California’s GMO Measure Defeated

Food label

Advertisement

In what most people in agriculture believe to be a heartening blow for sound science, a California measure to require labeling of genetically modified foods went down to defeat. Proposition 37 lost in Tuesday’s vote 53% to 47%.
The measure was scorned by many because GMOs have become a common part of nearly all Americans’ diets. By far the lion’s share of soybeans and corn grown in the U.S. are genetically modified, and it’s difficult to find a prepared food that does not contain these ingredients in some fashion.
The cost of labeling all those products that are to be sold in California would have been considerable. Opponents estimated that the average family would add hundreds of dollars to their monthly grocery bills.

Close Call

For months, polls showed the measure was favored by most registered voters. Opponents said that was only because they were not familiar with how pervasive GMOs are, and how harmless they are considered. Indeed the American Medical Association released a statement this past summer declaring that the labeling of GMOs is completely unnecessary.
Most believe that only a media blitz to educate voters financed by not only biotech giants but large food companies kept Prop 37 from passing. At least $45 million was raised from biotech companies, grocery manufacturers, and the soft drink industry. Top contributors to the anti-labeling campaign, called No on 37, included Monsanto, Dow, Bayer CropScience, Syngenta, and BASF. Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Kraft Foods, and Nestle all have donated more than $1 million to oppose the labeling campaign.
The pro-labeling campaign raised about $7 million. It was supported by advocacy organizations such as the Environmental Working Group and Public Citizen. Mercola Health Resources, which sells nutritional supplements, and the Organic Consumers Fund, a lobbying group, were major backers.

Not Finished

Top Articles
Variety Spotlight on Two New Blueberries for Growers

Prop 37 supporters vowed this morning that the movement was far from over. Read one blog posting on the California Right To Know campaign’s website: “Yesterday, we showed that there is a food movement in the United States, and it is strong, vibrant, and too powerful to stop!”
The blog post was one of several stating that the election should be viewed not as a defeat, but as the beginning of a new movement.
It went on to state: “Today is not the end of our campaign to secure our fundamental right to know what’s in our food.”

National Ramifications

Supporters said success at the ballot box would bring one of the biggest consumer markets and food producers in the country in line with labeling laws in 61 other countries. The issue is far bigger than California, said Stacy Malkan with the California Right to Know campaign, which launched the initiative.
“It’s really the first time we’ve had a national conversation about genetically engineered foods in the United States in a major way,” she told the McClatchy news service. “That in and of itself is a significant achievement.”
Proposition 37 was actually the second time nationwide that voters have been asked to decide about labeling GMOs. Oregon voters rejected a similar measure 10 years ago.

Legal Nightmare

Supporters said their effort was only about empowering consumers who deserve to know what’s in their food. But legal scholars said the right to know contained in Proposition 37 also came with the right to sue.
The initiative was worded in such a way that it could invite lawsuits against food producers and grocery stores, experts said. Plaintiffs, including individual consumers, could have sued for an injunction to halt mislabeled goods without having to show they were somehow harmed or deceived. In class-action lawsuits, the prevailing side could have won damage awards and recouped attorney’s fees and other costs.
If Proposition 37 had passed and survived on appeal, “you’re looking at full employment for lawyers without a doubt,” law professor David Levine at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, told the Associated Press recently. Levine was not affiliated with either campaign.

0

Leave a Reply

Avatar for Peter Viall Peter Viall says:

If only people would remember their genetics from High School Biology (it is still taught, isn't it?), they would know that each suceeding generation is genetically modified. You are genetically modified from your parents! 'Nuf said.

Avatar for Lyn Smith Lyn Smith says:

I believe the residents of California have many, many more issues of concern when it comes to their continued existence…

Avatar for Matt Matt says:

Hey Peter, I am sure you are FINE with genetic modification that comes from radiation too? I mean it is all just proteins and peptides, etc. right? Biology class should have also taught you that we can not eat everything and be fine. Nightshade weeds are deadly. A few berries can kill an adult, yet tomatoes are in the same family with only a few genes different. Those few different genes cause big changes in the way other genes are expressed and the way proteins are coded. It is why people are allergic to some nuts and not others. Genetic Engineering deserves to be labeled. When you insert genes from other species into a plant, and then release that plant to breed in the wild, you can not take it back. Once pollen blows or insects move it around you forever change the genetic makeup of all plants in the that same family. Legal liability should attach. It did in Canada. Monsanto won the suit in the Supreme Court of Canada with them saying that monsanto OWNED the plants with their transferred gene. The unintended consequence? Monsanto now owns all contamination from the spread of their genes. Farmers are successfully suing Monsanto now for the cost to remove all of Monsanto's plants that have infected their property. It is now no different than trespassing. If any Gene in Monsanto's product is now found to cause any health problem, Monsanto or other companies that use GE will have legal liability for the damage caused. There is no "We have no control once you plant it excuse". At least in Canada. The rights of consumers to know WHAT they are eating is paramount. I am shocked that the article did not mention the 47 million dollars that Monsanto and their friends spent advertising and working to scare people with prop 37. They even were forced to admit that one of their commercials was an outright lie. Remember Monsanto is the company that told you DDT, Agent Orange and PCBs were 100% safe. I am surprised people still trust what Monsanto says. The only reason these companies are fighting against labeling is because they KNOW consumers will choose no GE alternatives. They do in Europe by more than 90%. THAT is what scares Monsanto and their big allies. If a new study showed GE provided some health benefit, how quickly do you think labels would be updated? It would be OVERNIGHT. The idea that label changes cost too much money is ludicris. It is done ALL the time just for marketing reasons.

Avatar for Jon Jon says:

Can anyone explain why organic products were exempt from the labeling requirement. It's always been my understanding that organic products should have no GMO's in them so they wouldn't need to labeled anyways right?

Avatar for Jeff Jeff says:

Well said Matt!

Avatar for Bill Parks Bill Parks says:

The GMO labelers have not stopped. Everyone in north america has been exposed to GMO for 16 years now. All that has happened, is people continue to live long lives. The scientific community and the EPA, FDA have found GMO corn, soy, canola, cotton safe to eat or wear. Why can't the labelers listen to these learned people and stop working on this useless unnecesary cause.

Avatar for Brian Cieslar Brian Cieslar says:

I don't believe GMO's are dangerous, but if they are, who exactly is getting sick?

Advertisement