Proposition 37 Requires Genetically Engineered Food Labeling
By Bob Morris | 10/10/2012 | Ballot Initiatives, California, Featured | 18 Comments
Credit: pdxpurple.com
Prop 37 would require labeling for most genetically engineered foods sold in California. Currently, 40-70% of food sold in California grocery stores has some GE ingredients.
Under Prop 37, retailers would be responsible for validating the labels on genetically engineered food. They would be required to prove that a specific food is not GE by producing a sworn statement from the supplier that the product does not knowingly contain GE material or by independent certification. Alcohol, organic foods, dairy products, meat, and poultry are exempt from Prop 37. Consumers would be able to sue over mislabeled foods without having to prove any actual damage occurred.
- Requires labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways.
- Prohibits labeling or advertising such food, or other processed food, as “natural.”
- Exempts foods that are: certified organic; unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material; made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves; processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients; administered for treatment of medical conditions; sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant; or alcoholic beverages
The Yes on 37 campaign urges a yes vote.
Proposition 37 is a common-sense November ballot measure that will help consumers make informed choices about the food they eat. Written with broad input from food groups, industry, science, legal and health experts Prop. 37 (The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act) requires clear labels letting consumers know if foods are genetically modified. We already have food labels showing nutrition, allergy information and other facts consumers want to know. This measure simply adds information telling us if food is produced using genetic engineering.
The No on 37 campaign says:
Proposition 37 would ban the sale of tens of thousands of perfectly-safe, common grocery products only in California unless they are specially repackaged, relabeled or made with higher cost ingredients. Prop 37 is a deceptive, deeply flawed food labeling scheme that would add more government bureaucracy and taxpayer costs, create new frivolous lawsuits, and increase food costs by billions — without providing any health or safety benefits.
Yes on 37 has a 30 second video linking those who lied in past about the dangers of cigarettes, DDT, and Agent Orange to those who say now that GE foods are safe. However, while GE foods have been around for almost twenty years, there is still no definitive word on its safety or lack of safety by scientists. Thus, voters will need to vote based on their opinion of the safety of GE food.





Leave Your Comment →
18 Comments
Matt Metzner
10.10.2012
@mmetzner
This will be an interesting prop to watch. The labeling and compliance will drive farmers’ costs up and that will be passed down the line to the consumer. Not sure if the tradeoff is worth it yet, need to do my research on GMOs
Terri Harel
10.10.2012
@tlharel
I agree, I think this issue is confusing and is very easily muddled by the No and Yes campaigns. I saw an ad stating that food lobby groups have heavily affected the initiative and products such as meat wouldn’t require labels, while something like dog food would. I’m confused. Why isn’t there more straight-forward information out there?
Martin Aroian
10.10.2012
I’m on the fence here too. But it seems that the reason meat, in general is exempt and dog food, specifically is not is that currently animals for human consumption are not genetically engineered, but much of the vegetable and “filler” content of dog food is. This subtle ploy by the “no” on folks has me tending in favor. I hate that kind of deceptiveness. Beef cattle may eat GE foods which are exempt from the law because any such engineering is indirect, but the corn (etc) that is put directly in pet food may be GE and therefore it is the corn (or whatever) not the meat in the food that requires the labeling.
Terri Harel
10.10.2012
@tlharel
Interesting. Thanks for some of the clarification Martin.
Ian Dawes
10.10.2012
@iandawes
I agree that we should know what we are eating. Meat and alcohol have lobbyed their way out of this measure, yet, getting this passed is a good start to opening the door for industrial food reform in the U.S. If you’re undecided on this one, here’s a short list to consider (countries that ban GMOs):
Africa: Algeria, Egypt
Asia: Sri Lanka, Thailand, China, Japan, Phillipines
Europe: The E.U., Norway, Austria, Germany United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, Greece, France, Luxembourg, Portugal
Latin America: Brazil, Paraguay
Middle East: Saudi Arabia
North America: Maryland has banned GE fish and North Dakota and Montana have filed bans on GE wheat. The Municipalities of Burlington, Vermont (declared a moratorium on GE food); Boulder, Colorado (bans on GE crops); and the City and County of San Francisco (urged the Fed. Gov’t to ban GE food).
Pacific: American Samoa, Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Australia, New Zealand
Michael Higham
10.11.2012
@michaelhigham
Awesome information, Ian! It’s good to see parts of the US taking steps to proper food practices.
Jane Susskind
10.10.2012
@jsusskind
Also, one of the exemptions I find weird is “processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients.” That makes it very unclear as to what constitutes a “small amount” and when Prop 37 enables consumers to sue over mislabeled foods without having to prove any actual damage occurred, this line could get blurry.
John
10.11.2012
There is no straight forward information out there because it is being hidden. They dont WANT you to know what is in your meat, dairy and other foods.
Let’s just put it this way.. If they were proud of what was in their products, they would display it for ALL to see, huge icons and letters all over the label, like they typically do with nice advertising words like “fresh”, “USDA” etc. Simple fact is that they know what is in their products, so why does it surprise it anyone that they want to hide it?
If food producers are scared to tell you what is in the food they are selling, thats probably a warning sign. It has nothing to do with – ” The labeling and compliance will drive farmers’ costs up and that will be passed down the line to the consumer.” , as said above, it has to do with hiding the truth, because the truth will force people to buy foods other than theirs. Labeling and compliance will drive prices up, so thats why we shouldnt know what is in our food? Thats a joke right. The price of gas has more of an influence from month to month on the price of food than changing letters on the labeling, keep your excuses, I want my food labeled.
Lucas Eaves
10.10.2012
@lucaseaves
We have had GMO labeling in Europe for a long time (maybe because GMOs are prohibited in many countries) and it definitely impact the choice of food chosen by the consumer, even i you have to pay a bit more. But the more striking thing for this proposition is that $4 millions were spent FOR the proposition, $37 millions against. Companies like Monsanto have been able to do whatever the want for so long that it is time that a proposition like that is passed. I dont know why you would be against knowing what you eat.
Blaz Gutierrez
10.10.2012
@blazgutierrez
Exactly – this is one of, if not the, mot costly race in CA this election. The spending is coming from both sides. Criminal law propositions don’t attract as much funding.
Alex Gauthier
10.10.2012
@alexg
adding a sticker that says ‘contains GMO’s’ is hardly government bureaucracy. the no on 37 campaign needs to bring some more facts to the table to convince voters of their claims.
John
10.11.2012
I agree, and I thought the best part was the little kicker at the end… “without providing any health or safety benefits.”
O really? So they have completed the 20, 30 and 40 year studies on these GMOs before they started putting them into 75% of foods that most Americans eat? I didnt think so.
Cannot understand for the life of me why the people in this country are content to be sheep. Do as they say, eat what they say, dont question anything.
“You dont need facts, just trust the ‘scientists’! The food is safe, we definitely are 100% sure that playing God with the biomolecular structure of everything and it’s mother, has no harmful effects on you! I mean, you said you felt fine before, and fine after, so its fact!” – Monsanto
Jane Susskind
10.10.2012
@jsusskind
Generally, I am for this proposition. Knowing what you eat is always a good thing and changing a label to enable that doesn’t seem too difficult or costly. The NO campaign seems to be more interested in power and money than the people… Heather wrote a really great article a few months ago on this which might be relevant in this debate: http://ivn.us/2012/07/11/monsantos-political-ties-the-reason-we-dont-label-gmos/
Cassidy Noblejas Bartolomei
10.10.2012
@cassidynb
With the clear juxtaposition of the Yes on Prop 37 & No on Prop 37 arguments that you present in this article, it is so hard to know who to trust!
John
10.11.2012
Its “hard to know” whether you want to know whats in your food or not? This isnt a difficult decision.
Do you trust Monsanto and food producers? I think I would rather be assured with a label and given a means of retallatory measures, than to end up with some medical condition 10 years from now that can be traced to GMO ingredients, and find out that I have no ability to even do anything to the people responsible for the gross negligence, due to laws being voted down by incompetents.
John
10.11.2012
Unfortunately, P37 does not go far enough. It is a good start, but still not enough..
Proposition 37:
Requires labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers
if made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified
ways.
Lets start here. How about… food should require labelling if it has had ANY GENETIC MUTATION. Why are they allowing some mutations to have no labelling but not others? ANY mutation should have to be reported. If you change half the genetic material, but none of the parts that requires labeling, does this make it a hybrid GMO, not a true GMO that requires reporting? Is the GMO organism aware that it has not been changed in a way that requires labelling and therefore, wont cause any damage or problems to the person who eats it? No, didnt think so. Its still a GMO, its still non natural, and people deserve to know, no matter WHAT part of the food items genetic structure was changed, not just the parts that the lobbyists see fit to report on.
Prohibits labeling or advertising such food, or other processed food, as
“natural.”
Does this mean that we finally won’t see “all natural tofu and plant products” on boxes of vegetable meat in the grocery stores? Im not sure what is natural about plants being molecularly engineered to be meat, but Id sure like to see that go away.
Exempts foods that are: certified organic; unintentionally produced with
genetically engineered material; made from animals fed or injected with
genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves;
processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered
ingredients; administered for treatment of medical conditions; sold for
immediate consumption such as in a restaurant; or alcoholic beverages
Label genetically engineered foods, but not foods (animals) that eat genetically engineered foods? Looks like someone dropped the ball. Anyone who pays attention to food science, biology or has lived long enough/hard enough to have to gather and manage their own food supply (by hunting/fishing/foraging/farming/etc) knows that if the animals are eating bad chemicals, those chemicals will be passed down to the people who eat them as well. I would venture to say its common sense as well, but Ill hold out on that due to how many people live in large cities in 2012 and have their hand held on everything from womb to grave.
Regardless, labelling should be required on the animals that eat GMO food as well. Farmers dont like it? Tough, go back to growing your own feed corn and hay out of natural non hybrid or GMO seed and you wont have those extravagant feed bills anymore. Its asinine that they can pump animals full of so many hormones and chemicals and not even tell people. Sad thing is that most people don’t even care. I guess they enjoy watching your loved ones die from cancers, tumors and diseases most likely caused by the genetic fondling of our food sources.
Michael Higham
10.11.2012
@michaelhigham
I understand that GMOs have a negative connotation and labeling it on foods would steer consumers away from the foods who wouldn’t otherwise. But, it’s proper practice to give us the information on what is in our food.
John
10.11.2012
Thats not consumers problem at all Michael, and this is who we should be protecting. If consumers see the label for GMO and decide not to buy it even if they otherwise wouldnt, thats a market shift, which is perfectly fine, and it is the consumers RIGHT to buy or not to buy what they want. After a market shift, if a producer wants to maintain the same income, it is his JOB to sell what consumers want to buy. Maybe this will finally push more people away from foods with GMOs in them so that producers are forced to either use non GMOs or go out of business. Such is the way the world works. The solution is most definitely not to HIDE information from the public because they might not purchase something. The people who have that thought process are deficient in their reasoning and thinking capabilities. Just imagine if we stopped putting labels on everything, because it might halt people from purchasing it. Want to delabel vehicles and heavy machinery? How about power tools and dangerous equipment? Noxious chemicals and pesticides? Want to delabel medications so they dont have the side effects listed? Afterall, those labels might stop people from buying them who otherwise wouldnt care….