Farm Futures
   Search Site:  Search Site Thursday, April 24, 2014 | Bookmark This Site   
Skip Navigation Links
Farm Futures NOW!
Magazine Online
RSS News
About Us

Prop. 37 Blazes Way for GMO Labeling

Proposition 37 may make California the first state to label products derived from GMOs.

Published on: Sep 19, 2012

An effort to label products derived from genetically engineered sources is on the ballot this fall for California voters, and it may pave the way for legislation in other states.

Proposition 37, as listed by the California Attorney General, will require labeling on raw or processed food made from plants or animals with genetic material "changed in specified ways." The legislation also prohibits labeling of such food or other processed food as "natural."

Exceptions of the proposed regulations include alcohol and restaurant foods, as well as products made from animals fed or injected with GE material.

Proposition 37 may make California the first state to label products derived from GMOs.
Proposition 37 may make California the first state to label products derived from GMOs.

The proposition, which will be up for full vote during California's elections on Nov. 6, has "stirred the pot" for foodies, farmers and politicians alike. Proponents of the measure say consumers have a right to know what is in their food. Opponents say the sale of some products would be banned unless repackaged, and food costs would increase.

Yes on 37

Advocacy group Yes on 37 California Right To Know supports Prop. 37. The group's media director Stacy Malkan said more and more research is linking GMOs to health problems and fueling the debate.

"Californians have the right to know what’s in the food they are eating every day, and the right to choose whether to feed it to their families. Proposition 37 gives us that right by requiring GMOs to be clearly labeled," Malkan said in a press statement.

The group says the "Big 6" – Monsanto, DuPont, Bayer, Dow, BASF and Syngenta – have donated $19 million to No on 37, a campaign against Prop. 37.

"Monsanto wants to buy this election so they can keep hiding what’s really in our food," said Gary Ruskin, campaign manager of the Yes on Proposition 37 campaign.  "They are on the losing side of history.  Californians want the right to know what’s in our food, and we will win it."

Add Comment
  1. Anonymous says:

    The Genetic Roulette Movie is no longer at that URL, go to Youtube, search for Genetic Roulette Movie and watch the full length version (84 minutes) for a great technical course on why you want to avoid GMOs.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Nice balanced view of the proposition. What everyone seems to forget is that the best way to raise the sales of food is to increase consumer confidence. What's more confidence inspiring? Unlabeled and therefore "might or might not contain GMOS"? Or labeled "Does not contain GMOS?" Growers want to sell more product. Therefore growers should vote YES on 37. Monsanto talks about lawsuits. Do you know how many thousands of lawsuits they have filed against growers whose land was contaminated by their windblown genetically modified crops? How about the lifework of Percy Schmeiser ruined by them? Google his name. Cost of labels. How much does it cost to print nutritional information or calories? Nothing. Help feed the world? Are they giving away their GMO crops? Do they cost more than regular seeds? Way more, plus you have to buy their proprietary chemicals. Do they produce more? No. Have they been tested? Where are the links to peer reviewed human or even rat trials over a meaningful period of time that show they are safe? Plenty show that GMOS are dangerous. See this movie that's been viewed over 16,000 times in the last few days. This is what your potential customers are viewing and why you should vote yes. Genetic Roulette Movie

  3. Anonymous says:

    What would a California judge do with AB 118 Nunez/Arnold? AAA said it would not pass a court test. GMO corn food will be considered for a label in November. GMO Corn in my food and gas stinks. Arnold ask the fed for a waiver and the Clinton EPA agreed Arnold-George W EPA said NO and agrees with MITT. UN, World Bank, many Governors, Several Congressmen, Bill Clinton & Al Gore say GMO ethanol in the gas is bad policy.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Mother Nature is not very happy with the end result of what we have done to her beautiful planet. We are all impacted so please make the right decision.

  5. Anonymous says:

    I can see thru all the arguments against prop 37, and they just strengthen my resolve to vote for it and convince everyone i know to do the same to defeat all these disgusting attempts to deceive the people.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Thank you for this article! I have great confidence that Proposition 37 will be overwhelmingly approved by California. We must always ask, however, what is Monsanto's next step? What is their short-term strategy and long-term strategy if Proposition 37 passes or fails? Everything the citizens of California can find about Monsanto and the PR firms, universities, researchers, and "institutes" which support and promote GMOs will be helpful to everyone who desires good health and "food awareness."

  7. Anonymous says:

    "...proposition is "flawed" and does not benefit consumers." non-gmo foods would benefit the consumers bodies. I don't understand how people would rather save .50 cents from not buying organic but spend thousands of dollars fighting diabetes, heart disease and cancer caused from CHEMICALS ingested from eating GMO's. The government is fine with gm it will make us sick and therefore we rely on big pharma no make us "better". Thanks California! Hope the rest of the country catches on to the real soon too!

  8. objectivisminjournalism says:

    Professors Julian Alston and Dan Summer were paid by the opponents of 37 to write that report. To quote the study: The work for this project was undertaken with partial funding support from No on 37. The views expressed are those of the authors, based on their analysis, and not attributable to any institution or organization with which they are affiliated or associated."

  9. Anonymous says:

    After watching "Genetic Roulette", and assuming the information provided is true, then the real concern should be the health of the human race. All I keep hearing from the "NO" side is frivilous lawsuits, higher costs, flawed bill. Why not provide "honest" research to support the health of the product? Fact is, people are getting real tired of being fed BS, such as, 1) revolving doors with the FDA, USDA and big Agr-business, 2) Charities that line incomes and put a small portion of their donations to research (Komen and the Am Heart Assoc), 3) Big Pharma marketing to people with their drugs that require more TV time to explain the side effects than to explain the positives, 4) US government not putting enough research in less harmful modalities and still supporting the status quo such as cut, burn (radiation) and poisen (chemo) ... etc etc etc. If you step back and look at the big picture you're bound to get pissed and sad. There's no progress except for the short term bottom line. Prop 37 is huge and it has decades of disenchantment as its' engine. It seems to be the only way the average person can really matter. Everything else seems corrupt. Prop 37 may be flawed, but Monsanto, DuPont and others are to blame. They should have led with the health of the human race, not with the bottom line.