March Against Monsanto
[1] The movement was founded by Tami Canal in response to the failure of California Proposition 37, a ballot initiative which would have required labeling food products made from GMOs.
The number of protesters who took part is uncertain; figures of "hundreds of thousands"[4] and the organizers' estimate of "two million"[5] were variously cited.
Monsanto said that it respected people's rights to express their opinion on the topic, but maintained that its seeds improved agriculture by helping farmers produce more from their land while conserving resources, such as water and energy.
Monsanto has been involved in high-profile lawsuits, as both plaintiff and defendant, and its current and former biotechnology products, its lobbying of government agencies, and its history as a chemical company have made it a controversial corporation.
[19][20] Advocacy groups such as Greenpeace,[21] The Non-GMO Project, and the Organic Consumers Association say that risks of GM food have not been adequately identified and managed, and they have questioned the objectivity of regulatory authorities.
[34][35][36][37] The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation.
[42] Tami Monroe Canal, a homemaker and mother of two daughters, was living as a resident in California when Proposition 37, a ballot initiative that would have required labels on products containing genetically engineered food, was rejected by voters in November 2012.
"I became increasingly angry every time I would go to the grocery store and spend a small fortune to ensure I wasn't feeding my family poison", she recalled.
[citation needed] Canal was not only angry about the failure of Proposition 37 and frustrated with trying to find reasonably priced organic food, but she was also concerned about the health of her children.
"[44] Out of her anger, frustration, and concerns for the health of her children, Canal developed the idea for a "March Against Monsanto" social media campaign.
She argued that Monsanto benefited from corporate subsidies and political favoritism and that its patent rights over the genetic makeup of seeds resulted in losses to small and organic farmers.
[citation needed] Activists Emilie Rensink and Nick Bernabe worked with Canal to promote the march on various social media sites.
[2] The section of the bill is called the "Monsanto Protection Act" by critics, and it authorizes the United States Department of Agriculture to allow the planting and cultivation of genetically modified food while environmental reviews are being completed, even if there is a legal ruling against their approval.
933 "the turning point in the debate on political lobbying and genetic engineering in the U.S." and he described the March Against Monsanto as raising "one of the most pressing issues of our time".
[3][6][7] The number of protesters who took part is uncertain; figures of "hundreds of thousands"[4] and the organizers' estimate of "two million"[5] were variously cited.
In Southern California, protests occurred in Los Angeles, including Venice, Long Beach, and San Diego.
"Any U.S. senators paying attention to what was happening in the entire world over the weekend may have noticed a teensy disconnect between their protectionist votes for Monsanto and global discontent with the GMO giant," Upton wrote.
According to the group, the protests were held to address health and safety issues, perceived conflicts of interest, and agricultural, environmental, and legislative concerns.
[57] The protesters argued that the Farmer Assurance Provision legislation allows Monsanto to ignore court rulings,[58] and have called for the bill's repeal.
Activist and journalist Emilie Rensink, who helped organize the march, said that in her view the appointment of ex-Monsanto executives to head the FDA has resulted in political favoritism, including Monsanto subsidies which have given them an unfair advantage over small farmers.
[62] Monsanto said that it respected people's rights to express their opinion on the topic, but maintained that its seeds improved agriculture by helping farmers produce more from their land while conserving resources, such as water and energy.
Here, we show that a number of articles some of which have strongly and negatively influenced the public opinion on GM crops and even provoked political actions, such as GMO embargo, share common flaws in the statistical evaluation of the data.
