobbied on the bill more than any other organization, mentioning the measure on 14 lobbying reports this year.
After the Grocery Manufacturers Association, PepsiCo Inc ($2.5 million in overall lobbying this year) and Monsanto Co ($2.6 million) have mentioned the bill most frequently.
All told, the 230 Republicans and 45 Democrats who voted to pass the bill collectively received over $29.9 million from the agribusiness sector and food and beverage industry during the 2014 cycle, or about $108,900 per member. That’s nearly three times as much as the average $38,977 per lawmaker drawn by the 138 Democrats and 12 Republicans voting nay. Their cumulative contributions from the interests came to $5.8 million.
For all the election cycles since 1990, more than $115.1 million has gone to those who voted for the legislation this week (with an average of $418,644 per member), compared to almost $25.8 million for those who voted against it ($171,785 per member).
With numbers like those, anti-labeling advocates may be giving a whole new meaning to the term “cash crop.”
Doug Weber contributed research to this post.
Categories: Congress Influence & Lobbying Issues and Legislation Politicians & Elections
Tags: agricultural services and products, alex lazar, Collin Peterson, crop production and basic processing, dark act, david valadao, Devin Nunes, Frank Lucas, G.K. Butterfield, gmo, Grocery Manufacturers Association, House Agriculture Committee, Kevin Cramer, Kurt Schrader, Mike Conaway, Mike Pompeo, monsanto, pepsico, rodney davis, safe and accurate food labeling act, Steve FIncher
Alex LazarAlex Lazar is the summer 2015 reporting intern for OpenSecrets Blog. He is a graduate of George Washington University. His previous articles have been published by various news organizations including The Hill, ABCNews.com and The Huffington Post.
Follow Alex | Read all of Alex's posts
Comments (Comment Guidelines)
Lot of uneducated hickory-nut cliche's in that video .
A lot of the anti GMO stuff is that way. Considering the millions spent on lobbying by the industry, I'll accept that. Regardless, I still think there is some validity in the issues.
If GMOs are as safe as they say, then why is there hesitancy to simply label food that is genetically modified? Why is less information better for the grower and/or the consumer?
BkB
Assuming you're concerned with food safety, where would you go, and what would you get to fix, that is safe in your opinion ?Originally Posted by BarryBobPosthole
Last edited by No-till Boss; 07-25-2015 at 09:05 PM.
I think some of it is for the same reason it's ridiculous for MacDonald's to be forced to pay for printing, "Caution - Contents Are Hot" on their coffee cups.
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness" - Mark Twain
I have a couple concerns about GMO's specifically and big agri businesses in general. First, I think where GMOs are concerned, the jury won't be in on them for some time to come. I don't trust what the people with the most money at stake would tell me about them and the other side is oftem big on emotion and short on facts. I think I am in the majority in saying I don't know whether GMOs are a godsend or a curse. That partly why I asked the question. But it nags at me that there are tens of millions of dollars being spent to simply sway the congress to make GMOs less visible. I can't find the motivation for that. There's no really huge anti GMO movement or lobby. Where there's money, you quite often find assholes.
On huge agribusiness, my main issue is our monoculture approach to agriculture is raping our farmland. There's a lot of scientific fact behind that and we need to be pushing towards a better approach. I'm no environmentalist or anti, I'm just saying we are fucking up our farmland at great speed and we are setting ourselves up for a potato famine like event that will change the way we view food and agriculture completely. Our vulnerability to agri science and sabatage by other countries is wide open.
And that's what I think about that.
BKb
You still didn't tell me what you're eating that is so healthy ?
We're not fucking any farm ground up, that is a totally stupid misconception. Our soils and conservation practices are at a all time high ! We as farmers, can not take the chance of not protecting our investment, which is our soils and water.
The only vulnerability we have in agriculture is not being able to keep new technologies coming at a pace that is needed for new chemicals and new diseases. Which can only be solved by creating new GMO's.....
I never said I was eating anything that was healthy. I'm not sure what the damn question even is.
And I understand the sensitivity completly. I am not attacking farmers at all and I really do have a pretty good level of understanding what is going on in agriculture. Certainly not anything near what you know, given your experience and life in it. Again, thats why I asked for opinion. If your opinion is that everything is peachy then I value that opinion. If I disagree with it doesn't make me a dumbass, it just makes me unconvinced since I really havent heard what you specifically think of the topic of GMOs and Monsanto's agressive litigious way of eliminating competition and spending lots of money to influence our congress.
BKB
There's a lot of scientific fact behind that and we need to be pushing towards a better approach. I'm no environmentalist or anti, I'm just saying we are fucking up our farmland at great speed and we are setting ourselves up for a potato famine like event that will change the way we view food and agriculture completely.
What a wild-assed assertion. Exactly what on earth are you basing that on? I don't know who YOUR "we" is, but OUR "we" is doing just the opposite to "our" farmland.
I really havent heard what you specifically think of the topic of GMOs and Monsanto's agressive litigious way of eliminating competition and spending lots of money to influence our congress.
"aggressive". You're welcome. And what is Verizon doing to eliminate competition and spending money to influence Congress??
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s
Verizon is in the Top 15, Monsanto isn't. Pick on the right guys.
As to what I think about GMO? I have no idea. I trust my wonderful US Government through their USDA arm to tell me what is right and wrong for me to eat. After all, Government bureaus such as this exist to help us, right?
WARNING - Due to the rising costs of ammunition, warning shots will no longer be given.
We're not gonna fight the GMO battle until you establish what all these things you're eating that you think are safe.
Last edited by No-till Boss; 07-25-2015 at 10:11 PM.
Well help me understand what you mean by safe. Do you mean nutritionally safe or do you mean safe from killing me or making me sick due to some difference between the real McCoy and what I'm eating?
BKB
Safe is your word, not mine. I'm not concerned with anything I'm eating. You're the thread starter .......
I wanna go back to this, Why should I be for labeling of food, when thee no price incentive for me ? Right now, I'm getting the same prices for my commodities as they did 50 years ago. If you wanna add more stipulations to my game, then add value/subsidies accordingly.
Sounds like a bit of a sore spot has been hit here NTB. Personally, I don't worry too much about this sort of stuff in this country. I think we do a pretty good job of policing ourselves and I'm not much of an alarmist. Barry Bob, I can understand where you're coming from, but think of it this way ... how many cigarettes did you smoke that came out of a package with the Surgeon General's warning printed on the side? Is the fine print on that package what made you quit?
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness" - Mark Twain
It's like this, we don't ever get thanks for growing the safest,cheapest and the most abundance food in the world. But everytime there is a news event about food saftey, agriculture (which is already regulated to hell) has to stop and do damaged control. Agriculture is not in the habit or the bussiness of killing it's customers.
It's funny how no-one thinks a thing about putting someone else's genitals in their mouth, yet they're concerend about their foods labeling ......
I worked in the telecom industry for forty friggin years. Nobody ever told me thanks for providing a way to call grandma,or the police, or go to an ATM. If you're looking for gratitude rrom Americans for doing something that you make your living at, you will be, like you apparently are, disappointed.
And for the record, asking for someone's opinion about something is not an attack. Sure, I recognize the 'anti' make life hard with theor blather. But this isn't anti GMO blather. What I asked about was two simple acts by congress to do basically two things in agriculture: remove the requirement to label foods that contain GMO organisms, and the other is to remove country of origin labeling for chicken pork and beef products.
But since you brought it up agriculture has not always produced the safest food possible. Not the safest for people to eat, not the safest for the environment, and not the safest for the overall health of the financial markets that drive the whole industry. Granted, agricultural practices have improved greatly as we have learned, most times the hard way, but don't give me the apple pie farmer story and try to bluff me away with a bunch of defensive bullshit. Farmers are some of the hardest working people in our country. They do produce the goods we need to survive, not only as a nation, but as a human species. For that reason, we need to protect farming not only as a business but as a way of life in our country. Again, if you think protecting the Monsantos and Archer Daniels Midlands of the world and that they will do those things then that is a very valid opinion. After all, you are one of those farmers I am talking about. But just because I don't share your opinion doesn't mean I should just go away. As a consumer of your products, I deserve the chance to make the choices that I believe are the safest for me. If I want to avoid products from countries that don't have Bucky's beloved USDA ensuring they don't feed animal parts or that conduct agricultural practices that are not sustainable, then no matter what you thinkabout those practices, I should have the information about that product that I need to make the decision based on my criteria. If I want to avoid GMOs, i need that information available. Is GMO labelling costing you money in your business? I'd like to hear your answer on that. All I've gotten is some semi insulting blather about putting someone's genitals in my mouth. If that's what you intended, then I'm not the one that's the cocksucker here. i'd also really like to know what you meant by that remark.
But back to the topic. Thumper, GMO labelling is not a warning like on cigarette packs. Its simply information. You, who couldn't or wouldn't cook yourself a hamburger, probably don't pay attention to labels. I'll bet five bucks Lynn sure as hell does. it may not worry you to buy and food that somehow got here from a country thousands of miles away where it was grown in human shit as fertilizer. It may not bother you but I will avoid it.
Finally, farmers are important but true farmers are getting more and more scarce. We're already seeing super weeds that are a result of roundup ready GMO crops. Those weeds now potentially threaten native species. Is that what you mean by 'safe'? Is the answer always better chemistry? I, admittedly don't know the answer to that question. But getting defensive about a discussion about it doesn't provide any answers.
BKB
Sunshine, We've tried to buy meat and produce that we know comes from farms in our region vs from another coast or another country. Removing labelling that prevents us from doing that takes that choice away, IMO.
BKB
There is a little difference than something you HAVE to have versus something you need.
You still haven't told us what you're eating that you're so proud of ! WTF ! spill your diet and let's talk about, ole deflector of shit !
I call bullshit on this too !
But since you brought it up agriculture has not always produced the safest food possible. Not the safest for people to eat, not the safest for the environment, and not the safest for the overall health of the financial markets that drive the whole industry.
I guess you never heard of the Dust Bowl, where agricultural practices were a big contributor in the total collapse of agriculture and farming. Or the big Chicago meatpacking scandals that were leading to big outbreaks of illness and death, or of the listeria outbreak from canteloupes grown right here in the USA, or any of several other food safety issues. And that's just the US. If you look abroad its even worse.
Again, you avoid answering a direct question. What are the current labelling practices doing to hurt your business? Why is less information about the food we eat better? Why so much money poured into it and are these lobbyist for these big corporations representing you, the real farmer? Are these things you want or they want?
bKB
Another horseshit assumption !
Finally, farmers are important but true farmers are getting more and more scarce. We're already seeing super weeds that are a result of roundup ready GMO crops. Those weeds now potentially threaten native species. Is that what you mean by 'safe'? Is the answer always better chemistry? I, admittedly don't know the answer to that question. But getting defensive about a discussion about it doesn't provide any answers.
Farmers are getting better and better, the bad one's don't make, very few poor farmers still exist and won't very long.
Nothing in being threatened, that's more media hype. There is always going to be "super" weeds, roundup was created for a reason, we had super weeds that needed new technology. And there will be need technology again, and again after the life cycle of that product, you'll hear the same sky-is-falling bullshit that has been spewed since the media was created .
The dust bowl was created by weather changes, but after that, almost a 100 years ago now, things were put into place to make sure that never happens again. I think given the weather over west Texas and other mid west states that is was a huge success .
The cantaloupe thing happened on 1 farm, sure it was bad, but they still found the source and made the proper steps to make sure it never happens again.
You're the one not answering questions......and you know why !
I see. Its all media hype.
Thanks, that's the answer I was looking for!
BKB
HAHAHAHA
That was blatant sarcasm, directed at the ugly redhead who has spent 15+ years telling me at ever possible turn, how great all those government agencies are, and how beneficial to our lives they are, and how we need them, and how my attitude of "government sucks" is bad, and how I'm not smart enough to see the real picture.........
And now, here's a perfect example of my concern over a government agency, the USDA, and the same ugly redhead can't for the life of him admit that they're letting food go down his gullet that is bad for him (his concern, not mine).
I laugh at all this.
But........I happen to own a farm. SO........while I hear that ugly redhead saying he isn't attacking, I see through that, and know that he is. I even called him on it, many posts ago.
But........I am so happy. SO HAPPY! There is someone else that will argue with same ugly redhead udder dan me!!! I'm so happy I'm going to read the last paper I'm willing to pay for.........and watch the Cardinals!
Now, back to your regularly scheduled argument.
WARNING - Due to the rising costs of ammunition, warning shots will no longer be given.
No, I'm all done. and I'm not sure where you get any of that. I guess you're a poor reader. I have no reason to be critical of farmers. I AM critical of farming and where it is going in the United States. But we can't discuss that dcause y'all gentleman farmers get your panties in a wad and make claims like the ones in this thread.
Be happy!
I am!
And put up anpther mailbox! You'll make twice the money with two govern,ent checks!
BKB
Farmers are the ones who farm, you can't be critical of the direction of farming, and not be of farmers.
Last edited by No-till Boss; 07-26-2015 at 02:53 PM.
You're funny.
A) I get no government checks.
B) Here's some things you said. YOU and THEM (you know, THEM) can decide if you think these words are 'attack' words or not:
raping our farmland
we are fucking up our farmland at great speed
setting ourselves up for a potato famine like event
Clearly, I think those are pretty much attacking somebody.........
C) You also said:
If I disagree with it doesn't make me a dumbass
BUT, apparently your mirror is a one way mirror! Cause if we disagree with YOU, then you say this:
But we can't discuss that dcause y'all gentleman farmers get your panties in a wad and make claims like the ones in this thread.
SO............. you read this post and tell me where I am off base, wontcha?
WARNING - Due to the rising costs of ammunition, warning shots will no longer be given.
I'm probably gonna have to respond to this...... but I'm trying not to.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote