FOOD FIGHT: Proposition 37, defeated by a narrow margin this past Election Day, called on food-makers to label products containing genetically modified ingredients--and to not label such foods as "natural."
Image: Hemera Collection/Thinkstock
Dear EarthTalk: What was Proposition 37 in California that concerns the labeling of genetically modified foods and that was just voted down in that state?— Peter Tremaine, Euclid, Ohio
Many healthy food advocates were disheartened on Election Day when Californians rejected Proposition 37, which would have required the labeling of genetically modified (GM) foods across the state. GM foods have had genes from other plants or animals inserted into their genetic code to optimize for one or another trait, such as resistance to pests, better taste or longer shelf life, and are controversial because scientists don’t know the ramifications of mixing genetic codes on such a widespread scale.
While it was close, those against the so-called “California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act” prevailed, with 53.1 percent of the vote. The proposition called on food manufacturers to label foods containing GM ingredients on the front or back of the packaging with the phrase “partially produced with genetic engineering”—and not to label or advertise such foods as “natural.” Proponents developed the proposition in lieu of federal action requiring labeling of GM foods…as exists in 50 other countries.
Proponents of the bill raised some $9 million and garnered some 46.9 percent of the vote, indicating that upwards of four million Californians fear the potential effects of GM foods and are in favor of greater transparency on the part of the food industry. But such efforts weren’t enough to overcome aggressive marketing by so-called Big Food companies including Monsanto, Coca-Cola, ConAgra, Nestle and Kraft, who poured some $45 million into the “No on 37” campaign.
Backers of the proposition are crying foul. Public health lawyer Michele Simon reports that some of the companies involved in defeating the bill engaged in lying, scare tactics, misrepresentation and various dirty tricks “to protect their profits and keep California voters uninformed about their food choices.”
“The No campaign listed four organizations in the official state document mailed to voters as concluding that ‘biotech foods are safe’,” she says. “One of them, the American Council on Science and Health, is a notorious industry front group that only sounds legit. Another, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, actually has no position and complained about being listed…” The other two groups, the National Academy of Sciences and the World Health Organization, have more nuanced positions...than just “safe.”
Simon also criticizes Big Food for its claims about high food costs, “shakedown lawsuits” and “special interest exemptions” if the law passed: “While each of these claims is easily debunked, being outspent on ad dollars makes it hard to compete, especially when all you can really say is, ‘that’s not true’.”
The battle over GM labeling in California may be over for now, but the war rages on nationally. Just Label It, a nonprofit started by Stonyfield Farm magnate Gary Hirshberg, is trying to persuade the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to require GM food labeling nationally. Readers can help by signing the campaign’s online petition. Beyond that, Just Label It recommends eating more fresh vegetables and unprocessed foods (the vast majority of processed foods in the U.S. contain either GM corn or soy) and looking for the USDA Organic label, which precludes any foods containing GM ingredients.
CONTACTS: Yes on 37, www.carighttoknow.org; Just Label It, www.justlabelit.org.
EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.
See what we're tweeting about
7 Comments
Add CommentSo do we really need a new law? If there is such a strong market demand for non-GMO foods, then let the manufacturers trumpet their GMO-free products and profit from it. Those who won't label their foods risk being shunned by those consumers who care. And there are certainly enough laws already on the books to punish deceptive advertising for those who are tempted to offer misleading messages.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLaws for labeling aren't alway enforced...for example the chinese honey scandal from last year. Some of the "honey wasn't even honey....just a paste mixture of rice or soy or other products artificially flavored and colored.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMillions of pounds of tainted Chinese honey was making its way onto U.S. store shelves under many labels and store brands according to an investigation. An online daily news site reported that Chinese honey makers were laundering their products through other Asian nations, including India, Vietnam and Malaysia, in order to smuggle it into the U.S.
So do we need a new law? Maybe not, but if the product is labeled as such at least there are grounds for standardization and for holding the maker liable if the product is not labeled or mislabeled. Also any new laws can be tested under open courts for product safety rather than leaving it up to the honesty of the maker and grower. THEN the customers can make their decisions with full knowledge before the fact not after.
The final vote tally was significantly closer than you report above, per the CA Sec. of State: It rounds to 49–51. Of course the money tally rounds to 9–45, and the negative TV ads were notoriously misleading.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe law should have been stopped and I happily voted against it because it is yet more massive and unnecessary government regulation that would cost a lot and amount to nothing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the law simply said, dont label foods that are not natural as natural or variations of that word, then fine, that would have been ok. All the rest of the nonsense was the problem. All it would have amounted too is higher prices for food and GM producers able to game the new government label system to still get GM modified food in as if it was not modified. You cant prevent dishonesty, all government regulations do is provide the instructions to follow to get away with being dishonest.
If the laws require complexity to explain, then it is likely a law that should be voted against.
I read the full text of the proposition and it is neither overly complex nor massively expensive. The cost of the oversight would amount to a fraction of what the bills opponents spent in its dishonest ad campaigns. Furthermore, the cost to the producers to honestly label their products would have amounted to fractions of a penny per unit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGiven that this is Scientific American, I would have hoped to find the views of at least one scientist in this piece. While some scientists did support the proposition, many independent scientists took a stand against it, including Michael Eisen of UC Berkeley and Pamela Ronald of UC Davis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's also unfortunate that Michele Simon was the only person consulted on the question of why the proposition failed. On that question, I would strongly recommend reading the piece by Karl Haro von Mogel responding to similar ideas expressed by Simon elsewhere (and also pointing out that Simon had a financial relationship with the Yes on 37 campaign). He wrote, "If supporters of mandatory GE labeling are to have any hope of achieving their goals, they need to stop misrepresenting the science, be honest about what kinds of costs different labeling schemes would bring, and reach across the farm rows to work with the other side." http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/11/why-did-proposition-37-fail/
Only four things needed as add-ons to existing label:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) G
2) M
3) skull
4) crossbones