Section 2 of Proposition 37, the "Statement of Purpose", reads "The purpose of this measure is to create and enforce the fundamental right of the people of California to be fully informed about whether the food they purchase and eat is genetically engineered and not misbranded as natural so that they can choose for themselves whether to purchase and eat such foods. It shall be liberally construed to fulfill this purpose".[4][5]
The proposed law also includes several exceptions, such as products that are certified organic, 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; and alcoholic beverages.[4][5]
Grocery stores and other retailers would be primarily responsible for ensuring that their food products are correctly labeled. For foods that are exempt, retailers would have to provide records either directly from the provider of the product, or by receiving independent certification from third parties. Farmers, food manufacturers, and every other party in the product's supply chain would also have to maintain such records.
Potential impactedit
According to the California Attorney General, the measure would "increase annual state costs ranging from a few hundred thousand dollars to over $1 million to regulate the labeling of genetically engineered foods". It would also incur "Potential, but likely not significant, costs to state and local governments due to litigation resulting from possible violations of the requirements of this measure. Some of these costs would be supported by court filing fees that the parties involved in each legal case would be required to pay under existing law."[6]
Proponents argue that "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." Opponents argued that "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."[7]
Opponents said Proposition 37 labeling requirements would increase grocery costs by as much as $400 per year[8] based on a study by Northbridge Environmental Consultants[9] and the non-partisan California Legislative Analyst's Office fiscal impact study.[10]
Proponents on the other hand, said that some organic US food processors argued that the changes in labeling will have no effect on consumer costs because companies change their labeling all the time, as it is, and changing labels is a regular cost already built into the price consumers pay for products. “We, as with most manufacturers, are continually updating our packaging. It is a regular cost of doing business - a small one at that - and is already built into the price consumers pay for products,” said Arran Stephens, president and founder of Nature's Path.[5][11]
Proponents believed that if the proposition is accepted in California, it would increase the likelihood that other states will also adopt the same rules. In turn, if enough states do decide to adopt GMO labeling laws, it is possible that the national government will become involved and take action.[12]
Opponents claimed Prop 37 backers real intent was to ban GMOs via labeling schemes removing consumer choices, citing claims by proponents like Jeffrey M. Smith that labeling requirements in California would cause food companies to source only non-GMO foods to avoid having labels that consumers would perceive as warnings.[13]
During the campaign, both sides made allegations of campaign improprieties.[14]
Campaign donationsedit
The organization in support is "California Right to Know" and the organization against is "NO Prop. 37, Stop the Deceptive Food Labeling Scheme". As of November 6, 2012, the total donations to each side were $9.2 million in support, and $46 million in opposition. The top 10 donors to each side are as follows:[15]
Proposition 37 was defeated, gaining 48.6% of voters at the polls in 2012.[1] If it had passed, California would have been the first state to require GMO labeling.[16]
^. Votersedge.org. Archived from the original on 2013-09-04. Retrieved 2013-08-25.
^Higher Food Costs, No on 37 website, accessed November 17, 2012.
^The Genetically Engineered Foods Mandatory Labeling Initiative: Overview of Anticipated Impacts and Estimated Costs to Consumers Northbridge Environmental Consultants Report, July 25, 2012.
^Prop 37 Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact, California Legislative Analyst's Office, July 18, 2012.
^Malkan, Stacy (31 August 2012). "Statement about Bogus Economic Analysis of GMO Labeling Costs - Yes on Prop 37". CA Right to Know. Retrieved 29 October 2012.
^Rodale, Maria (29 October 2012). "What Is Proposition 37? The Top 5 Reasons You Should Care!". The Huffington Post Online. Retrieved 29 October 2012.
^Consciousness Beyond Chemtrails - Jeffrey M Smith speech on GMO's, Chemtrails Conference, August 17, 2012. (Speaking on the California initiative, Smith claimed if only 5 percent of consumers avoid food products labeled with GMO ingredients, Kraft and major companies will remove them to avoid losing just one percent of sales and all other food companies will follow.)
^Lifsher, Marc (2012-11-02). "Accusations fly over alleged FBI probe of campaign against Prop. 37". Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles. Retrieved 8 November 2012.
^. Votersedge.org. 2012-11-06. Archived from the original on 2012-11-08. Retrieved 2013-08-25.
^"Prop 37 Defeated: California Voters Reject Mandatory GMO-Labeling". Huffingtonpost.com. 7 November 2012. Retrieved 2014-01-08.
External linksedit
Official Yes on Prop 37 website
Official No on Prop 37 website
Academic evaluation of genetically engineered food labeling (Colorado State University)
October 28, 2023
2012, california, proposition, proposition, california, ballot, measure, rejected, california, statewide, election, november, 2012, this, initiative, statute, would, have, required, labeling, genetically, engineered, food, with, some, exceptions, would, have, . Proposition 37 was a California ballot measure rejected in California at the statewide election on November 6 2012 2 This initiative statute would have required labeling of genetically engineered food with some exceptions It would have disallowed the practice of labeling genetically engineered food with the word natural 3 This proposition was one of the main concerns by the organizers of the March Against Monsanto in May 2013 Proposition 37Genetically Engineered Foods LabelingResultsChoice Votes Yes 6 088 714 48 59 No 6 442 371 51 41 Valid votes 12 531 085 100 00 Invalid or blank votes 0 0 00 Total votes 12 531 085 100 00 Registered voters turnout 18 245 970 68 68 Results by county 1 Contents 1 Details 2 Potential impact 3 Arguments for and against 4 Campaign donations 5 Result 6 See also 7 References 8 External linksDetails editSection 2 of Proposition 37 the Statement of Purpose reads The purpose of this measure is to create and enforce the fundamental right of the people of California to be fully informed about whether the food they purchase and eat is genetically engineered and not misbranded as natural so that they can choose for themselves whether to purchase and eat such foods It shall be liberally construed to fulfill this purpose 4 5 The proposed law also includes several exceptions such as products that are certified organic 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 and alcoholic beverages 4 5 Grocery stores and other retailers would be primarily responsible for ensuring that their food products are correctly labeled For foods that are exempt retailers would have to provide records either directly from the provider of the product or by receiving independent certification from third parties Farmers food manufacturers and every other party in the product s supply chain would also have to maintain such records Potential impact editAccording to the California Attorney General the measure would increase annual state costs ranging from a few hundred thousand dollars to over 1 million to regulate the labeling of genetically engineered foods It would also incur Potential but likely not significant costs to state and local governments due to litigation resulting from possible violations of the requirements of this measure Some of these costs would be supported by court filing fees that the parties involved in each legal case would be required to pay under existing law 6 Arguments for and against editSee also Genetically modified food controversies Proponents argue that 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 Opponents argued that 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 7 Opponents said Proposition 37 labeling requirements would increase grocery costs by as much as 400 per year 8 based on a study by Northbridge Environmental Consultants 9 and the non partisan California Legislative Analyst s Office fiscal impact study 10 Proponents on the other hand said that some organic US food processors argued that the changes in labeling will have no effect on consumer costs because companies change their labeling all the time as it is and changing labels is a regular cost already built into the price consumers pay for products We as with most manufacturers are continually updating our packaging It is a regular cost of doing business a small one at that and is already built into the price consumers pay for products said Arran Stephens president and founder of Nature s Path 5 11 Proponents believed that if the proposition is accepted in California it would increase the likelihood that other states will also adopt the same rules In turn if enough states do decide to adopt GMO labeling laws it is possible that the national government will become involved and take action 12 Opponents claimed Prop 37 backers real intent was to ban GMOs via labeling schemes removing consumer choices citing claims by proponents like Jeffrey M Smith that labeling requirements in California would cause food companies to source only non GMO foods to avoid having labels that consumers would perceive as warnings 13 During the campaign both sides made allegations of campaign improprieties 14 Campaign donations editThe organization in support is California Right to Know and the organization against is NO Prop 37 Stop the Deceptive Food Labeling Scheme As of November 6 2012 the total donations to each side were 9 2 million in support and 46 million in opposition The top 10 donors to each side are as follows 15 SupportersMercola Health Resources 1 199 000 Kent Whealy 1 000 000 Dr Bronner s Magic Soaps 620 883 Nature s Path Foods 610 709 Organic Consumers Fund 605 667 Ali Partovi 288 975 Mark Squire 258 000 Wehah Farm 251 000 Amy s Kitchen 200 000 The Stillonger Trust Mark Squire Trustee 190 000 OpponentsMonsanto Company 8 112 867 E I Dupont De Nemours amp Co 5 400 000 PepsiCo Inc 2 585 400 Grocery Manufacturers Association 2 002 000 Kraft Foods 2 000 500 BASF Plant Science 2 000 000 Bayer Cropscience 2 000 000 Dow AgroSciences 2 000 000 Syngenta Corporation 2 000 000 Coca Cola North America 1 700 500Result editProposition 37 was defeated gaining 48 6 of voters at the polls in 2012 1 If it had passed California would have been the first state to require GMO labeling 16 See also editGenetically modified food Genetically modified food controversies Regulation of the release of genetic modified organisms Oregon Ballot Measure 27 2002 References edit a b Statement of Vote PDF California Secretary of State Archived from the original PDF on 24 December 2012 Retrieved 15 December 2012 Finz Stacy November 7 2012 Prop 37 Genetic food labels loses sfgate com San Francisco Chronicle Retrieved November 7 2012 California Secretary of State n d 29 October 2012 Genetically Engineered Foods Labeling Initiative Statute Voter Guide Archived from the original on 2012 11 12 Retrieved 30 October 2012 a b Proposition 37 Text of Proposed Law PDF Official CA Voter Information Guide CA Secretary of State a b c Prop 37 California U S 2012 Proposition 37 Genetically Engineered Foods Labeling Initiative Statute PDF Vig cdn sos ca gov Retrieved 2013 08 25 Prop 37 Requires labeling of food products made from genetically modified organisms Voter s Edge Votersedge org Archived from the original on 2013 09 04 Retrieved 2013 08 25 Higher Food Costs No on 37 website accessed November 17 2012 The Genetically Engineered Foods Mandatory Labeling Initiative Overview of Anticipated Impacts and Estimated Costs to Consumers Northbridge Environmental Consultants Report July 25 2012 Prop 37 Summary of Legislative Analyst s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact California Legislative Analyst s Office July 18 2012 Malkan Stacy 31 August 2012 Statement about Bogus Economic Analysis of GMO Labeling Costs Yes on Prop 37 CA Right to Know Retrieved 29 October 2012 Rodale Maria 29 October 2012 What Is Proposition 37 The Top 5 Reasons You Should Care The Huffington Post Online Retrieved 29 October 2012 Consciousness Beyond Chemtrails Jeffrey M Smith speech on GMO s Chemtrails Conference August 17 2012 Speaking on the California initiative Smith claimed if only 5 percent of consumers avoid food products labeled with GMO ingredients Kraft and major companies will remove them to avoid losing just one percent of sales and all other food companies will follow Lifsher Marc 2012 11 02 Accusations fly over alleged FBI probe of campaign against Prop 37 Los Angeles Times Los Angeles Retrieved 8 November 2012 Prop 37 Requires labeling of food products made from genetically modified organisms Voter s Edge Votersedge org 2012 11 06 Archived from the original on 2012 11 08 Retrieved 2013 08 25 Prop 37 Defeated California Voters Reject Mandatory GMO Labeling Huffingtonpost com 7 November 2012 Retrieved 2014 01 08 External links editOfficial CA Voter Information Guide Proposition 37 Official Yes on Prop 37 website Official No on Prop 37 website Academic evaluation of genetically engineered food labeling Colorado State University Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title 2012 California Proposition 37 amp oldid 1049589638, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
