Proposition 37
How many of you have heard about Proposition 37? The purpose of this blog is to provide information and discussion on matters that relate to your nutrition (food, fuel etc.). On November 6th we will make a choice about the labeling of the food we eat. The success or failure of Proposition 37 will have an impact on the information we have when purchasing our food.
The following information was provided by Ballotpedia. I am sure you can guess my opinion on the measure but take a look and formulate an opinion for yourself. I am curious to know your thoughts on the issue.
If Proposition 37 is approved by voters, it will:
- Require labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if the food is made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways.
- Prohibit labeling or advertising such food as "natural."
- Exempt from this requirement 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."
Supporters
Supporters include:
- Organic Consumers' Association
- Nature's Path
- The Institute for Responsible Technology[3]
- The California Democratic Party[4]
- Dr. Michelle Pero. Pero is a pediatrician.
- Rebecca Spector. Spector is the West Coast Director of the Center for Food Safety.
- Grant Lundberg. Lundberg is the Chief Executive Officer of Lundberg Family Farms.
- Jamie Court. Court is the president of Consumer Watchdog
- Jim Cochran. Cochran is the general manager of Swanton Berry Farm.
- Dr. Marcia Ishil-Eiteman. Ishil-Eiteman is a senior scientist with the Pesticide Action Network.[5]
The arguments presented in favor of Proposition 37 in the state's official voter guide include:
- "You should have the right to know what's in your food."
- "You'll have the information you need about foods that some physicians and scientists say are linked to allergies and other significant health risks."
- "Over 40 countries around the world require labels for genetically modified foods."[5]
Joseph Mercola is one of the main financial supporters of the initiative. He is an osteopath who lives in suburban Chicago. According to Mercola, "Your health care, your food supply, everything you need to live a healthy life is now being taken away and controlled by a massive industrial complex and corrupt government."[6]
These are the $50,000 and over donors to the "yes" campaign as of September 4, 2012:
| Donor | Amount |
|---|---|
| Mercola Health Resources | $1,100,000 |
| Organic Consumers Fund | $770,000 |
| Nature's Path Foods | $610,709 |
| Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps | $290,000 |
| Wehah Farm (Lundberg Family Farms) | $200,000 |
| Alex Bogusky | $100,000 |
| Amy's Kitchen | $100,000 |
| Annie's, Inc. | $50,000 |
| Cropp Cooperative (Organic Valley) | $50,000 |
| Michael S. Funk | $50,000 |
| Nutiva | $50,000 |
Opposition:
The arguments against Proposition 37 in the state's official voter guide were submitted by:
- Dr. Bob Goldberg. Goldberg is a member of the National Academy of Sciences.
- Jamie Johansson. Johansson is a family farmer in California.
- Betty Jo Toccoli. Toccoli is the president of the California Small Business Association.
- Jonnalee Henderson. Henderson is affiliated with the California Farm Bureau Federation.
- Dr. Henry I. Miller. Miller is a founding director of the Office of Biotechnology of the Food & Drug Administration.
- Tom Hudson. Hudson is the executive director of the California Taxpayer Protection Committee.[7]
- The California Republican Party.[8]
The arguments in opposition to Proposition 37 presented in the state's official voter guide include:
- "It's 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."
- "It's full of special interest exemptions."
- "It authorizes shakedown lawsuits."[7]
As of early September 2012, over $25 million has been donated to the "No on 37" campaign effort.[9]
| Donor | Amount |
|---|---|
| Monsanto | $4,208,000 |
| E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co. | $4,025,200 |
| Pepsico, Inc. | $1,716,300 |
| BASF Plant Science | $1,642,300 |
| Bayer Cropscience | $1,618,400 |
| DOW Agrisciences | $1,184,800 |
| Nestle USA | $1,169,400 |
| Coca-Cola North America | $1,164,400 |
| Conagra Foods | $1,076,700 |
| Syngenta Corporation | $821,300 |
| Kellogg Company | $632,500 |
| General Mills | $519,401 |
| Hershey Company | $498,006 |
| The J.M. Smucker Company | $388,000 |
| Council for Biotechnology Information | $375,000 |
| Grocery Manufacturers Association | $375,000 |
| Hormel Foods | $374,300 |
| Bimbo Bakeries | $338,300 |
| Pioneer Hi-Bred International | $310,100 |
| Ocean Spray Cranberries | $301,553 |
| Pinnacle Foods | $266,100 |
| Dean Foods Company | $253,950 |
| Biotechnology Industry Organization | $252,000 |
| McCormick & Company | $248,200 |
| Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company | $237,664 |
| Rich Products Corporation | $225,537 |
| Cargill, Inc. | $202,229 |
| Del Monte Foods | $189,974 |
| Knouse Foods Cooperative | $135,831 |
| Mars Food North America | $100,242 |
Other food companies who have contributed to the "no" campaign (but with checks of less than $100,000) include Bumble Bee Foods, Sunny Delight Beverages, Sara Lee, Campbell Soup, McCain Foods, Dole Packaged Foods, Land O'Lakes, Morton Salt and Godiva Chocolatier.
Additional reading:
Why PepsiCo Is Fighting GMO Labeling in California
The Mercenary Intent Behind Proposition 37's GM Food Labeling
Is Team Organic Outspending Team Big Ag in the GMO Labeling Fight?
Interesting stuff. Whatever your opinion, you MUST vote in November. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. If you would like to share, post your thoughts to comments.
It's kind of worth supporting just because of who the #1 donor to the No side is... But WTF is up with those exemptions? I guess you can get either organic OR GMO-free, but not both, because organic foods are exempt.
ReplyDeleteMy roommate and I have had a number of discussions on the prudence of requiring labeling of GMO products. Though we come from largely divergent political perspectives, we came to agreement on the soundness of not requiring it. Here's why:
ReplyDeleteThe majority of commercially produced food, both farmed and processed, likely contains GMOs. This can be inferred, at least in part, from the long list of commercial producers supporting No on 37. Accordingly, we should accept that foods containing GMOs is the baseline.
If GMOs represent the baseline, the vast majority of products on the market, then it makes more sense that the onus to differentiate oneself from the baseline should lie with those who seek to be so differentiated. Take Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps, for example. Dr. Bronner's Hemp Peppermint soap notifies the consumer that a number of the ingredients are organic and/or certified fair trade. Irrespective of Prop. 37, Dr. Bronner's will continue to highlight these attributes because it appeals to their target audience.
By accepting GMOs as the baseline, we obviate the need to specifically label each and every product as having them. Given that baseline, Prop. 37 only serves the purpose of enshrouding products with the negative connotation that attends GMOs and of raising the production price of those products. To the vast majority of consumers, it won't make a difference because: (1) the difference between GMO and non-GMO products is immaterial to their decision making process, or (2) the non-GMO products, most readily found at Whole Foods, remain beyond their purchasing power.
The very fact that companies, like Dr. Bronner's (of whom I am personally a fan), label their own products implicitly informs the consumer that other products do not meet such stringent standards. For example, no one assumes the steak they purchase is organic or grass-fed beef, unless specifically labeled. By implication, the consumer recognizes that the steak in question is neither organic or grass-fed.
Lastly, simple GMO labeling will not inform the consumer any better than the present power of implication. Unlike nutrition labels, consumer will not be able to quantify the degree to which a product is comprised of GMOs. Therefore, the labeling will fail to substantively increase one's knowledge of that which they ingest, should they choose to purchase foods with GMOs.
Ultimately, those to care to know the difference and can afford to act on that knowledge, already pattern their purchasing around organic foods. GMO labeling will not substantially expand that group.