National Editor Tom Karst Perhaps the biggest shocker on election night wasn't the fact that the Drudge Report's mojo for Mitt Romney failed to materialize in the popular vote.
From checking in on Drudge daily for the past month, I was sure that his collection of headlines pointed to an ultimately decisive Romney win. Not even remotely true. The Politico Election site has all the unvarnished details about presidential and Congressional contests.
If I was surprised Mitt didn't have a stronger showing, I was even more shocked that left-leaning California voters defeated Prop. 37, a ballot measure that would have called for labeling of biotech food at retail.
A great debate on Prop 37 can be found at the Fresh Produce Industry Discussion Group.
The topic has generated a lot of passion leading up to the vote, and the recriminations after the election are just as juicy.
Why did prop 37 lose?
From the Cornucopia Institute:
Sacramento, CA -- After a deluge of allegedly misleading advertisements paid for in large part by pesticide and biotechnology corporations, California voters defeated Proposition 37, which would have given them the right–to-know whether the foods they buy at the grocery store contain genetically engineered ingredients (GMOs).
TK: As much as Monsanto is again the "bad guy," It is interesting that some organic purists are knocking the resolve of Whole Foods to join the fight.
Later in the release.....
Meanwhile, some corporations that should have stepped up to the plate gave token contributions at the eleventh hour. Whole Foods, a corporation with net sales as high as Monsanto’s—both have approximately $11 billion in annual sales—contributed a mere $25,000, just two business days before the election, Cornucopia noted in its research. On the other hand, Monsanto contributed $8,113,000 to the "No on 37" campaign effort.
"Had we seen the same level of enthusiasm for consumers’ right-to-know from Whole Foods as we saw against the right-to-know from Monsanto, the playing field would have been more level, and the misleading information spewed by giant corporate agribusinesses would quite possibly not have prevailed on election day,” said Kastel. "Meaningful participation from Whole Foods could have been a game changer."
TK: Farm lobbyists were pleased with the level of opposition to Prop 37 from the editorial boards of major California newspapers. The majority of voters were not convinced the law was worth the lawsuits that might engulf small businesses if labeling of biotech food was required.
Check out The Packer's initial coverage of the election on food safety regulation here.
And I ask readers: What is your view on the benefits and drawbacks on the reelection of President Barack Obama, and status quo leadership in House and Senate? Chime in here.
Comments (7) Leave a comment