Former Mayor of Fairfax Frank Eggar campaigns on the corner of Haight and Fillmore in San Francisco on November 6, 2012. Photo: Susana Bates, Special To The Chronicle / SF
First Read:
California's Proposition 37; the night mare for Mosanto technophobes: GMO labeling revolution and the Protection of our God Given Organic Heritage
http://watchmanafrica.blogspot.com/2012/09/californias-proposition-37-night-mare.html
Prop. 37: Genetic food labels defeated
Stacy Finz
Updated 10:27 am, Wednesday, November 7, 2012
(11-07) 10:25 PST SACRAMENTO -- A measure that would have required most foods made with genetically engineered ingredients to be labeled in California lost early Wednesday.
Supporters of Proposition 37 said consumers have a right to know whether food has been genetically altered, particularly when the long-term health impacts are unclear. Opponents argued that the labels would stigmatize foods that are scientifically proven to be safe.
With 100 percent the precincts reporting, voters rejected the proposed labeling law by six percentage points. California would have been the first state in the nation to pass such an initiative.
"We said from the beginning that the more voters learned about Prop. 37, the less they would like it," said Kathy Fairbanks, a spokeswoman for the opposition. "We didn't think they would like the lawsuits, more bureaucracy, higher costs, loopholes and exemptions. It looks like they don't."
But Stacy Melken, a spokeswoman for the Prop, 37 campaign, said supporters believe they will win the labeling debate over the long term. She noted that proponents were outspent by a five to one margin and still managed to capture more than 4.2 million votes.
"We showed that there is a food movement in the United States, and it is strong, vibrant and too powerful to stop," she said. "We always knew we were the underdogs."
The measure called for genetically engineered foods to include labels on either the front or back of the product. Whole foods, such as sweet corn and salmon, would have had a sign on the shelf. Products such as alcohol, beef, eggs and dairy would have been exempt.
Opponents argued that the price of new California labels, or the cost manufacturers would have incurred by changing over to non-GMO ingredient, would be passed on to consumers. The No campaign calculated that households would pay as much as $400 more a year in grocery bills. But there is no independent study to show that.
Opponents, raising more than $45 million, had the backing of large agribusiness and chemical companies such as Monsanto and Dow, and food manufacturer giants, including PepsiCo. The Yes campaign raised about $6.7 million and was supported largely by the organic industry, consumer groups and alternative medicine organizations.
About 70 to 80 percent of processed foods sold in the United States are made with genetically engineered ingredients such as corn, soybeans, sugar beets and cottonseed oil. The seeds for these crops have been genetically altered in the lab to make them more resistant to pests and invasive weeds.
But proponents of Prop. 37 said research shows the risks of eating genetically engineered foods range from allergies to organ damage. They also contend that because weeds are rapidly becoming resistant to the genetic formula of these plants, more herbicides are being used.
Opponents argued that the fears are misguided. They say genetically modified crops are better suited to survive periods of bad weather and significantly increase per-acre yields, which means feeding more people for less money.
Prop 37 Defeated: California Voters Reject Mandatory GMO-Labeling
The Huffington Post | By Anna Almendrala
Posted: 11/07/2012
11:39 am EST Updated: 11/08/2012 3:54 pm EST
Millions of dollars, mostly from outside of California, were poured into campaigns both for and against Prop 37. But the donations that came in weighed heavily in favor of Prop 37's opponents.
Companies like Monsanto and The Hershey Co. contributed to what was eventually a $44 million windfall for "No on Prop 37," while proponents were only able to raise $7.3 million, reports California Watch.
Still, despite the lopsided campaign funding power, voting on Prop 37 was relatively close. As of this story's publish time (98.5 percent of precincts reporting), Prop 37 was able to gain 47 percent of California's vote.
Opponents of Prop 37 blitzed California with campaign ads on a variety of different reasons GMO labeling would be costly for consumers and punitive to businesses like small farms and mom-and-pop stores. The anti-Prop 37 movement also gained endorsements from prominent publications like the Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Chronicle -- not necessarily because the newspapers were against GMO labeling, but because of the way the ballot initiative was written.
Meanwhile, Prop 37 found supporters among celebrities, the restaurant world and food movement activists like Michael Pollan. In a piece for the New York Times, Pollan hailed its potential for igniting a nationwide debate about the industrial food complex:
Already, Prop 37 has ignited
precisely the kind of debate -- about the risks and benefits of genetically
modified food; about transparency and the consumer’s right to know -- that
Monsanto and its allies have managed to stifle in Washington for nearly two decades.
While on the campaign trail in 2007, President Barack Obama promised to label GMO foods if elected.
