The Lake County Chamber of Commerce definitely supports the position of people having the right to know what is in the food they choose to consume.

After investigation, research and much discussion, the Board of Directors for the Lake County Chamber of Commerce voted to oppose Proposition 37, the Food Labeling Initiative.  

This initiative is very poorly written and opens up many avenues for lawsuits. The exemptions contained in the language defeat any legitimate “right to know” position.

It exempts two-thirds of the foods Californians consume. Proposition 37 creates a new category of shakedown lawsuits allowing lawyers and private citizens to sue farmers, grocers, and food companies without any proof of violation or damage.  

The following paragraph from the language of the initiative points out the conflicting and misleading thought process of this poorly written piece of legislation:

Exempts 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.

Some exemptions:

• Cow’s milk and dairy products, but requires special labels on soy milk;
• Food imported from China and other foreign countries ;
• Animal products (beef or chicken) that were not directly produced through genetic engineering would also be exempted, regardless of whether the animal had been fed GE crops.

Proposition 37 would ban the sale of tens of thousands of perfectly-safe, common grocery products (only) in California unless they are specially repackaged, relabeled or made with higher cost ingredients.

Proposition 37 is 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.

That’s why Proposition 37 is opposed by a broad coalition of family farmers, scientists, doctors, business, labor, taxpayers and consumers.

The Lake County Chamber of Commerce shares the same rationale for opposing Proposition 37 as those stated by the San Francisco Chronicle, the Oakland Tribune, the Sacramento Bee, the Contra Costa Times, the Modesto Bee, the Merced-Sun Star, the Redding Record Searchlight and many more newspapers throughout the state – while many people feel strongly about the premise of labeling in foods, labeling and legislation are not synonymous.

This initiative’s random exemptions of products, the lack of specifics about funding and implementation, and the crafting of legal language that allows lawsuits to be filed against a retailer merely on the basis of a “suspicion” does not a good legal mandate make.

The San Francisco Chronicle states: “This measure is an example of why some public policy – no matter how well intentioned and benign sounding – should not be decided at the ballot box. Prop. 37 is fraught with vague and problematic provisions that could make it costly for consumers and a legal nightmare for those who grow process or sell food … An issue of this consequence should be considered in the Legislature, where the language would be subject to hearings and input from myriad stakeholders. But advocates of the labeling law never attempted that step, despite Democratic majorities in both houses.”

The Legislative Analyst’s Office noted that the initiative authorizes “consumers to sue without needing to demonstrate that any specific damage occurred as a result of the alleged violation.”

Opponents of Proposition 37 cite this issue as the main problem with the initiative – their very real concern is that it “invites citizen lawsuits as the primary means of enforcing the labeling law” (Modesto Bee).

California has experienced firsthand the negative consequences of a voter-approved law being used as a potential tool for frivolous lawsuits as seen in the over 16,000 legal actions initiated in the aftermath of Proposition 65 (passed in 1986).

We agree that Prop. 37 is indeed an imperfect piece of proposed legislation. We disagree though with the conclusion that the end justifies the means.

We believe that a voluntary labeling of “no-GMO” by the producers of those products would better suit the end purpose for those who care passionately about whether or not they consume food products containing GMOs.

The Modesto Bee stated, “Even voters who worry about genetically modified food should reject Proposition 37. This flawed measure would set back the cause of labeling.”

The statement by the San Francisco Chronicle sums up our position on this proposition best: “But precision of language matters in law, and opponents claim that this clause was written so loosely that it could include any processed food. The nonpartisan legislative analyst agreed. Californians will be voting on the language of the law, not merely the concept. Vote no on Prop. 37.”

Melissa Fulton is chief executive officer of the Lake County Chamber of Commerce, based in Lakeport, Calif.