Monsanto Operatives Threaten Lawsuit, Illegally film Citizen Panelists

9 Comments

by: kwtree

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Proposition 105, the GMO Labelling Initiative, will be on your Colorado ballot in November 2014. Proposition 105 is not a ban on GMO products – it asks voters if foods modified or treated with genetically modified materials should be labeled “Produced With Genetic Engineering” starting July 1, 2016. To view the official ballet language visit www.righttoknowcolorado.org.

As part of the initiative review process, a Citizens Initiative Review panel was selected, and began meeting in September 2014. The intent of the CIR process is to produce a nonpartisan "voter guide" with pro and con statements about a given ballot initiative.

Then, Monsanto sent in a camera crew and legal representatives to film citizen participants, possibly to gain material for their own anti-Prop 105 advertising. Here's the story as told on the Natural Grocers blog.

The rules were simple, written and agreed upon in advance: no video, still or voice recording of the event. That's not so hard to understand, is it?

The occasion was the first Citizen Initiative Review pilot project held at the University of Colorado School of Public Affairs in Denver, on September 7, 2014. Twenty Colorado citizens, carefully selected to represent the full range of Colorado voters, were invited to Denver from across the state to take a close look at Proposition 105, the Colorado Right to Know Act initiative.

Over four full days, the citizen panel would research, present and discuss the issue in great depth. They were charged with identifying key issues for Colorado voters, determining the validity of the evidence, and presenting a list of statements supporting and opposing the ballot measure.

Hence the idea that open and honest dialog would be encouraged by the rule against recording.

All went well until Monsanto showed up on Day Two. Without prior notice, Monsanto lobbyists and operatives set up video cameras at the back of the room and refused to budge when asked to leave. They had brought with them one of the top constitutional attorneys in the state, a fierce silent man in a stern gray suit with matching steely glare. "If you try to stop us from filming the citizen panel, we will sue you," barked the company flacks to the executive director of HealthyDemocracy.org. The room fell quiet.

Was Monsanto really openly breaking the rules, bullying their host, and threatening to sue a nonprofit because it wants to break its promise to follow the rules?

Remember, the participating citizens had been promised a private event. The nonprofit had rented the meeting space from the University of Colorado, and thus HealthyDemocracy.org was legally allowed to set whatever rules it wanted for its event. Except that CU had provided free coffee and lemonade, which, according to Monsanto, changed the event from a private one to public one, and thus Monsanto, like any schoolyard bully, said it was now in charge of the rules.

Damn the constitution and hang it from

a tree of technicalities in a knot of lawsuits.

Monsanto is above the law.

What Monsanto wanted, apparently, was to use the footage in future political TV ads and mailers. This was certainly not what the participants had signed up for, but Monsanto's rules prevailed. Day two proceeded with Monsanto's camera's rolling. Can you imagine seeing your voice and image used on TV to support or attack and ad, when you did not give permission? Too bad, citizens. That's how the law reads, because Monsanto dearly protects its political free speech while silencing that speech of others. Don't like it? So sue me.

Day three, however, did not turn out so well for Monsanto. Under duress, HealthyDemocracy.org lawyered up with its own attorney, David Fine, from the powerful law firm of McKenna and Long in Denver. And then advocates for proposition 105, who had been invited to help educate the citizen panel, called Monsanto's bluff.

The Prop 105 advocates would walk out of the event unless Monsanto was forced to follow the rules. Mr. Fine attended to Monsanto's surrender. Tails between their legs, the photographers packed their bags and left the building.

One small victory for democracy in the face of corporate arrogance.

BACKGROUND:

More Monsanto strategy: A year ago, during the early stages of signature gathering for Prop 105, Monsanto claimed that if anything were labelled for GMO content, then everything must be labelled – nothing less than 100% would do. Once it began to look as though Prop 105 would make the ballot, Monsanto suddenly backed away from this uncompromising stance.

More anti-GMO news: If successful, Colorado will join Oregon, Vermont, Maine, and Connecticut in requiring GMO foods to be labelled as such. California anti-GMO activists tried to enact one, but it was defeated after heavy industry lobbying. Kansas (of course) passed a law banning GMO labelling, and allowing "natural" to be used when labelling GMO foods.

Per Josh Lindenstein in Bizwest: Look for even more battling ads on Prop 105 this election season, as both sides are investing heavily to sway voters for or against Proposition 105.

9 thoughts on “Monsanto Operatives Threaten Lawsuit, Illegally film Citizen Panelists”

MichaelBowman says:

September 16, 2014 at 9:00 am

Great diary, MamaJ. I don't know if you're watching (or have time this week) to see the series on the Roosevelts on PBS. Where are the Republican Teddy Roosevelt's today? This series could just as well be a contemporary series on the state of our government. A couple quick examples: yesterday NAS held a hearing on GMO's and there was some very frank discussion about the oligopic nature of their industry. While Monsanto is arguing there are no studies to refute the safety of their products and food stuffs made from their products, competing testimony showed there are over 600 peer-reviewed papers to rebuff their claims. Additionally, we have USDA playing the role of "shrinking violet" on food safety inspections under incredible duress by industry. Somehow they've forgotten that it's their role (and they have the legal authority) to keep us safe. It's not missed by most of us that the largest producer of American pork today is…China. (who just purchased Smithfield Foods).

I'd like to write more but I need to bolt. If I can get my hands on the transcript of yesterday's NAS meeting I'll share it with you. Nothing in it will surprise you.

Log in to Reply
1. BlueCat says:
  
  September 16, 2014 at 9:32 am
  
  Funny how the famous R Presidents GOTPers love to reference were progressive reformers. Lincoln and Teddy were both strong supporters of labor. Teddy would have pleased today's GOTP with his whole white man's burden thing, believing it was our role to control the "uncivilized" (read non-white except for the Japanese whom he deemed civilized) and that it would take thousands of years for black intelligence to catch up with that of whites but would have hated his pride in being a progressive (horrors), his conservationist massive national park creation policies and his insistence that labor have a place at the table along with the the robber barons. Complicated guy, that Teddy. So much to admire. So much to abhor. For different reasons by different sides today.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Davie says:
    
    September 16, 2014 at 4:06 pm
    
    Yep — my thoughts exactly. But did you miss that last night's episode also mentioned this:
    
    The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 was the first of a series of significant consumer protection laws enacted by the Federal Government in the twentieth century and led to the creation of the Food and Drug Administration.
    
    I don't doubt what side of this issue T.R. would be on.
    
    Log in to Reply
notaskinnycook says:

September 16, 2014 at 2:44 pm

Since we don't have "propositions" in Colorado, (that's a California designation) I'm confused. Is this an addition to the statutes or the state constitution?

Log in to Reply
1. mamajama55 says:
  
  September 16, 2014 at 4:57 pm
  
  The "Right to Know" GMO Labelling Initiative is now called Proposition 105. I have no idea why. However, when it appears on your ballot, it will be called "initiative 48".
  
  It adds three statutory amendments to CR 25.5.401 and CR25.5.402 and 25.5.411of the Colorado Constitution. Final legislative language here.
  
  Ballot languagel is available here.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. gaf says:
    
    September 16, 2014 at 10:59 pm
    
    All proposals that are placed on the ballot by initiative are assigned an Initiative number for the process of obtaining signatures. Those that qualify for the ballot are assigned a new number. Initiatives (and questions placed on the ballot by referendum by the Legislature) that change only statutes are called Propositions. Initiatives and referendums that change the Colorado Constitution are called Amendments. The GMO question gathered signatures as Initiative 48, and now is qualified for the ballot as Proposition 105.
    
    In addition to Proposition 105, on the ballot in November are Prop 104 (open meeting of school boards for collective bargaining negotiations), Amendment 67 (Abortion), and Amendment 68 (Gambling).
    
    This system of naming was adopted pretty recently (a year or two ago?) to clarify which were constitutional amendments and which were statutory changes. Also, numbers will be assigned consecutively from year to year so that numbers from past years are not repeated.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. notaskinnycook says:
      
      September 17, 2014 at 11:58 am
      
      Thanks gaf,
      
      So the "proposition" designation is new! knew I'd never seen it before. If anyone needs any further proof that the Califoreigners have taken over this is it.
      
      Log in to Reply
PiceanceDog says:

September 17, 2014 at 12:30 pm
Money Starts To Flow In Colorado GMO Labeling Fight

From the last week of August to September 10, those opposed to labeling – organized as an issue committee called the No On 105 Coalition – raised $1.4 million, dwarfing the $22,000 raised in the same period by those in favor, Colorado Right To Know GMO.

In sum, the No On 105 Coalition has roughly $1.2 million in cash on hand compared to $14,000 on hand for the labeling proponents with Colorado Right to Know.

Colorado Right To Know’s modest coffers are mostly being fed by small individual donors with a few larger checks from advocacy groups like Food Democracy Now and the Organic Consumers Fund.

The No on 105 Coalition has a diverse group of food manufacturers, agribusiness interests and biotech spenders donating large sums of money. Some of the biggest donors during the latest filing period:
- PepsiCo – $500,000
- The J.M. Smucker Company – $345,000
- ConAgra Foods, Inc. – $250,000
- Smithfield Foods, Inc. – $200,000
- Shearer’s Foods, Inc. – $35,000
- Sunny Delight Beverage Company – $25,000
Log in to Reply
1. taterheaptom says:
  
  September 17, 2014 at 12:33 pm
  
  Yum Moms! Make sure to pick up lots of Sunny DNA-light...
  
  Log in to Reply