LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – If you’re a California voter, chances are you’ve seen more ads about Proposition 37 than for most initiatives in recent memory.
Proposition 37 also is known as the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act.
It would require the labeling of genetically engineered or genetically modified food sold at retail. It would not ban the sales of foods containing GMOs.
Supporters say it’s necessary to protect the health and safety of consumers.
“It’s only fair that we know what we’re eating and the products we’re using, and where they come from,” said California State Grange Master Bob McFarland, whose organization helped gather the signatures to qualify the initiative for the ballot.
Opponents say It will harm California’s farmers and burden the state’s residents with extra costs, as well as open the door to lawsuits over noncompliance.
“It’s bad legislation,” with potential impacts for everyone – from families to grocery stores – said Lake County Chamber of Commerce Chief Executive Officer Melissa Fulton.
According to a summary by the Legislative Analyst’s Office, under current law, California agencies are not specifically required to regulate GE foods, although the California Department of Public Health is responsible for regulating the safety and labeling of most foods.
Proposition 37 would change that, and would require that most GE foods that are sold be labeled, require the Department of Health to regulate the labeling of those foods and allow individuals to sue food manufacturers who violate the measure’s labeling provisions.
It also would prohibit any GE foods or other processed food from being labeled as “natural.”
The Legislative Analyst’s Office said that the measure exempts from labeling 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.”
Retailers, including grocery stores, “would be primarily responsible for complying with the measure by ensuring that their food products are correctly labeled,” the analysis said.
The new requirements to regulate GE food labeling will cost the state between a few hundred thousand dollars to $1 million on an annual basis, according to the analysis.
There also are potential – “but likely not significant’ – costs to state and local governments due to litigation resulting from possible violations of the requirements of this measure. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said 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.
The full language of the initiative can be read at http://www.carighttoknow.org/read_the_initiative .
Over the past month and a half statewide polling has shown that Proposition 37’s support amongst voters has plummeted as its been hammered by a multimillion dollars ad campaign fueled by agrochemical and corporate giants.
“We’re up against very, very powerful opponents,” who are fighting to hide information from U.S. consumers, said organic farmer Thurston Williams, who along with fellow Upper Lake resident Haji Warf has been coordinating the Yes on 37 Lake County Committee’s local campaign.
Grassroots effort leads to Proposition 37
Supporters of Proposition 37 say it was born of grassroots Northern California activism, and that it’s in a pitched battle with corporate agriculture.
Pamm Larry, a Chico resident, spearheaded the movement to label GMOs in California. In March 2011 Larry – a California State Grange member – launched her effort, and the California State Grange subsequently became a major supporter of Proposition 37.
“The Grange, in terms of agriculture, wants a level playing field between American and California farmers and foreign farmers,” McFarland told Lake County News.
At its annual meeting in Palermo last October, delegates of the California State Grange adopted resolution 11-051 “supporting initiatives that would enact state law requiring the labeling of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) in food.”
The California State Grange – which has 10,000 members in 185 communities – helped collect the nearly one million signatures to put the initiative on the ballot, McFarland said.
McFarland said the Grange is not making judgments about whether GMOs are good or bad. “We’re simply supporting the consumer’s right to know when a product is genetically altered.”
The California State Grange doesn’t believe Proposition 37 will hurt California’s farmers. “Being an organization focused on agriculture, we would never want to do anything to hurt farming,” McFarland said.
On the other side is the California Farm Bureau, which argues that that Proposition 37 will hurt farming. The organization said the measure is poorly written and has “serious implications for family farmers and ranchers,” which led it to formally oppose the initiative.
“Proposition 37 wouldn’t do anything to make food safer or more affordable. It would just make California farmers and food businesses less competitive,” California Farm Bureau President Paul Wenger said in a written statement. “Proposition 37 could force even farmers who don’t grow biotech crops to keep extensive records just in case they were sued by a bounty-hunting attorney.”
Wenger said the labeling as outlined in Proposition 37 implies a warning and would give people the impression something is wrong with foods made with biotech ingredients.
“Many years of studies have shown that foods made with genetic engineering are safe,” he said. “It’s irresponsible and confusing to people to require what is essentially a warning label on products that are safe.”
Local activism plays a part
On the local level, groups are taking a stand on Proposition 37.
The Yes on 37 Lake County Committee is one of five committees that formed statewide to support the proposition.
The dedicated group – which includes local organic farmers – collected signatures to put the initiative on the ballot, and since then have written letters, carried signs, purchased and provided campaign signage, and handed out shopping guides to inform the public about food labeling.
Williams, along with wife Annelle Durham, has worked tirelessly to educate the community about the measure. Durham and other group members, including Roberta Actor-Thomas, have written numerous letters and commentaries explaining what the initiative is meant to do and working to dismiss what they say are distortions fed to voters by the initiative’s opponents.
Williams said the attacks on Proposition 37 haven’t focused on truth. “This is not about truth or debate, it’s about how much money you can throw and how many lies you can tell.”
One of the key fallacies, according to Williams, is that Proposition 37 will raise food costs; it hasn’t in other countries where the practice is required.
Williams added that the United States is the only industrialized country that doesn’t have GMO food labeling laws. He said he believed the United States’ citizens should have the same rights as those of other countries, and pointed out that polling indicates support among U.S. consumers for labeling.
The measure, he said, is easily explained and debated. To him, it’s founded on a very basic right to know for consumers.
The millions donated by agribusiness giants like Monsanto are “chump change for them,” said Williams.
The big corporations spending so much money to fight the proposition don’t deserve consumers’ trust, said Williams.
On the other side locally is the Lake County Chamber of Commerce, which is urging a no vote on Proposition 37.
Fulton said the chamber researched the proposition but, admittedly, did not speak with the local Yes on 37 committee. She said they never thought about doing so.
The involvement of corporations like Monsanto wasn’t part of the decision making process, said Fulton. Rather, they focused on the legislation.
While they agree that everyone has the right to know what’s in their food, Fulton said the chamber does not believe Proposition 37 is the way to do it.
“There are better ways to go about determining what is in the food we eat,” said Fulton, including labeling all foods that don’t contain GMOs.
Another concern for the chamber is the legislation’s author, attorney Jim Wheaton, who also helped write Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986.
The No on 37 campaign also has pointed to Wheaton’s involvement, reporting that his law firm has profited more than $3 million from suing California businesses in the last decade under the provisions of Proposition 65.
“This isn’t his first rodeo,” said Fulton.
The Yes on 37 Lake County Committee went to the Clearlake City Council last month to ask for a statement of support.
However, the council ultimately deadlocked and the motion to support it failed.
Big spending, deep pockets
Recent campaign finance filings from the California Secretary of State show that the No on 37 campaign has raised more than $35 million in its campaign against the initiative, the supporters of which had raised only about one seventh of that amount.
Top contributors supporting the effort to defeat the initiative include Monsanto – who has given the most, more than $7.1 million – Dupont, BASF, Dow Agrosciences, Bayer Cropscience, Syngenta Corp., Pepsi, Coca-Cola, Nestle and ConAgra Foods.
Those millions are fueling the aggressive anti-Proposition 37 campaign, which over the last few months has flooded the airwaves and mailboxes with attack ads.
Those ads appear to be working. On Tuesday, the California Business Roundtable and Pepperdine University School of Public Policy released the latest results of their bimonthly initiative survey series.
The surveys show Proposition 37 dropping another nine points in the polls, with voters in favor at 39.1 percent and those against it, 50.5 percent.
“It seems voters have been influenced by both the no campaign and a barrage of negative editorials,” said California Business Roundtable President Rob Lapsley.
The last survey, released Oct. 11, had shown a 19-percent drop in support for Proposition 37.
Proposition 37 supporters say the initiatives opponents who are generating those ads use dirty campaign tactics and outright lies about the measure.
Early in October, the No on 37 campaign was forced to pull ads that represented Henry Miller as a doctor at Stanford University. In reality, Miller is a researcher at the Hoover Institution, an organization that largely is funded by right-wing foundations and corporate donors.
Also in October, the Yes on 37 campaign reported the No on 37 campaign to the U.S. Department of Justice for affixing the official Food and Drug Administration Seal to their campaign materials and attributing a fabricated quote to FDA in order to make it appear that the FDA has taken a position against Proposition 37, which the agency is prohibited from doing.
The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics also reported that No on 37 “misled” the public in its ballot argument printed in the Secretary of State’s Official California Voter Information Guide, inaccurately stating that the academy “has concluded that biotech foods are safe.”
Williams called No on 37’s tactics a “shock and awe media assault on the California electorate,” adding, “Why bother to engage when you can just outspend.”
However, Williams said, “We’re going to make them spend a lot for every no vote, adding, “We’re hopeful that the electorate will see this for what it is” – a huge play by corporations to keep hidden what they’re doing.
For more information on the pro- and anti-Proposition 37 viewpoints, visit www.carighttoknow.org and www.noprop37.com .
Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.