A California Proposal

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. 
I do not think that if it fails on the California ballot it will be taken up by Washington. They've had a few chances at it, and there's big money opposed to any measure that labels GMOs. (It was in committee as recently as this past March.)*

The basic question is whether there's any reason to label GMO food. If you say that it's no different, or even "better" than "normal" food, your answer will be no. Or you could take the viewpoint, that all food is genetically modified. Well, at the basic dictionary meaning of the term, yes. But that's not what proponents of this type of regulation are talking about. It's not about cross-breeding and grafting and other century-old practices. It's a question of whether altering the DNA-sequence of one plant, and introducing a completely foreign gene sequence into it, is harmful in the food supply. 

Back to the Proposition...If you look at the big funders "for", they're part of the Organic Consumer market. Some big lobby groups in there too, like the OCA. If you look at who's funding against, it's largely the big food companies and the biotech companies. That split is pretty straightforward. The big food industries don't want this because it complicates what they do and this is the important bit - *they worry that if a food has a GMO label, people will stop buying it.* They are worried (rightly or wrongly) that consumers will associate a GMO label with a poison sticker. (California's good at those poison stickers, by the way. They have a bit of a history of marking things like that.) And, if there's nothing wrong with GMOs, if we're just labeling them to help people with food sensitivities just like I keep buying all those things with "may contain peanuts" on them, well, perhaps the concern about the over-reaction of the public is reasonable. Or, perhaps there's a real risk. The problem is that there's not good science that's been made public about this. And there's no long-term study.

Why do the big food companies care? The top US genetically engineered crops include: soy, corn, and cotton. Soy and corn and their derivatives are in most processed foods.**

The burden on the the retailer to verify whether each food is GE or not is odd to me. I think that will certainly add confusion and cost to the consumer. This link makes some reasonable points against the proposition, although I don't agree with it fully and it is definitely slanted:http://www.science20.com/science_20/mercenary_intent_behind_proposition_37s_gm_food_labeling-92928**
"All of science" does not disagree. Not only crackpots are in favor.  And, several of the arguments seem mis-represented.

Regarding organic foods and GMOs - they're different things. Being organic does not necessarily mean non-GMO, * especially* since there are multiple "certifying" organizations. The USDA organic certification does not allow GMOs, apparently. Still, I'm skeptical about the exemption for organic foods. Why exempt them from the law? If they don't use GMOs, they'd have nothing to worry about, right? http://organic.lovetoknow.com/Which_Foods_Have_GMOs 
http://www.wikihow.com/Avoid-Genetically-Modified-Foods

Ultimately, I might side no on this one. I want to know what's in my food. Specifically, I want to know what foods I'm eating that have been specifically designed to be resistant to herbicide and to emit their own pesticide. Because then I'm eating that garbage. But, as written, it looks like it's designed to bolster the organic food industry. Better, neutral safety testing is needed for sure. Where's the support for science in this? 

Oh, and let me re-state one more time to be completely clear - I'm totally for knowing what's in my food. But, looking into the current proposed legislation, that's not what this is about. As those links suggest, if you want to avoid GMOs, don't buy commercial products containing corn or soy. They bigger question is really what GE-process and whether the result is safe.
Europe's decided to err on the cautionary side, preferring to just avoid the use. That's pretty standard for their approval process. It's not what we do, and maybe we should. But, this law doesn't involve safety testing.

*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