Prop 37 supporters blame defeat on several wrong reasons

What is in this article?:

  • Agriculture should feel relieved that Prop. 37 went down by a 53 percent to 47 percent margin.  However, this is no time to gloat.
  • Anti-GMO crusaders are now promising to take their campaign to other states, earmarking the state of Washington as their next drive, and attempting to get a draft into the U.S. farm bill at the federal level.

As the dust continues to settle after the defeat of California’s Prop. 37, the deceptive genetically engineered food labeling initiative, the recriminations endlessly abound among those on the losing side.

They give many reasons for the defeat of Prop. 37, namely the $45 million barrage of TV ads, mailers, and Internet pop-ups “nearly all of which were outright dishonest and misleading,” with the giant agchem companies leading the charge, if you believe Ken Cook. Cook is president of the Environmental Working Group, a green organization responsible for its own “Dirty Dozen list” of misinformation that has scared off consumers from eating healthy fruits and vegetables – but I digress.

Agriculture should feel relieved that Prop. 37 went down by a 53 percent to 47 percent margin.  However, this is no time to gloat. Any hint at celebration will merely serve to stiffen the resolve of anti-GMO proponents. In fact, Prop. 37’s defeat seems to have re-energized their commitment to label all GMO (genetically modified organisms) grocery products. This despite the fact that federal food agencies, medical groups and the scientific community assure us GMO foods – that we have been eating for years – are safe and healthy and no different from conventionally grown crops.

(For more, see: Proposition 37 defeat great victory for agriculture, truth)

Anti-GMO crusaders are now promising to take their campaign to other states, earmarking the state of Washington as their next drive, and attempting to get a draft into the U.S. farm bill at the federal level. “People must know what they are eating,” their mantra goes. 

The reason the measure was doomed from the get-go was because of the simple truth it contained a list of secondary language that involved:  the “natural” designation of processed foods; restaurant food was exempt from labels while the exact same store-bought food had to be tagged; created a cottage industry for lawyers seeking to line their own pockets from frivolous lawsuits; and placed the monkey squarely on the back of innocent grocers and retailers who would have been forced to check each food item delivery for GMO ingredients – and in many cases could very well have been sued for nothing having to do with genetically engineered ingredients.

Discuss this Article 21

Anonymous (not verified)
on Nov 15, 2012

Are you kidding me? Bribe them? You think grocery ads in papers or coupons etc are not direct payment enough to sway what a paper will support or not? You are blind. Plus the last time I checked, newspaper writers don't have M.D. Or Ph.D after their names! Furthermore, these companies are in every decision making gov position there is! As far as research, do you not realize that major funding in any studies comes from these Ag and chemical companies! A comparison that may fit here is the tobacco companies and how cigarettes were safe Etc. we all know now that was not true. Yet our gov still has them for sale and they get labeled!

Anonymous (not verified)
on Nov 19, 2012

The major problem with Prop. 37 that the author is pointing out is that it was poorly written. It was a "bad bill," which is a term a representative I used to work for would use for measures that might have had the right idea were they not written so incredibly abysmally. She'd never vote "yes" on a poorly written bill, no matter how much she might support its intent. It's a good thing a majority of California voters had the wherewithal to do the same thing regarding Prop. 37.

Erin D (not verified)
on Nov 15, 2012

why is it such a threat to LABEL the content? I and several of my family members have sensitivity due to certain illnesses to certain ingredients, processed foods, and yes, even GM food effects how we feel, and whether we feel well that week. I do not understand why labeling is such a fight? We are not asking to eliminate gm foods, we are asking to have the choice. as consumers, we should have the choice. If you are against labeling, it's because you know that it will decrease sales of those foods. That is not my problem, keeping my family feeling their very best is my concern. Please, do the right thing, and just label!! SHEESH.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Nov 19, 2012

If you want to know exactly what's in your food, grow your own. That is really the only way to get what you want. Otherwise, simply buy organic. That is clearly labeled and doesn't cost other people more money. Why should anyone else be required to pay more and see all this time and effort spent on a problem that already has a solution? Grow it yourself or buy organic. Leave the rest of the consumers across the country alone.

Marc G (not verified)
on Nov 19, 2012

Here's the problem with what you wrote: how a plant is bred IS NOT AN INGREDIENT! Plants have been bred for thousands of years (as have animals), and as a farming family I see it every day. Everything we eat has been genetically modified by lots of techniques. What is different now is the ability to breed plants and animals through molecular biology, the same techniques that have brought many of the new life saving

Marc G (not verified)
on Nov 19, 2012

Here's the problem with what you wrote: how a plant is bred IS NOT AN INGREDIENT! Plants have been bred for thousands of years (as have animals), and as a farming family I see it every day. Everything we eat has been genetically modified by lots of techniques for centuries - otherwise we would still just be eating original maize. What is different now is the ability to breed plants and animals through molecular biology, the same techniques that have brought, in medicine, many of the new life saving therapies to millions. It is just a new breeding technique, more precise and with the ability to be more specific in how one breeds. Calling this food "genetically modified" is meaningless - everything is genetically midified including you when yiur parents did the act that created you - it is rather, molecular biology bred. If the proponents of a label law were to suggest listing the genes bred into plants, by any method, that might be information that would be informative, but I doubt you would know what to do with news that the plant contained a gene to prevent it from withering in a drought. What the proponents do not tell you is that they don't like the fact that much of the research has been done and paid for by private companies, and therefore those companies sell the seeds instead of the government and are not giving the seeds away. So, what do they do to fight these companies - they create a phrase which scares people and is incredibly misleading and scare people like you. By the way, during this summer's horrible drought, modern breeding techniques helped save much of the corn crop so you and your family can continue to eat well instead of experience the kind of disaster the Dust Bowl of the 1930's brought about. The more you learn about the miracles that are taking place every day to help be able to feed a world going from seven billion people to nine billion people with no new land available, the more you will be thrilled.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Nov 19, 2012

These same people were complaining about pesticides. GMO's have cut the pesticide use in this country by millions of tons. If you make farmers label every product that contains GMO's the price is going to go up. What are they supposed to do? Put a label on every ear of corn? California farmers are already competing with Mexico. Have you noticed how much produce in your grocery store is from Mexico? Do you think they don't use pesticides or GMO's. We are banned from using certain pesticides that other countries still use. It puts our farmers at an even bigger competitive disadvantage than they are at already. If there is a niche market out there that some farmers want to pursue then they can label their products "GMO Free" and charge a premium price for them just like the organic farmers did. Now just about every grocery store has an organic produce section. Quit trying to force farmers to change their farming practices. The market will do that on its own if there is a need. Better yet...why don't you just grow your own food. That way you control what you eat.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Dec 8, 2012

Not true. Pesticide use is way up. Check your facts.

Paulina (not verified)
on Nov 20, 2012

It's spelled "affects" not "effects" (and I'm not even a native English speaker).
Also, I'm curious how exactly can GM food affect the way you feel any differently than "normal" food. Seriously, I'm curious.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Nov 15, 2012

Your article is simply another tired repeat of the talking points that the opposition to Prop 37 floated again and again. You left out that most of those newspapers are owned by one of two companies: MediaNews or McClatchy Papers, and all of them have significant skin in the game: the pesticide and junkfood companies who opposed Prop 37 spend millions advertising in their dying medium every year. No on Prop 37 spokesperson, Kathy Fairbanks, even BRAGS about her connections to editorial boards in her website bio: http://www.bcfpublicaffairs.com/about/fairbanks.html. Sorry pal, it was the $48 million which bought a whole lot of media and confused good Californians with lies.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Nov 15, 2012

I'm a bit confused as to why this is such a problem for America when so many other countries have had GMO labelling on all their food items for a long time. It's also interesting that the very same company that are spending millions trying to fight Prop 37 actually ran Ads in support of GMO labelling in the UK back in the 90's. This is an excerpt from a Monsanto Ad that ran in the UK IN 1998 - 99......

"Before you buy a potato, or any other food, you may want to know whether it's the product of food biotechnology," read one Monsanto ad in Britain. "We have complete confidence that our food crops are as safe and nutritious as the standard alternatives. Recently you may have noticed a label
Advertisement appearing on some of the food in your supermarket. This is 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."

It's been done before so it can be done again. It's comforting to know that not all countries can be bought off so easily.

Bobby Electric (not verified)
on Nov 16, 2012

This article is a joke-Prop 37 Failed because of vote fraud! the majority of polls showed prop37 passing by 2/3 then suddenly it fails- Its a fact that 3million votes have not even been counted yet- Conservatives and liberals were united on yes on 37- Only an idiot would not want gmo labeled- especially since every animal study conducted on GMO's showed tumors and cancer after a few weeks on GMO

Douglas (not verified)
on Nov 24, 2012

Mr. Electric needs to be unplugged. He is the essence of why Prop 37 failed. Do you really think the average American would truly believe these conspiracy theories.
You can only base good decision making based on science. Show me the studies that show any GM crop or animal causes any harmful effects, different than the non GM crops/animals. All I hear from the Pro GMO camp is big agriculture/Ag. Chem. caused it this to fail and they control the media.

For those who say what’s the big deal, just add it to the label. As a consumer feeding a family of five I am already concerned that our grocery prices are climbing. Adding additional pricing without solid evidence does not make sense. Adding additional labeling because the EU does, does not make sense.

Show America the scientific data and we can make our own minds
.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Nov 16, 2012

Prop 37 accomplished one thing. It allowed us all to discover what these snooty elitists were serving up and asking us to "eat"......they were trying to serve up a bunch of crap. Better yet, if these food anarchists were so concerned about truth in labeling, they would have listed the following ingredients for Prop 37: "contains mistruths, fear mongering, outright lies, false and/or misleading data all mixed into an incoherent presentation of hysterical slogans."

Now that's truth in labeling we can all approve of in describing this group of societal malcontents who continue to attack the most abundant and safe food supply in the world. If only they would channel their misguided energies toward actual problems we face today!

Mary Orcutt (not verified)
on Nov 16, 2012

I think Prop 37 failed because people are afraid to pay more for their food.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Nov 16, 2012

The sad fact is that while these misguided "foodies" would like to stigmatize modern crop production products that are scientifically proven to be identical to non GMO's by loading them with onerous and costly regulations that serve no purpose other than greatly increasing the cost we pay at the grocery store, yet with incomprehensible counter logic promote drug legalization of marijuana that they breezily claim is totally harmless to ones brain and lungs despite strong, documented evidence to the contrary. If these people were computer programs, the suggestion would be to start over and re-install because their sytems hardware is totally corrupted and not operating properly.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Nov 16, 2012

There is a simple, inexpensive, non-regulatory solution to the problem of people eating food containing GMOs against their will: Buy Organic Foods. Organic Foods do not contain GMOs and are more and more widely available. All food that is not labelled Orgainc or No GMOs should be assumed to contain GMOs and avoided.

Croploss (not verified)
on Nov 16, 2012

The pro-37 crowd continues to miss or ignore the points that defeated it. It was not so much about labeling as the loopholes, exceptions (dairy, restaurants, etc.) and especially the lawyer's get rich employment for life clauses. Had it been simply and efficiently written without all the nonsense and litigation language it might very well have passed. But then no one expects much realism or sanity from those who pushed the hardest, except of course the lawyers who would be the only real winners.

Western Plant Health Association (not verified)
on Nov 19, 2012

To the writer who brought up cigarettes. Cigarettes kill you. GMO foods do not. Can't believe you don't realize the difference.

Chemie Babe (not verified)
on Nov 19, 2012

Take the lawyers out of Prop 37 and it might of passed. Heck, even a snobby food elitist like myself might have voted yes!

Anonymous (not verified)
on Nov 29, 2012

Just another web site whose pockets are lined by Monsanto and Big Ag....

Post new comment
Sign In or register to use your Western Farm Press ID
(optional)

Continuing Education Courses
This accredited CE course focuses on choosing the correct variety alfalfa based on a number of...
New Course
The 2,000-member Weed Science Society of America’s (WSSA) Herbicide Resistance Action...

The course details six of the primary diseases affecting citrus: Huanglongbing (Citrus...

Newsletter Signup