Starbucks wants you to think the company is on your side when it comes to GMO labeling laws.
But it isn’t. As long as Starbucks is a dues-paying member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which is party to a lawsuit against the state of Vermont intended to overturn Vermont’s recently passed GMO labeling law, the coffee peddler’s profits are being used to defeat your right to know.
TAKE ACTION: Tell Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz: Stop Supporting Efforts to Kill GMO Labeling Laws. Quit the GMA!
In response to a blog post by singer/songwriter Neil Young, proclaiming his support for a Starbucks boycott, Starbucks posted this statement on its website:
Starbucks Response to Questions and Litigation Regarding GMO Labeling
Starbucks is not a part of any lawsuit pertaining to GMO labeling
nor have we provided funding for any campaign. And Starbucks is not
aligned with Monsanto to stop food labeling or block Vermont State law.
The petition claiming that Starbucks is part of this litigation is
completely false and we have asked the petitioners to correct their
description of our position.
Starbucks has not taken a position on the issue of GMO labeling.
As a company with stores and a product presence in every state, we
prefer a national solution.
“Completely false”? Not quite.
As this subsequent article by Reuters points out:
Internal GMA documents filed last year as part of a lawsuit in Washington State revealed [GMA] members contribute to a "Defense of Brands Strategic Account" designed "to help the industry fund programs to address the threats from motivated and well financed activists" and to "shield individual companies from criticism for funding of specific efforts."
When asked by Reuters if Starbucks has contributed to this “special” account, Starbucks did not respond. No big surprise. Because not only does Starbucks’ membership in the GMA support the GMA’s lawsuit against Vermont, it also supports a bill awaiting a hearing in Congress, written by the GMA, that would strip states of the right to pass mandatory GMO labeling laws.
Starbucks wants you to think the company is on your side when it comes to GMO labeling laws.
But it isn’t. As long as Starbucks is a dues-paying member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which is party to a lawsuit against
the state of Vermont intended to overturn Vermont’s recently passed GMO
labeling law, the coffee peddler’s profits are being used to defeat
your right to know.
TAKE ACTION: Tell Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz: Stop Supporting Efforts to Kill GMO Labeling Laws. Quit the GMA!
In response to a blog post by singer/songwriter Neil Young, proclaiming his support for a Starbucks boycott, Starbucks posted this statement on its website:
Starbucks Response to Questions and Litigation Regarding GMO Labeling
Starbucks is not a part of any lawsuit pertaining to GMO labeling
nor have we provided funding for any campaign. And Starbucks is not
aligned with Monsanto to stop food labeling or block Vermont State law.
The petition claiming that Starbucks is part of this litigation is
completely false and we have asked the petitioners to correct their
description of our position.
Starbucks has not taken a position on the issue of GMO labeling.
As a company with stores and a product presence in every state, we
prefer a national solution.
“Completely false”? Not quite.
As this subsequent article by Reuters points out:
Internal GMA documents filed last year as part of a lawsuit in
Washington State revealed [GMA] members contribute to a "Defense of
Brands Strategic Account" designed "to help the industry fund programs
to address the threats from motivated and well financed activists" and
to "shield individual companies from criticism for funding of specific
efforts."
When asked by Reuters if Starbucks has contributed to this “special” account, Starbucks did not respond.
No big surprise. Because not only does Starbucks’ membership in the
GMA support the GMA’s lawsuit against Vermont, it also supports a bill awaiting a hearing in Congress, written by the GMA, that would strip states of the right to pass mandatory GMO labeling laws.
- See more at:
http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50865/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=15178&track=FB&tag=FB#sthash.pDDuweFj.dpuf
But it isn’t. As long as Starbucks is a dues-paying member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which is party to a lawsuit against
the state of Vermont intended to overturn Vermont’s recently passed GMO
labeling law, the coffee peddler’s profits are being used to defeat
your right to know.
TAKE ACTION: Tell Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz: Stop Supporting Efforts to Kill GMO Labeling Laws. Quit the GMA!
In response to a blog post by singer/songwriter Neil Young, proclaiming his support for a Starbucks boycott, Starbucks posted this statement on its website:
Starbucks Response to Questions and Litigation Regarding GMO Labeling
Starbucks is not a part of any lawsuit pertaining to GMO labeling
nor have we provided funding for any campaign. And Starbucks is not
aligned with Monsanto to stop food labeling or block Vermont State law.
The petition claiming that Starbucks is part of this litigation is
completely false and we have asked the petitioners to correct their
description of our position.
Starbucks has not taken a position on the issue of GMO labeling.
As a company with stores and a product presence in every state, we
prefer a national solution.
“Completely false”? Not quite.
As this subsequent article by Reuters points out:
Internal GMA documents filed last year as part of a lawsuit in
Washington State revealed [GMA] members contribute to a "Defense of
Brands Strategic Account" designed "to help the industry fund programs
to address the threats from motivated and well financed activists" and
to "shield individual companies from criticism for funding of specific
efforts."
When asked by Reuters if Starbucks has contributed to this “special” account, Starbucks did not respond.
No big surprise. Because not only does Starbucks’ membership in the
GMA support the GMA’s lawsuit against Vermont, it also supports a bill awaiting a hearing in Congress, written by the GMA, that would strip states of the right to pass mandatory GMO labeling laws.
- See more at:
http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50865/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=15178&track=FB&tag=FB#sthash.pDDuweFj.dpuf
Starbucks wants you to think the company is on your side when it comes to GMO labeling laws.
But it isn’t. As long as Starbucks is a dues-paying member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which is party to a lawsuit against
the state of Vermont intended to overturn Vermont’s recently passed GMO
labeling law, the coffee peddler’s profits are being used to defeat
your right to know.
TAKE ACTION: Tell Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz: Stop Supporting Efforts to Kill GMO Labeling Laws. Quit the GMA!
In response to a blog post by singer/songwriter Neil Young, proclaiming his support for a Starbucks boycott, Starbucks posted this statement on its website:
Starbucks Response to Questions and Litigation Regarding GMO Labeling
Starbucks is not a part of any lawsuit pertaining to GMO labeling
nor have we provided funding for any campaign. And Starbucks is not
aligned with Monsanto to stop food labeling or block Vermont State law.
The petition claiming that Starbucks is part of this litigation is
completely false and we have asked the petitioners to correct their
description of our position.
Starbucks has not taken a position on the issue of GMO labeling.
As a company with stores and a product presence in every state, we
prefer a national solution.
“Completely false”? Not quite.
As this subsequent article by Reuters points out:
Internal GMA documents filed last year as part of a lawsuit in
Washington State revealed [GMA] members contribute to a "Defense of
Brands Strategic Account" designed "to help the industry fund programs
to address the threats from motivated and well financed activists" and
to "shield individual companies from criticism for funding of specific
efforts."
When asked by Reuters if Starbucks has contributed to this “special” account, Starbucks did not respond.
No big surprise. Because not only does Starbucks’ membership in the
GMA support the GMA’s lawsuit against Vermont, it also supports a bill awaiting a hearing in Congress, written by the GMA, that would strip states of the right to pass mandatory GMO labeling laws.
- See more at:
http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50865/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=15178&track=FB&tag=FB#sthash.pDDuweFj.dpuf
But it isn’t. As long as Starbucks is a dues-paying member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which is party to a lawsuit against
the state of Vermont intended to overturn Vermont’s recently passed GMO
labeling law, the coffee peddler’s profits are being used to defeat
your right to know.
TAKE ACTION: Tell Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz: Stop Supporting Efforts to Kill GMO Labeling Laws. Quit the GMA!
In response to a blog post by singer/songwriter Neil Young, proclaiming his support for a Starbucks boycott, Starbucks posted this statement on its website:
Starbucks Response to Questions and Litigation Regarding GMO Labeling
Starbucks is not a part of any lawsuit pertaining to GMO labeling
nor have we provided funding for any campaign. And Starbucks is not
aligned with Monsanto to stop food labeling or block Vermont State law.
The petition claiming that Starbucks is part of this litigation is
completely false and we have asked the petitioners to correct their
description of our position.
Starbucks has not taken a position on the issue of GMO labeling.
As a company with stores and a product presence in every state, we
prefer a national solution.
“Completely false”? Not quite.
As this subsequent article by Reuters points out:
Internal GMA documents filed last year as part of a lawsuit in
Washington State revealed [GMA] members contribute to a "Defense of
Brands Strategic Account" designed "to help the industry fund programs
to address the threats from motivated and well financed activists" and
to "shield individual companies from criticism for funding of specific
efforts."
When asked by Reuters if Starbucks has contributed to this “special” account, Starbucks did not respond.
No big surprise. Because not only does Starbucks’ membership in the
GMA support the GMA’s lawsuit against Vermont, it also supports a bill awaiting a hearing in Congress, written by the GMA, that would strip states of the right to pass mandatory GMO labeling laws.
- See more at:
http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50865/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=15178&track=FB&tag=FB#sthash.pDDuweFj.dpuf
Starbucks wants you to think the company is on your side when it comes to GMO labeling laws.
But it isn’t. As long as Starbucks is a dues-paying member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which is party to a lawsuit against
the state of Vermont intended to overturn Vermont’s recently passed GMO
labeling law, the coffee peddler’s profits are being used to defeat
your right to know.
TAKE ACTION: Tell Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz: Stop Supporting Efforts to Kill GMO Labeling Laws. Quit the GMA!
In response to a blog post by singer/songwriter Neil Young, proclaiming his support for a Starbucks boycott, Starbucks posted this statement on its website:
Starbucks Response to Questions and Litigation Regarding GMO Labeling
Starbucks is not a part of any lawsuit pertaining to GMO labeling
nor have we provided funding for any campaign. And Starbucks is not
aligned with Monsanto to stop food labeling or block Vermont State law.
The petition claiming that Starbucks is part of this litigation is
completely false and we have asked the petitioners to correct their
description of our position.
Starbucks has not taken a position on the issue of GMO labeling.
As a company with stores and a product presence in every state, we
prefer a national solution.
“Completely false”? Not quite.
As this subsequent article by Reuters points out:
Internal GMA documents filed last year as part of a lawsuit in
Washington State revealed [GMA] members contribute to a "Defense of
Brands Strategic Account" designed "to help the industry fund programs
to address the threats from motivated and well financed activists" and
to "shield individual companies from criticism for funding of specific
efforts."
When asked by Reuters if Starbucks has contributed to this “special” account, Starbucks did not respond.
No big surprise. Because not only does Starbucks’ membership in the
GMA support the GMA’s lawsuit against Vermont, it also supports a bill awaiting a hearing in Congress, written by the GMA, that would strip states of the right to pass mandatory GMO labeling laws.
- See more at:
http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50865/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=15178&track=FB&tag=FB#sthash.pDDuweFj.dpuf
But it isn’t. As long as Starbucks is a dues-paying member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which is party to a lawsuit against
the state of Vermont intended to overturn Vermont’s recently passed GMO
labeling law, the coffee peddler’s profits are being used to defeat
your right to know.
TAKE ACTION: Tell Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz: Stop Supporting Efforts to Kill GMO Labeling Laws. Quit the GMA!
In response to a blog post by singer/songwriter Neil Young, proclaiming his support for a Starbucks boycott, Starbucks posted this statement on its website:
Starbucks Response to Questions and Litigation Regarding GMO Labeling
Starbucks is not a part of any lawsuit pertaining to GMO labeling
nor have we provided funding for any campaign. And Starbucks is not
aligned with Monsanto to stop food labeling or block Vermont State law.
The petition claiming that Starbucks is part of this litigation is
completely false and we have asked the petitioners to correct their
description of our position.
Starbucks has not taken a position on the issue of GMO labeling.
As a company with stores and a product presence in every state, we
prefer a national solution.
“Completely false”? Not quite.
As this subsequent article by Reuters points out:
Internal GMA documents filed last year as part of a lawsuit in
Washington State revealed [GMA] members contribute to a "Defense of
Brands Strategic Account" designed "to help the industry fund programs
to address the threats from motivated and well financed activists" and
to "shield individual companies from criticism for funding of specific
efforts."
When asked by Reuters if Starbucks has contributed to this “special” account, Starbucks did not respond.
No big surprise. Because not only does Starbucks’ membership in the
GMA support the GMA’s lawsuit against Vermont, it also supports a bill awaiting a hearing in Congress, written by the GMA, that would strip states of the right to pass mandatory GMO labeling laws.
- See more at:
http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50865/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=15178&track=FB&tag=FB#sthash.pDDuweFj.dpuf
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated. We will post relevant comments only. Please send queries to the blog admin.