Hillary Clinton Is in Thrall to America’s Yogurt Overlord

The anti-GMO founder of Stonyfield Farm raised big bucks for Clinton’s campaign—and then Clinton changed her mind about GMO labeling.

<p><a href="http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/greek-yogurt-with-spoon-gm154955692-16216133?st=_p_yogurt" target="_blank">Ha Huynh</a>/iStock</p>

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


As I reported last month, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton draws broad financial support from the food and agriculture industries, including the fast-growing organic-foods sector. The latest WikiLeaks dump of Democratic Party emails shows that one prominent Big Organic player gets his emails answered by Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta.

“I have raised nearly $400K for her because I believed what she told me,” Stonyfield founder Gary Hirshberg wrote. “If that is not the case, I’d like the chance to speak to her.”

WikiLeaks has posted a searchable database of what are purported to be Podesta’s hacked emails, though the Clinton campaign has neither confirmed nor denied they’re authentic. As Politico reported Tuesday morning, Gary Hirshberg, the founder, chairman, and former CEO of organic-yogurt giant Stonyfield, exchanged several emails with Podesta, the WikiLeaks database suggests.

The emails, which can be found here, are from October 2015 to March 2016 and largely involve two storylines that played out simultaneously: Clinton’s hard-fought primary campaign with her Democratic challenger, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, and a battle in Congress over whether and how to label genetically modified foods, which I covered at the time. The issues intersected because Sanders quite publicly supported labeling.

And though, like all food issues, GMO labeling has not been much of an issue in a campaign dominated for several months now by Trump’s wild-card antics, Hirshberg managed to get Podesta’s ear.

Hirshberg is a leader of the Just Label It campaign, a coalition pushing for a mandatory federal GMO label. He’s also a Clinton supporter who has served as a “bundler” of donations for her campaign—he has raised a bit more than $600,000 for Clinton’s campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. To make a long story short, Hirshberg pushes Podesta to have Clinton support mandatory labeling, against a fierce biotech-industry lobbying effort to push through a federal law that would annul state-level labeling legislation and make GMO disclosure voluntary.

Hirshberg uses both the Sanders challenge to Clinton and his own fundraising prowess as a spur to promote his labeling position. In an October 28, 2015, email to Podesta, Hirshberg suggests that Clinton declare publicly that she supports mandatory GMO labeling, on the grounds that “everyone has the right to know whether they are in your foods.” Hirshberg adds several benefits of such a position, including, “Bernie is absolutely firm about supporting mandatory labeling, so this would not give him an advantage on this topic.”

In a December 22 email, Hirshberg writes of hearing an account that Clinton had publicly opposed labeling:

Hillary’s publicly opposing this is both the wrong policy position but also a direct breach of what she told me, namely that she supports average citizens and moms having the right to know.

He adds: “I have raised nearly $400K for her because I believed what she told me. If that is not the case, I’d like the chance to speak to her.”

There’s no evidence he ever got his audience with the candidate. Meanwhile, the battle in Congress continued, and in March, an industry-backed anti-labeling law failed in Congress. On Twitter, Clinton celebrated the defeat:

Soon after, Hirshberg emailed Podesta with the subject header “Thanks for whatever role you might have had in this,” linking to Clinton’s tweet. He adds that the tweet “is actually a very big deal and I already have used it to stop a lot of whiny Bernie people cold in their tracks.” He added that “HRC should be leading on this…it will absolutely be a huge step in helping to win over millions of young Bernie supporters.” Podesta responds, “Thanks Gary! It was thanks to your initial emails on this that we got the machinery in action and produced this tweet.”

And that’s pretty much that. The labeling battle continued in Congress, culminating in a bill passed in late June and eventually signed into law by President Barack Obama that struck a compromise: Food companies will have to disclose GM ingredients, but not on labels—they have the option of using QR codes that can be read by smartphones. The industry hotly supported the bill; Just Label It and other advocates bitterly opposed it.

As for the rest of the food industry, I searched the WikiLeaks’ Podesta database with lots of keywords and couldn’t find much else in the way of food industry attempts to get Podesta’s ear. I plan to do more searching. I did find an amusing November 2015 email exchange between Podesta and someone with the email handle “mpodesta,” presumably John Podesta’s wife, DC attorney Mary Podesta. Its subject header: “Mark Bittman,” the cookbook writer and former food politics columnist for the New York Times.

“[S]hould we invite him [Bittman] to our Xmas party?” Podesta asks. The response: “I don’t know who that is.”

This article has been updated.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate