 |
| An organic cereal label |
The election is (thankfully) over, but there's one ballot measure that I keep wondering about - California Proposition 37.
Now, I'm not a California voter, so I'll confess I hadn't paid too much attention to the measure until this week. A friend was prepping her ballot and asked me what the deal was with the proposal. Prop 37 mandates labeling (some) GMOs in food.
Now, let me be clear. I know little about the law-making process in California, so my reaction was only to the available text - and the debate for and against. But, I have advocated for GMO-labeling in the past, and I'm familiar with the Organic Consumer's Association. There's currently no requirement to label GMOs in the United States, although mandated labeling (or an outright ban) of GMOs does exist in over 50 other countries, including much of the EU and Japan.
According to the California Secretary of State's office:
Requires labeling of food sold to consumers made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways. Prohibits marketing such food, or other processed food, as “natural.” Provides exemptions. Fiscal Impact: Increased annual state costs from a few hundred thousand dollars to over $1 million to regulate the labeling of genetically engineered foods. Additional, but likely not significant, governmental costs to address violations under the measure.
PRO
Proposition 37 gives us the right to know what is in the food we eat and feed to our families. It simply requires labeling of food produced using genetic engineering, so we can choose whether to buy those products or not. We have a right to know.
CON
Prop. 37 is a deceptive, deeply flawed food labeling scheme, full of special-interest exemptions and loopholes. Prop. 37 would: create new government bureaucracy costing taxpayers millions, authorize expensive shakedown lawsuits against farmers and small businesses, and increase family grocery bills by hundreds of dollars per year.www.NoProp37.com
You can find the full text here:
California Prop 37.
On the surface, I'm pro. I absolutely agree with "right to know". But, the "Con" catches my attention, "deceptive, deeply flawed...", as does the fiscal impact. Although, my initial reaction is also to be a bit annoyed the official listing has the "No" website as part of the "Con" description, but the "Pro" website is under the more information section:
http://www.carighttoknow.org/.
Without reading the text, it's easy to get confused. What is meant by "genetic engineering" and aren't all crops genetically engineered? However, the question says "genetic material cahnged in specific ways", and the full text defines it:
(c) Genetically engineered. (1) “Genetically engineered” means any food that is produced from an organism or organisms in which the genetic material has been changed through the application of:
(A) In vitro nucleic acid techniques, including recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) techniques and the direct injection of nucleic acid into cells or organelles, or
(B) Fusion of cells, including protoplast fusion, or hybridization techniques that overcome natural physiological, reproductive, or recombination barriers, where the donor cells/protoplasts do not fall within the same taxonomic family, in a way that does not occur by natural multiplication or natural recombination.
In terms of what the proposed law requires:
(a) Commencing July 1, 2014, any food offered for retail sale in California is misbranded if it is or may have been entirely or partially produced with genetic engineering and that fact is not disclosed:
(1) In the case of a raw agricultural commodity on the package offered for retail sale, with the clear and conspicuous words “Genetically Engineered” on the front of the package of such commodity or, in the case of any such commodity that is not separately packaged or labeled, on a label appearing on the retail store shelf or bin in which such commodity is displayed for sale;
(2) In the case of any processed food, in clear and conspicuous language on the front or back of the package of such food, with the words “Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering” or “May be Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering.”
Reading through the actual legislative language, I can't find any of the "deceptive" "deeply-flawed" or "special interest exemptions" cited by the Con. Perhaps I'm missing something.
The analysis indicates "Retailers (such as grocery stores) would be primarily responsible for complying with the measure by ensuring that their food products are correctly labeled." I feel that's problematic, but I couldn't find such a requirement in the law. Perhaps this is for the case of goods that are sold loose and not in manufacturer's packaging, such as produce. Or, perhaps this is evidence that I don't read legalese well. I'm not sure which is the case. But, the analysis gives me some pause with this and the exemptions. So, with all that intro, here were my thoughts:
If I had to vote on it, my question would be, "If I vote this down, will they refine this law and make it better, or will they take that as a statement that the public is not interested in labeling GMOs (for whatever reason?)" Not being a California voter, I don't know how that plays out.
soy, corn, and cotton. Soy and corn and their derivatives are in most processed foods.**
**
*I'm actually pleased to see that the "food movement" seems to be rather resilient today. If just getting this on a ballot helps to get more conversation going about our food supply and safety, then that's progress even if this particular measure didn't pass.
**This site bugs me more today than it did initially. I feel misled. But, the comment discussion is better than most internet discussion, I've seen of late.
Today, I'm reconsidering. Perhaps I would have voted yes. Maybe it's a good thing I'm not a California voter.
What would you have done? Is labeling everything better than labeling nothing? Is a possible flawed law better than none at all?
Michael Pollan wrote a piece for the NYTimes about the proposition
Mother Jones on the failure of Prop 37
The Non-GMO Project
Of course, this has both a positive and a negative aspect to it. Like many tools, it's how we use it (and how we let it use us) that really gives it its value. Specifically, I'm appreciating just how easy it is for me to gather some of this information. So many public records are now available online, indexed, and searchable. Volunteers have spent countless hours transcribing old records so that they might be available to others. It's amazing how much data I've been able to add in a week that would have taken others doing this "work" months of library visits and travel. 
