Prop. 37 (The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act) is a November 2012 ballot measure that will help consumers make informed choices and have more control over the food they eat. [1] [2] The proposition requires clear requires clear labels letting consumers know if foods are genetically modified. [3] If passed, companies have 18 months to change their labels to include the GMO disclosure on packaging. [1] Currently, genetically engineered foods are not labeled, thus, there is no way to know if the food we are consuming is a product of this artificial process. Labeling of these types of modified foods is not a new concept. Over 50 other countries already require labeling of all GE foods in order to inform the consumers of what they are eating. Most GE foods are engineered to either produce pesticides in their own tissues or to resist herbicides sprayed on them. [2] If the proposition is accepted in California, it will increase the likelihood that other states will also adopt the same rules. In turn, if enough states do decide to adopt GMO labeling laws, the national government may become involved and take action. [4]
A genetically engineered food is a plant or meat product that has had its DNA artificially altered in a laboratory by genes from other plants, animals, viruses, or bacteria. This process produces foreign compounds in that food. Since this experimental genetic alteration is not found in nature, manipulating genes and inserting them into organisms is an imprecise process. [5] For example, Genetically Modified corn has been engineered in a laboratory to produce pesticides in its own tissue. Although GMO corn is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency as an Insecticide, it is sold unlabeled. Monsanto, (an agricultural biotechnology corporation), is selling sweet corn that has been genetically engineered to contain an insecticide, but consumers don't know because it is not labeled. [1]
Genetic engineering can increase the levels of known toxicants in foods and introduce new health concerns. The results of these modifications are not always predictable or controllable. [5] A number of peer-reviewed studies have linked these foods to allergies, organ toxicity, and other health problems. GMOs have not been proven safe, and the impacts of these foods have not been subjected to long-term health studies. There are strict safety evaluations that are required for the approval of new drugs, the US Food and Drug Administration. Conversely, they do not require safety studies for genetically engineered foods. [2] [1]
The various environmental problems associated with genetic engineering have been well documented. Prevalent issues surrounding the environment, in regards to genetic engineering, include biodiversity loss, the emergence of super weeds that are threatening millions of acres of farmland, an overall increase in pesticide use, and the unintentional contamination of organic and non-GMO crops. [1] Not only are GE crops potentially damaging to bodies, they are also poisoning the planet. Since most GE crops are designed to withstand powerful herbicides, they cause food producers to use much higher levels of herbicides. [2]
US food processors agree 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. [6] Costs associated with the addition of the GM label are derived from the desire for those who are selling these products to change them. Companies may choose to switch to higher-priced, non-GE ingredients, like organics, in order to sell pleasing amounts of their food in California. The proposition does not ban any foods. It only requires that GMO-containing foods be labeled with the phrase “partially produced with genetic engineering” somewhere on the front or back of packages. [1] [5]
The right to know what's in our food is not a Democratic or Republican issue. [4] This issue is additionally largely supported by those with children who are concerned with the potential health threats of the long-term consumption of these foods.
The measure is largely backed by the Organic Consumers' Association, Nature's Path, The Institute for Responsible Technology and other organic food advocates. [7] Despite the fact that Prop. 37 has the potential to make it harder and more costly for organic producers, they embrace the labeling. Organic food producers believe that we should know what we are eating, even if it means a bit more expense and work. [4] This widespread support stems from the fact that organic food is at risk of GMO pollution.
Some of the leading opponents of the Proposition 37 have even spoken favorably of labeling in other countries. For example, Monsanto, , the big herbicide and seed company produced an ad in the UK touting the labeling law, while they continue to oppose Prop 37. In the UK, Monsanto's advertisement, under a heading "Food Labeling, It Has Monsanto's Full Backing" reads: "Recently you may have noticed a label appearing... to inform you about the use of biotechnology in food. Monsanto fully supports UK food manufacturers and retailers in their introduction of these labels. We believe you should be aware of all the facts before making a purchase." [2]
Organizations urging YES on Prop 37:
Organizations urging NO on Prop 37:
(Contributions)
The requirements of Prop. 37 will not apply to the following [5] :
Yes | No |
---|---|
A YES vote on this measure means: Genetically engineered foods sold in California would have to be specifically labeled as being genetically engineered. | A NO vote on this measure means: Genetically engineered foods sold in California would continue not to have specific labeling requirements. |
Pro | Con |
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. | 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. |
Prop. 37 (The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act) is a November 2012 ballot measure that will help consumers make informed choices and have more control over the food they eat. [1] [2] The proposition requires clear requires clear labels letting consumers know if foods are genetically modified. [3] If passed, companies have 18 months to change their labels to include the GMO disclosure on packaging. [1] Currently, genetically engineered foods are not labeled, thus, there is no way to know if the food we are consuming is a product of this artificial process. Labeling of these types of modified foods is not a new concept. Over 50 other countries already require labeling of all GE foods in order to inform the consumers of what they are eating. Most GE foods are engineered to either produce pesticides in their own tissues or to resist herbicides sprayed on them. [2] If the proposition is accepted in California, it will increase the likelihood that other states will also adopt the same rules. In turn, if enough states do decide to adopt GMO labeling laws, the national government may become involved and take action. [4]
A genetically engineered food is a plant or meat product that has had its DNA artificially altered in a laboratory by genes from other plants, animals, viruses, or bacteria. This process produces foreign compounds in that food. Since this experimental genetic alteration is not found in nature, manipulating genes and inserting them into organisms is an imprecise process. [5] For example, Genetically Modified corn has been engineered in a laboratory to produce pesticides in its own tissue. Although GMO corn is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency as an Insecticide, it is sold unlabeled. Monsanto, (an agricultural biotechnology corporation), is selling sweet corn that has been genetically engineered to contain an insecticide, but consumers don't know because it is not labeled. [1]
Genetic engineering can increase the levels of known toxicants in foods and introduce new health concerns. The results of these modifications are not always predictable or controllable. [5] A number of peer-reviewed studies have linked these foods to allergies, organ toxicity, and other health problems. GMOs have not been proven safe, and the impacts of these foods have not been subjected to long-term health studies. There are strict safety evaluations that are required for the approval of new drugs, the US Food and Drug Administration. Conversely, they do not require safety studies for genetically engineered foods. [2] [1]
The various environmental problems associated with genetic engineering have been well documented. Prevalent issues surrounding the environment, in regards to genetic engineering, include biodiversity loss, the emergence of super weeds that are threatening millions of acres of farmland, an overall increase in pesticide use, and the unintentional contamination of organic and non-GMO crops. [1] Not only are GE crops potentially damaging to bodies, they are also poisoning the planet. Since most GE crops are designed to withstand powerful herbicides, they cause food producers to use much higher levels of herbicides. [2]
US food processors agree 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. [6] Costs associated with the addition of the GM label are derived from the desire for those who are selling these products to change them. Companies may choose to switch to higher-priced, non-GE ingredients, like organics, in order to sell pleasing amounts of their food in California. The proposition does not ban any foods. It only requires that GMO-containing foods be labeled with the phrase “partially produced with genetic engineering” somewhere on the front or back of packages. [1] [5]
The right to know what's in our food is not a Democratic or Republican issue. [4] This issue is additionally largely supported by those with children who are concerned with the potential health threats of the long-term consumption of these foods.
The measure is largely backed by the Organic Consumers' Association, Nature's Path, The Institute for Responsible Technology and other organic food advocates. [7] Despite the fact that Prop. 37 has the potential to make it harder and more costly for organic producers, they embrace the labeling. Organic food producers believe that we should know what we are eating, even if it means a bit more expense and work. [4] This widespread support stems from the fact that organic food is at risk of GMO pollution.
Some of the leading opponents of the Proposition 37 have even spoken favorably of labeling in other countries. For example, Monsanto, , the big herbicide and seed company produced an ad in the UK touting the labeling law, while they continue to oppose Prop 37. In the UK, Monsanto's advertisement, under a heading "Food Labeling, It Has Monsanto's Full Backing" reads: "Recently you may have noticed a label appearing... to inform you about the use of biotechnology in food. Monsanto fully supports UK food manufacturers and retailers in their introduction of these labels. We believe you should be aware of all the facts before making a purchase." [2]
Organizations urging YES on Prop 37:
Organizations urging NO on Prop 37:
(Contributions)
The requirements of Prop. 37 will not apply to the following [5] :
Yes | No |
---|---|
A YES vote on this measure means: Genetically engineered foods sold in California would have to be specifically labeled as being genetically engineered. | A NO vote on this measure means: Genetically engineered foods sold in California would continue not to have specific labeling requirements. |
Pro | Con |
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. | 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. |