Farm Bureau Supports Family Farmers?

or

Farm Bureau is dedicated to helping Agribusiness succeed at any cost

From: Eduard Van Wingerden <ed@ever-bloom.com>
Date: October 18, 2012 12:38:16 PM PDT
To: Santa Barbara County Farm Bureau (SBCFB) Teri Bontrager
Subject: RE: General Election Ballot Measures and Voter Guide

Hello Teri,

Since I am a member of Farm Bureau and I happen to think that we should all vote YES on PROP 37, can you please forward this link to all of our members, so that they can make an informed decision, versus just receiving Monsanto’s version?

I have always been confused as to why Monsanto and their allies are so vehemently against labeling GMO foods! I am an organic avocado grower and I love it when my fruit has a big ORGANIC label on it. If Monsanto thinks that GMO food is so good for you, why would they not want to put it on the label, so that consumers can seek out their “delicious and healthy” GMO foods?

Also, Farm Bureau states that they are there to protect the family farm; if this is so, then why do they allow a corporation like Monsanto to join our organization? Monsanto is all about mega agribusiness and they will squash and annihilate any small farmer that gets in their way, or if that farmer inadvertently gets their crop pollinated by Monsanto’s GMO seeds. Monsanto’s and other large seed and chemical corporations have convinced us that their aggressive seed patents and disparate share of the farm bill is good for farmers, when in reality it continues to destroy family farms.

I realize that Monsanto is greasing Farm Bureau’s palm, but wouldn’t it send an awesome message to all small farmers, if Farm Bureau did not accept their bribes and truly looked after the interests of the small farmer. You know, the same small farmer that does not collect a penny from the huge subsidies that are doled out by our government to agribusiness and their lobbyists. Those same agribusinesses then unfairly compete with the small farmer and put them out of business to the tune of about 330 farms per week! I appreciate that Farm Bureau helps the small farmer in many other ways, but all that is negated if we allow Monsanto to manipulate and coerce the Farm Bureau Board. So my point is that Farm Bureau either drops the likes of Monsanto, or changes their mission statement to read something like: “Farm Bureau is dedicated to helping Agribusiness succeed at any cost”

I have Bcc’d some growers, family and friends, but at the bottom of your email, it states that we have 74,000 Members Statewide; can you please forward my email to all 74,000 members, or better yet to the 6.2 members Nationwide?

Thanks in advance and I look forward to receiving my email from Farm Bureau.

Sincerely,

Ed Van Wingerden
President
Ever-Bloom, Inc.

From: SBCFB Teri Bontrager
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 8:27 AM
To: "Undisclosed-Recipient:;"
Subject: General Election Ballot Measures and Voter Guide

OPPOSITON TO FOOD-LABELING INITIATIVE HIGHLIGHTS FARM BUREAU BALLOT POSITIONS

Describing it as a poorly written measure with serious implications for family farmers and ranchers, the California Farm Bureau Federation reaffirmed its opposition to a food labeling initiative on the November ballot as it announced positions on the other measures facing voters this fall.

Proposition 37 would ban foods containing genetically engineered materials unless they carried a special, California-only label. It would also prohibit most processed foods from being labeled as “natural”; the measure’s provisions would be enforced by private attorneys suing alleged violators.

“Proposition 37 wouldn’t do anything to make food safer or more affordable. It would just make California farmers and food businesses less competitive,” California Farm Bureau President Paul Wenger said. “Proposition 37 could force even farmers who don’t grow biotech crops to keep extensive records just in case they were sued by a bounty-hunting attorney.”

Wenger said the labeling as outlined in Proposition 37 implies a warning and would give people the impression something is wrong with foods made with biotech ingredients.

“Many years of studies have shown that foods made with genetic engineering are safe,” he said. “It’s irresponsible and confusing to people to require what is essentially a warning label on products that are safe.”

Among its other ballot positions, Farm Bureau opposes Proposition 36, which would revise the “three strikes” sentencing law to reduce sentences for repeat offenders convicted of certain non-violent felonies.

“At a time when California farmers and ranchers are plagued by thefts of crops, fuel and anything made of metal, this measure sends the wrong signal to the criminals who prey on our homes and businesses,” Wenger said.

The California Farm Bureau Board of Directors considered all 11 measures on the Nov. 6 ballot. The organization’s complete list of ballot positions:

Proposition 30 – Temporary Taxes (No Position)
Proposition 31 – State Budget and Local Government NO
Proposition 32 – Restrictions on Political Contributions YES
Proposition 33 – Auto Insurance Pricing (No Position)
Proposition 34 – Death Penalty Repeal (No Position)
Proposition 35 – Human Trafficking YES
Proposition 36 – Three-Strikes Law Revision NO
Proposition 37 – Genetically Engineered Foods NO
Proposition 38 – Tax to Fund Education NO
Proposition 39 – Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses NO
Proposition 40 – Redistricting Referendum (No Position)

The California Farm Bureau Federation works to protect family farms and ranches on behalf of more than 74,000 members statewide and as part of a nationwide network of more than 6.2 million Farm Bureau members.

###