Get Out the Vote: Proposition 37, California's GMO Labeling Initiative, Could Mean Change for the Entire Country

By Besha Rodell Mon., Sep. 24 2012 at 10:24 AM

Is this corn genetically modified? Right now there's no way to know

So hey, did you hear? There's an election coming up! And while we all know it's important to vote in the presidential election, in California there's another reason to vote: Proposition 37.

A few weeks back at a panel on food policy in Washington, D.C., which was part of the Association of Food Journalists' annual conference, the panelists were asked what the most important food policy story of 2012 is likely to be. The consensus was California's Proposition 37. Why? Because if the law passes in California, it's likely to open the door to new food-labeling practices nationwide.

Proposition 37, if passed, would require that all genetically modified foods be labeled as such. Supporters of the proposition claim this is important because the safety of genetically modified foods is still unknown, and for now, consumers have no way of knowing if that's what they're buying. (Just last week a study came out that claimed that rats fed genetically modified corn developed cancer, but scientists are now questioning the methodology of that study.)

Fifty countries around the world already require GMO labeling, including all of Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, India and China.

Durning the panel in D.C., Barry Estabrook, author of the book Tomatoland and the blog Politics of the Plate, said, "I think the big story is going to be the California referendum on GMOs. It's not a California story. It's a national story."

Estabrook cited a study showing that 90 percent of Americans favor labeling, and pointed out that food producers will not alter their labeling practices just for one state -- especially not one the size of California -- so the law would become a de facto national standard.

Philip Brasher, editor of the "Executive Briefing on Agriculture and Food" for Congressional Quarterly Roll Call, agreed, saying, "You don't have to believe Barry. Just look at the money being spent."

He's talking about the huge amounts of money being funneled into the campaign to defeat Proposition 37. Big agriculture companies Monsanto and DuPont have spent millions on TV commercials and a web campaign. So far, Monsanto has put up $7.1 million toward the campaign, which claims that the law would be expensive and has too many loopholes. But, just as with any political issue, there's misinformation on both sides.

So do your reading. Because whatever we decide on Proposition 37 could end up affecting the labels on grocery store shelves for the entire country.

Want more Squid Ink? Follow us on Twitter or like us on Facebook.

Tags:

Barry Estabrook, Besha Rodell, California, GMO, Monsanto, Prop 37

We Recommend

Jodie

I'm feeling pretty dumb because I am trying to find the results of glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup) in the Pesticide Data program that checks residues on food commodities and water.http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=stelprdc5098550 , r eleased in May 2012 and I can see all these other chemicals but glyphosate is missing. Does anyone know why? It is the main chemical used on these GMO's, the main pesticide used in the USA, and now that they are crossing the Bt corn with the Roundup resistant corn there is an opportunity to use more Roundup..

I must be missing something?

MovieSetChefE

@LAWeeklyFood and the world and all its living things chef e

El3737

Here's what CA Right to Know has to say about "a study came out that claimed that rats fed genetically modified corn developed cancer, but scientists are now questioning the methodology of that study:"

And now, the recently published (in the highly regarded journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology), first long-term, peer-reviewed animal study involving GMO corn found massive tumors, organ failure and premature death in rats. The findings have prompted the French government to call for an investigation into GMOs, and Russia to suspend imports of GMO corn.

The study was roundly criticized by Monsanto’s band of scientists, who were out in force trying to discredit the study design – but what they failed to mention is that Monsanto’s own studies that supposedly indicate “safety” are based on the same study design: similar size study, same rats. The only real differences is that the French study was free of industry influence and pressure, was more comprehensive and stringent, and was long-term rather than short.

The most shocking thing of all about the French study is that it is the first long-term feeding study on genetically engineered corn that has been on the American market for more than 15 years. So where’s the science? The reason we have been denied such critical information is that biotech companies like Monsanto have controlled and suppressed research.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/28/1137690/--32-5-Million-Can-t-Seem-To-Buy-Prop-37-Opponents-Their-Own-Facts

El3737

"A study came out that claimed that rats fed genetically modified corn developed cancer, but scientists are now questioning the methodology of that study." Really? How dismissive a statement about the FIRST EVER long-term study of the GMOs that were slipped unlabeled and untested into our American food supply over 15 years ago. Where are the studies whose methodology is not questioned? Are any of these questioning scientists on the biotech payroll? The French study by Seralini used much the same methodology Big Agritech uses in its standard 90-day tests that are too short to find problems like cancer. Rather than being criticized, Seralini should be celebrated for finally doing a long-term, peer-reviewed study of GMOs that should have been done in the first place.

Seralini says he will respond to criticism by fellow scientists, but not to biotech lobbyists. With so little time for serious scientific discussion since the study's debut, it seems likely that questions about his methodology come from a biotech smear campaign. Jeffrey M. Smith looked at carefully-orchestrated attacks on scientists who question the safety of biotechnology in "GMO Researchers Attacked, Evidence Denied, and a Population at Risk." http://www.sott.net/articles/show/237064-GMO-Researchers-Attacked-Evidence-Denied-and-a-Population-at-Risk

If additional studies on GMOs are to be done, Big Agritech will first need to release its patented seeds for independent study with no strings attached. According to Scientific American, "it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised...because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers." http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research

With so much controversy about GMO research, let alone GMOs, Americans should have the right to decide for ourselves whether to participate in this food experiment. YES on Prop37!

littleladybunny

@SeabirdsTruck that change is desperately needed!

honeylovesoaps

1 Like

VOTE YES PROPOSITION 37 GO CALIFORNIA!!

rizkybusiness99

1 Like

So let me get this straight China who basically consider most of their citizens expendable, actually label their food as genetically modified.....and we let Monsanto/Dupont continue to buy our political empty suits from both parties to prevent the labeling on our food supply.

btw I am well acquainted with the 7-9 figure crowd and they demand Organic along with GM & MSG free foods before they ever consider them worthy of a meal.