Oh no!! GMO!

[Loves Vintage]

Food companies are not required to label whether their products contain GMOs. The issue was on CA's ballot -- voters rejected Prop 37, which would have required retailers and food companies to label products made with genetically modified ingredients.

I wasn't aware this question was on CA's ballot until after the fact, but apparently, many were hoping the measure would pass, so that other states would likely follow. If a company has to have a CA-specifc label, they would likely just put the label on all of their products. I think there is a label that CA requires on electrical products that are used as a universal label.

So, why didn't the Prop 37 pass? And, more generally, what do you think about GMOs and the fact that we have no idea what products have them?

 

[minousbijoux]

I know. I'm a Californian and I am frankly shocked that it didn't pass. I too would like to know why. I just thought it was a no brainer.

 

[ForteKitty]

People thought it would raise the cost of food. But seriously, they're already printing the labels... is an extra line really going to cost that much?

 

[vc10um]

LV, I'm also not in California, but I was watching the Prop 37 vote closely. I'm very disheartened that it didn't pass. But apparently Monsanto (the leader in GMO food production) dumped nearly $50 million into advertisements against it, which I suspect has something to do with it, since before it went on the ballot, the proposal was supported by roughly 60% of the populus (sorry, I can't find the poll anymore, it's just something I remember from following the issue).

For now, the best we can do is buy organic, because to carry the label organic the foods can in no way be GMOs.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

I think the reason it didn't pass was that A LOT more money went into fighting it. Many of the organic/natural food companies we buy from were against Prop 37 and a lot of natural food companies are owned by other bigger companies. Also, not all natural food companies have products that truely are natural. Kashi is being sued right now because traces of unnatural products (and even medicines) were found in their cereals!

 

[CJ2008]

I didn't know about this, but I am really disappointed it didn't pass...

 

[Joolz]

I am sorry to hear that. Though bc there was initial interest in the polls I do believe there is opportunity here for companies that DO NOT produce products using GMOs, they could prominently label them as such. Then people can vote with their dollars.

 

[innerkitten]

I saw. What a bummer.

 

[justginger]

GMOs are not all bad, some save lives.

http://www.goldenrice.org

 

[neatfreak]

Honestly? It didn't pass IMO because it was bad policy! It sounds great, but these propositions in CA are often very poorly written and this one was IMO.

It killed me to vote WITH Monsanto on something, but I did because I thought this was a poorly written prop.

I support the idea of labelling GMO foods but I voted no on this prop because:

1. Retailers were the ones required to label or face the fines. This puts a big burden on smaller grocery stores/bodegas and doesn't put the responsibility on who should be responsible IMO.

2. It excluded a lot of items that should have been included (i.e., meat).


Good ideas can translate into bad policy if the RIGHT bill isn't passed IMO.

 

[sonnyjane]

I know. I'm a Californian and I am frankly shocked that it didn't pass. I too would like to know why. I just thought it was a no brainer.

Ditto, I'm surprised it didn't pass as well, since we're all pretty "granola" out here. They made a big deal about the difference in how much was spent AGAINST this prop ($46 million) vs. how much was spent in favor of it ($9 million), but the truth is I never saw a single commercial for or against Prop 37 and I watch quite a bit of television.

I do agree with a previous poster that there were some problems with the actual proposition - it could have been better written and did exclude a lot of things that really should have also been labelled. I do hope that something will pass in the future regarding this issue.

 

[monarch64]

Honestly? It didn't pass IMO because it was bad policy! It sounds great, but these propositions in CA are often very poorly written and this one was IMO.

It killed me to vote WITH Monsanto on something, but I did because I thought this was a poorly written prop.

I support the idea of labelling GMO foods but I voted no on this prop because:

1. Retailers were the ones required to label or face the fines. This puts a big burden on smaller grocery stores/bodegas and doesn't put the responsibility on who should be responsible IMO.

2. It excluded a lot of items that should have been included (i.e., meat).


Good ideas can translate into bad policy if the RIGHT bill isn't passed IMO.

Thanks for this explanation! I now have a better understanding of reasoning behind "no" votes aside from what I thought was the obvious. You're like my husband; he's a stickler for actually reading these things and voting based on having all the facts rather than forming an opinion based on what he's hearing from others.

 

[lknvrb4]

I do not think it passed because a majority of the people don't care what they eat and because they are not educated on what a GMO food is. I try very hard not to eat GMO foods and to buy organic and eat a natural diet. When people ask me about my diet they think I am nuts .

 

[aviastar]

Honestly? It didn't pass IMO because it was bad policy! It sounds great, but these propositions in CA are often very poorly written and this one was IMO.

It killed me to vote WITH Monsanto on something, but I did because I thought this was a poorly written prop.

I support the idea of labelling GMO foods but I voted no on this prop because:

1. Retailers were the ones required to label or face the fines. This puts a big burden on smaller grocery stores/bodegas and doesn't put the responsibility on who should be responsible IMO.

2. It excluded a lot of items that should have been included (i.e., meat).


Good ideas can translate into bad policy if the RIGHT bill isn't passed IMO.

I am not in California, but I love this comment so much.

 

[Bliss]

Ohhh how disappointing. We try to avoid GMO by eating organic but the other thing I find frightening is cross pollination of organic and GMO crops... And further mixing of seeds and etc carried by wind, birds and etc... Our food supply scares me! LV, thank you for also teaching us about the BPA receipts!!!

 

[Loves Vintage]

Ok, here comes a long reply.

minousbijoux - I was really surprised too, when I learned about it after the fact.

Fortekitty - I read that too. Apparently, there were commercials warning people that food costs would rise. I agree. They are already printing the labels anyway.

vc10um - It is sad that organic is the only option if you want to limit gmos. Lots of people are not willing to pay the higher prices, and, unfortunately not enough people are going to stay away from conventional foods to have an effect on suppliers. Sigh.

MC - I used to love Kashi!!! They've been off my list for a while now.

Joolz - I do look for the non-GMO label. Not sure if we should assume everything that does not have a non-GMO label means that it does have GMOs, but it seems like a no-brainer to just put the non-gmo label on. It's not going to cause people to not buy the product. I mean if people don't care if they consume GMOs, then it wouldn't make a difference in their purchasing decision.

justginger - Thanks for the link. They do have a GMO labeling requirement in Australia. Are you glad you have a choice? Perhaps indifferent? Just curious.

Neatfreak - Where did you get the impression that retailers would be the ones fined? I did some reading on the proposed statute, and I did not reach that conclusion (though admittedly, I did not spend a long time on it, though I could, just haven't had time yet.) The enforcement language for the GMO labeling requirement was being added to an existing statute (the Health and Safety Code), and the enforcement language does not mention retailers. I noticed at least one case (for an organic product labeling requirement in CA), where it was brought against the manufacturers, but no retailers. I have not done a thorough search on this. Is this what I'm missing. Not sure if this GMO labeling requirement was something that retailers were against or where this idea that retailers would be the subject of enforcement came from? I suppose that because the enforcement language does not mention specific categories of offenders, then agencies (or individuals) COULD bring a claim against retailers. But, this is true for anything, this being America after all. People ask me all the time whether they could be sued for this or that, and my response is always YES, you could get sued for anything! Whether the action would be successful is another question.

As for the list of exclusions including meat, well, not really sure what to say about that. Since most feed (I think I read 85%) is genetically modified, I think it's a safe bet that conventional meat is not gmo free. I can imagine a number of reasons why this exclusion was written into the language of the proposed statute, and it's sad that this is one of the reasons it didn't pass.

lknvrb4 - I agree that lots of people don't pay attention. A friend of mine had her kids at work the other day, and she fed them a series of pre-packaged snacks that just about caused my jaw to drop. I know I'm not supposed to say that, but seriously, people just don't notice what they and their families are eating!! People think I'm nuts too!

Bliss!! - Scary when you think about it all! We're just doing the best we can with the limited info we have!

 

[VRBeauty]

Neatfreak - Where did you get the impression that retailers would be the ones fined? I did some reading on the proposed statute, and I did not reach that conclusion (though admittedly, I did not spend a long time on it, though I could, just haven't had time yet.) The enforcement language for the GMO labeling requirement was being added to an existing statute (the Health and Safety Code), and the enforcement language does not mention retailers. I noticed at least one case (for an organic product labeling requirement in CA), where it was brought against the manufacturers, but no retailers. I have not done a thorough search on this. Is this what I'm missing. Not sure if this GMO labeling requirement was something that retailers were against or where this idea that retailers would be the subject of enforcement came from? I suppose that because the enforcement language does not mention specific categories of offenders, then agencies (or individuals) COULD bring a claim against retailers. But, this is true for anything, this being America after all. People ask me all the time whether they could be sued for this or that, and my response is always YES, you could get sued for anything! Whether the action would be successful is another question.

You're right, it's not easy to pick out in the language of the initiative itself, but the description prepared by the Attorney General does make it clear - Prop 37 "requires labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers." Prop. 37 is patterned after Proposition 65 (which relates to the sale of anything that contains toxic or carcinogenic materials), which is generally enforced at the point of sale, and generally through lawsuits brought by consumer or environmental watchdog groups. From a practical standpoint, California cannot dictate labeling requirements to any out-of-state manufacturer without some sort of certification/licensing proceedure , read large bureaucracy - UNLESS they simply prohibit the sale of whatever within the State, the route chosen in this case. When Prop 65 was first enacted, there were some law firms or consumer groups that were probably funded entirely through Prop. 65 fees.

I tend to judge propositions pretty harshly because I think they're a bad way to make law. A proposition is put together by just the group or person who likes that idea - it does not have to go through the give-and-take process that bills go through in the legislature - and propositions are often written in a way that makes it difficult to fix any problems that may crop up in implementation. (Prop. 37 did have some legislative fix provisions, but they're limited.) It's true that there are subjects that would never make it through the legislative process, in which case the initiative process is the only way to go, and this may be one of them. It's still a bad way to make law!

 

[neatfreak]

Neatfreak - Where did you get the impression that retailers would be the ones fined? I did some reading on the proposed statute, and I did not reach that conclusion (though admittedly, I did not spend a long time on it, though I could, just haven't had time yet.) The enforcement language for the GMO labeling requirement was being added to an existing statute (the Health and Safety Code), and the enforcement language does not mention retailers. I noticed at least one case (for an organic product labeling requirement in CA), where it was brought against the manufacturers, but no retailers. I have not done a thorough search on this. Is this what I'm missing. Not sure if this GMO labeling requirement was something that retailers were against or where this idea that retailers would be the subject of enforcement came from? I suppose that because the enforcement language does not mention specific categories of offenders, then agencies (or individuals) COULD bring a claim against retailers. But, this is true for anything, this being America after all. People ask me all the time whether they could be sued for this or that, and my response is always YES, you could get sued for anything! Whether the action would be successful is another question.

You're right, it's not easy to pick out in the language of the initiative itself, but the description prepared by the Attorney General does make it clear - Prop 37 "requires labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers." Prop. 37 is patterned after Proposition 65 (which relates to the sale of anything that contains toxic or carcinogenic materials), which is generally enforced at the point of sale, and generally through lawsuits brought by consumer or environmental watchdog groups. From a practical standpoint, California cannot dictate labeling requirements to any out-of-state manufacturer without some sort of certification/licensing proceedure , read large bureaucracy - UNLESS they simply prohibit the sale of whatever within the State, the route chosen in this case. When Prop 65 was first enacted, there were some law firms or consumer groups that were probably funded entirely through Prop. 65 fees.

I tend to judge propositions pretty harshly because I think they're a bad way to make law. A proposition is put together by just the group or person who likes that idea - it does not have to go through the give-and-take process that bills go through in the legislature - and propositions are often written in a way that makes it difficult to fix any problems that may crop up in implementation. (Prop. 37 did have some legislative fix provisions, but they're limited.) It's true that there are subjects that would never make it through the legislative process, in which case the initiative process is the only way to go, and this may be one of them. It's still a bad way to make law!

Thanks VR for clarifying that for everyone!

It is very difficult to find the details of these propositions and unfortunately you have to hunt or know how things work to understand. I work in health care policy, in CA, so this is my world which may be why I can easily interpret bill language that might be difficult for most folks to understand!

As VR said, it was going to be enforced at the point of sale, meaning that retailers ultimately would be on the hook in this case. I agree that propositions are generally a bad way to make law!

The Attorney General's office, KQED/California Report, and The Legislative Analyst's Office (the latter being the most wonky) also always provide good insight into what is REALLY in Propositions in CA.

Link to Leg Analyst's Office: http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/main.aspx

 

[Loves Vintage]

Neatfreak - Where did you get the impression that retailers would be the ones fined? I did some reading on the proposed statute, and I did not reach that conclusion (though admittedly, I did not spend a long time on it, though I could, just haven't had time yet.) The enforcement language for the GMO labeling requirement was being added to an existing statute (the Health and Safety Code), and the enforcement language does not mention retailers. I noticed at least one case (for an organic product labeling requirement in CA), where it was brought against the manufacturers, but no retailers. I have not done a thorough search on this. Is this what I'm missing. Not sure if this GMO labeling requirement was something that retailers were against or where this idea that retailers would be the subject of enforcement came from? I suppose that because the enforcement language does not mention specific categories of offenders, then agencies (or individuals) COULD bring a claim against retailers. But, this is true for anything, this being America after all. People ask me all the time whether they could be sued for this or that, and my response is always YES, you could get sued for anything! Whether the action would be successful is another question.

You're right, it's not easy to pick out in the language of the initiative itself, but the description prepared by the Attorney General does make it clear - Prop 37 "requires labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers." Prop. 37 is patterned after Proposition 65 (which relates to the sale of anything that contains toxic or carcinogenic materials), which is generally enforced at the point of sale, and generally through lawsuits brought by consumer or environmental watchdog groups. From a practical standpoint, California cannot dictate labeling requirements to any out-of-state manufacturer without some sort of certification/licensing proceedure , read large bureaucracy - UNLESS they simply prohibit the sale of whatever within the State, the route chosen in this case. When Prop 65 was first enacted, there were some law firms or consumer groups that were probably funded entirely through Prop. 65 fees.

I tend to judge propositions pretty harshly because I think they're a bad way to make law. A proposition is put together by just the group or person who likes that idea - it does not have to go through the give-and-take process that bills go through in the legislature - and propositions are often written in a way that makes it difficult to fix any problems that may crop up in implementation. (Prop. 37 did have some legislative fix provisions, but they're limited.) It's true that there are subjects that would never make it through the legislative process, in which case the initiative process is the only way to go, and this may be one of them. It's still a bad way to make law!

VRB - Thanks very much for your explanation. Hope you don't mind if I ask another question. How did prop 37 differ from the California Organic Product Act? Is there a licensing requirement in COPA, and that's why claims are brought against manufacturers?

NF - Thanks for the link.

 

[justginger]

Hmm...I didn't even know that Australia had a GMO labeling requirement. I've never seen it on a label before, nor have I thought to look for it.

Being very science (molecular science, specifically) oriented, I have a hard time seeing the downfall in GMOs. They have revolutionized the fight against malnutrition and disease in third world countries. I see them as a natural progression of the domestication and development of food sources, not much different from what Mendel was hoping to achieve 150 years ago. You use your knowledge and technology to solve the advanced problems of the world at large, and I feel GMOs do that. I would love to read sound scientific journal type literature that discuss the potential long term negative consequences of the widespread use of GMOs.

 

[kenny]

Corporate giants like Monsanto and ADM make zillions of bucks of GM crops.
In America all that matters is money.
Big corporations own the media and install the politicians.
We are not a democracy.
Nuff said.

 

[vintagelover229]

100% agree with you Kenny. It's sad but $ is what rules the once good ol' US of A. Our fore fathers would be sickened to what it's become.

JustGinger-while I agree in theory that GMO's *could* have potential to be used for good from my limited understanding is that our body has what's easiest described as a lock and key system for all of our proteins/enzymes/etc to be digested and absorbed. I don't have any links to any studies (don't have time to look them up either-the little man is stirring and I need to go stuff some cloth diapers but I'm sure you can find them if you look) that GMO's mess with the structure (duh) of the foods and our bodies are unable to process them in the same manor of their natural form. When this happens we don't get the same nuterience from them and there are actually adverse side affects. One example I recall reading was a farmer was giving his pigs all GMO corn and they were birthing empty sacks and still born piglets. There is a ton of $ involved and many of these stories are supressed or paid off or threated since they are under contracts with these companies. Another farmer put out GMO feed and non-GMO feed and I'm sure you can guess what the pigs ate when they had the choice.

Even IF GMO's weren't bad-the fact that they blow into non-GMO farmers fields and then get SUED by them is beyond terrible. They SHOULD be labeled so we have a right to choose what we consume. Countries such as Spain and Hungary (I believe) have kicked them out. I also heard rumor about India is talking of doing something similar....I could be wrong though.

 

[vintagelover229]

double post

 

[vintagelover229]

triple post

 

[vintagelover229]

again

 

[vintagelover229]

again

 

[vintagelover229]

Wow-I guess when the site was crashing things got posted a few different times. Sorry guys for all the double/triple posts!

 

[miraclesrule]

I read the entire bill. There was no indication in the wording of the bill that the retailers would have to pay for labeling. The only time I retailer would have to incur a cost for labeling, would be for their private label products. The mere fact that the legislative analyst's office placed completely subjective and misleading "costs" on the ballot itself should be investigated.

Even if the bill was not written as specific as it should have been, the public was duped by the most deceptive ads in history. The people behind the ads are being investigated by the FBI.

This really shouldn't even be a state issue. It should be a Federal issue that I think Obama better get cracking on, considering it was one of his campaign promises. He did need to wait until a second term, however, or he probably would not have been re-eclected. Monsanto and friend contribute heavily to both SuperPAC's.

ETA: My favorite commentary quote on Prop 37 "Do you really believe the pesticide and junk food companies would spend $46 million trying to save you money?" Ummmm, NOT!

 

[VRBeauty]

I read the entire bill. There was no indication in the wording of the bill that the retailers would have to pay for labeling. The only time I retailer would have to incur a cost for labeling, would be for their private label products. The mere fact that the legislative analyst's office placed completely subjective and misleading "costs" on the ballot itself should be investigated.

The retailers wouldn't have to pay for the labeling, but... citizen lawsuits could be brought against grocers who carry mis-labled products.

From the Sacramento Bee: Under the initiative, private attorneys and plaintiffs would have the power to enforce it by suing retailers they suspect of selling products that are not properly labeled.

From the Los Angeles TImes: Most of the burden for ensuring that foods are properly labeled would fall not on producers but on retailers, which would have to get written statements from their suppliers verifying that there were no bioengineered ingredients — a paperwork mandate that could make it hard for mom-and-pop groceries to stay in business. Enforcement would largely occur through lawsuits brought by members of the public who suspect grocers of selling unlabeled food, a messy and potentially expensive way to bring about compliance.

Neither of these papers are known for their conservative editorial boards!

 

[miraclesrule]

Again, that refers to the retailers supplier partners for their private label brands, not National Brands which are vendors. Because I am in this industry, I understand the terminology. Having said that, I do agree that the bill was not well written and specific enough to overcome the attacks on the ambiguity, which were valid. If the language could cause as much speculation as it did, it needed to be locked up without relying on "clean up" legislation, which is what I suspect the author's of the bill were anticipating.

Either way, this should be a Federal mandate. It would be ridiculous to require different labeling in one state than all of the other ones. Even though they create different labels in the other countries that require GMO labeling. The difference is that the entire country requires it and therefore much easier to comply.

This needs to be addressed at the federal level. If Monsanto and the FDA and USDA didn't have revolving door employee going back and forth from each entity, this would have already been enacted as a "no brainer".