Wednesday, November 5, 2014

The Election and What It Will Mean for Your Eating Habits

Here are early results Via Mother Jones:
Colorado Proposition 105: This statewide ballot initiative pushed for the labeling of genetically modified foods, requiring most GM foods to bear a label reading, "produced with genetic engineering." Burrito chain Chipotle and Whole Foods came out in support of the measure, while agribusiness giants Monsanto, PepsiCo and Kraft came out against it...Outcome: Colorado voters resoundingly rejected Prop 105, with nearly 70% of voters voting no.
Oregon Measure 92: This ballot measure was nearly identical to Colorado's, requiring foods with GMO ingredients to be labeled...Outcome: Undecided
San Francisco Measure E and Berkeley Measure D: These two Bay Area cities both considered levying taxes on sugary beverages. San Francisco's Measure Eproposed a two-cent per ounce tax, while Berkeley's Measure D proposed one-cent per ounce. Both races were considered something of a last stand for the soda tax—if it couldn't pass in these two bastions of liberalism and healthy living, it was essentially doomed everywhere else...Outcome: Failing to gain the necessary two-thirds supermajority, the San Francisco soda tax failed. Berkeley's is undecided.
Maui County, Hawaii, GMO Moratorium Bill: Hawaii's Maui County—which includes the islands of Maui, Lanai and Molokai—considered one of the strongest anti-GMO bills ever: a complete moratorium on the cultivation of genetically engineered crops until studies conclusively prove they are safe. Agriculture is big business on Maui: the island is a major producer of sugarcane, coffee, and pineapple, among other things. Monsanto is among the companies operating farms in Maui County, and this bill would've effectively shut it down. (Under the law, farmers knowingly cultivating GMOs would get hit with a $50,000 per day fine.) Outcome: Undecided
Mother Jones on elections and food stamps:
Florida Second Congressional District: Rep. Steve Southerland, a tea party darling, faced Democrat Gwen Graham in his attempt to get re-elected in this Florida Panhandle district. Last year, Southerland attempted to pass legislation that would've cut $39 billion in food stamp funding, forcing millions out of the program. (He called the cuts "the defining moral issue of our time.") Widely considered the most sweeping cuts in decades, they were not passed, and made Southerland an extremely vulnerable incumbent. Outcome: In a rare House flip for Democrats, Rep. Southerland was defeated by Democrat Gwen Graham.
Kansas Senate: Pat Roberts, the three-term Republican Senator from Kansas, faced independent challenger Greg Orman in a surprisingly tight race for this deep-red state. The race was considered a key indicator of the GOP's Senate hopes, and important for agriculture too: Roberts had said that in the event of a Republican majority, he would be Senate Agriculture Committee Chair—given that he won his own contest, of course. Roberts, once considered a "savior" of food stamp programs,attempted to cut $36 billion from the program last year, and would certainly advocate for similar policy as chairman. Outcome: Roberts won re-election, and the GOP won the Senate majority. Look for Chairman Roberts in 2015.

1 comment:

  1. I don't understand the Kansas race. If Roberts is considered the "savior" of the food stamp program why would he propose cutting it? And if he represents the Ag industry it seems even more senseless unless he proposes backdoor increases elsewhere.. The Florida race however is very revealing. If a pathetically small cut in the food stamp program gets him defeated, the electorate is a long, long way from recognizing the thieves they have become.

    ReplyDelete