Annotation (A): A Time’s magazine article published just two days after Proposition 37 failed to pass in California (2012). Ms. Sifferlin presented both sides of the the measure, interviewing both proponents and opposers and presenting lobbying statistics.
A: A San Francisco Gate article published just two days after Prop. 37 failed to pass in California (2012). Ms. Finz gives context, outlines the bill and briefly explains the GMO movement.
A: Published last spring, this article presents that the majority of Americans are in favor of GMO labeling (ABC News poll showed 93%). I used the poll presented in this article in my straight news piece and some of my op-ed pieces.
A: This article presents labeling, safety and environmental impact of GMO’s with the consensus that the average American is largely uneducated on the subject but is still interested in labeling GE products. Supported by a threefold poll (one for each aforementioned side) conducted by YouGov.
I used this article to begin to understand where the majority of Americans stood on the issue.
Bottemiller, Helena. “With Recent Victories, Movement to Label GMOs Gains Steam.”Food Safety News. Maller Clark, 27 June 2013. Web. Sept. 2013.
A: This article focuses on the success and failures of the GMO movement with the overall consensus that it is “gaining steam.” It draws in all the different state measures and house bills. It help me connect the movement on the west coast (I-522 and Prop. 37) to the rest of the US.
A: This article uses the result of the Connecticut GMO labeling measure to highlight the lobbying power of corporations in the biotechnology industry. I quoted mr. Sheets in my straight news piece to help highlight the widespread effect of lobbying.
A: This is not a news piece but rather a political blog, focused on Washington, sponsored by the News Tribune. The specific post I read had to do with GMO labeling voter consensus polls performed in Washington. I used the data in my straight news piece and some of my opinion pieces.
A: This article, published before Washington’s 2013 ballot, offered a cautiously optimistic view for the GMO labeling movement and its opportunity for success in Washington. It also considered corporate opposition in California. I never used this directly in any of my editorials. It supported all my arguments though, which was nice, although I did feel a little confirmation bias by the end of reading it.
A: This article focuses on how the McCutcheon v. FEC decision could affect state courts. I never used it in any of my editorials.
A: As the title suggests, this article offers a quick rundown on McCutcheon v. FEC, including backstory, why its important, where it may lead and what’s being challenged. I read this when I was considering writing an opinion piece on the topic, but I never took that path.
A: Published amidst the recent government shutdown, this piece reports on Obama’s negative view of McCutcheon v. FEC and the courts decision on Citizens United v. FEC. I never used it in any of my editorials.
Shannon, Brad. “I-522 Could Raise Prices, Scientists Say.” The News Tribune. The News Tribune, 09 Oct. 2013. Web. Oct. 2013.
A: A panel of researchers, including economists and biologists of the Washington State Academy of Sciences, found that GMO labeling would raise costs, as Mr. Shannon reports in this article. I initially included this in my straight news piece but ended up cutting it. It presents a con of GMO labeling.
A: Drawing attention to the campaign contributions Comcast was giving to anti-McGinn PACs before the Washington 2013 ballot, this article summarizes Gigabit Squared, Comcast’s contributions and Murray’s position. I used this in one of my opinion pieces as an example of corporate-voter conflict
Vasilogambros, Matt, and Sarah Mimms. “Scalia Defends Citizens United Decision.”National Journal. Edgecast Networks, 18 July 2012. Web. Nov. 2013.
A: This article summarizes and quotes a discussion Justice Scalia had on television summer of last year, in which he defended the Citizens United v. FEC case decision.
A: Published in the preceding months to California’s 2012 ballot, this article focuses on the support Prop. 37 was enjoying at the time, and the aid campaigns the Agro business was running. This source wonderfully supports my hypothesis that Prop. 37 failed due to Agro lobbying expenditures, but I came across it late and never ended up using it in any of my pieces.
Contributors, Ballotpedia. “Washington Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food Measure, Initiative 522.” Ballotpedia. State of Washington, Nov. 2013. Web. Nov. 2013.
A: Ballotpedia provides information on ballot measures ranging from the context and history of the issue on the ballot to the different sides/opinions. This source led me to extremely useful state polls on I-522, which I used in some of my opinion pieces, and gathered information from different campaign disclosure sites, which I also used in my opinion pieces.
Wikipedia contributors. “JPMorgan Chase.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 10 Nov. 2013. Web. Nov. 2013.
A: JPMorgan Chase, Wikipedia offers basic information on every major subject of interest related to the aforementioned bank. I quickly read through this source when I was writing my post ballot op-ed. I never directly used it.
A: Showed all the election results for Washington’s 2013 ballot. I used it to find out the election results.
Golan, Elise, Fred Kuchler, Lorraine Mitchell, Catherine Greene, and Amber Jessup.Economics of Food Labeling. Rep. United States Department of Agriculture, Jan. 2001. Web. Oct.-Nov. 2013.
A: This report studies five examples of government food labeling issues in the US (3 of which were enforced and 2 of which were proposed) and the economic theory behind them. I briefly read over this source when I was trying to find information on the economic impact of nutrition labeling requirements of the 90’s. I never directly used any information from it.
A: All the oral arguments for/against all the measures on Washingtons ballot (along with Seattle legislature oral campaign presentations–which I paid no attention to). I came across this source when I was looking into arguments against I-522. I used some of the arguments presented in one of my opinion pieces, but I later edited them out.
A: Straight to the source for campaigning laws and regulations in the US along with the any legally required disclosures.
A: Full text of Bill Request for Initiative Measure I-522. I scanned over this source to help understand what I-522 was proposing.
A: WSPDC has five sections, one of which is a campaign finance database for Washington. This site was interesting to browse through but I never ended up directly using any of my findings.
A: The NonGMO Project is a not for profit that offers third party GMO labeling and works to protect non-GMO food options in North America. I used this source to help understand the basics of pro GMO labeling arguments
A: Open Secrets is a non-partisan, not for profit dedicated, to tracking money in US politics. I used this source to find lobbying expenditure statistics on companies like BIO and monsanto and industries such as the Agro Services & Products Industry.
A: A not-for-profit working to “take back our democracy [from effect of corporate campaign finance in the US].” Offers volunteer opportunities all over the US, however, none in King County.
A: Public Citizen is a not-for-profit in the US that does not work in coordination with any political parties or candidates. Its main focus is to protect and perpetuate the voice/needs of the citizen in the face of the government and big corporations. This was one of this first sources I came across and lead me to other sources such as Move to Amend. I did not directly use this source in any of my work.
A: CFI analyzes how candidates fundraise/spend money and gathers such information. I never directly used this source.
A: Gathered information on the GE labeling movement including many nationwide polls and information on which states have GE related measure/HB. This was a very helpful source and I used information from it in nearly all of my work.
A: Mr. Curtis points to the foolish (too much leverage, poor risk control, ignorance of bubble) behavior that led up to Lehman’s crash of 2007 as a product of knowingly unethical acts of the financial industry. I quoted a few sentences from the interlude in one of my op-ed’s.
Moorman, Christine, Rosellina Ferraro, and Joel Huber. Firm Responses to the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act. Rep. Duke University, 28 Oct. 2011. Web. Oct. 2013.
A: This report looks into how firms reacted to the labeling requirements of the 90’s (how they adjusted taste, ingredients, etc.) but not how prices were affected, which was what I was interested, so I never ended up using it.
Wilkening, Virginia, and Patricia Dexter. Labelling Foods to Improve Nutrition in the United States. Rep. Agriculture Consumer Protection, 1994. Web. Oct. 2013.
A: This paper takes a pro-labeling stance on considering the labeling requirements of the 90’s. It briefly goes over a cost-benefit analysis of the requirements in the abstract, but does not go into detail in the body. I did not use this source in any of my work.
Malbin, Michael J, Peter Brusoe, Brendan Galvin. “Small Donors, Big Democracy.” Election Law Journal. 1 Nov. 2012. Web.
A: A research paper on encouraging small donations, especially in minorities and lower income classes, by matching campaign donations. This piece looks at how matching donations worked in New York, how it could readily work in other states and applies the idea to the broader concept of campaign finance.
Other Helpful Sources:
A: A speech directed to the European Union proposing GM regulations in Europe, this source led me to GMO labeling related statistics in Europe which I initially used in some of my opinion pieces but ended up cutting in later revisions. It also helped me understand how GMO labeling was being handled in Europe.
A: A 15 minute interview via telephone. I quoted Ms. Yandle in two of my op-eds.
A: BIO is the largest firm of the biotechnology industry. Their website offers explanations of biotechnology and why it is important. I looked into them because they were one of the big players in the lobbying scene against GMO labeling. Their website also offers arguments against GMO restrictions.
A: The Organic Consumer Fund (OCF) is an alliance to the Organic Consumer Association (OCA). OCF focuses on legislation related to genetic engineering/organic products and was a big proponent of Proposition 37 in California. There website offers info and arguments on Prop. 37.