Contact:
sales@biotechnologyforums.com to feature here

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
California's Proposition 37: Why its failure to pass is a good thing
#1
Proposition 37, or California Right To Know Genetically Engineered Food Act:

On November 8, 2012, the biotechnology community had its collective eyes on California: a question was placed on public ballot that would have a far-reaching impact on the biotechnology community in general and the food industry in particular. It was called Proposition 37, or California Right To Know Genetically Engineered Food Act and it would require all food that was either completely produced through the means of genetic engineering or food products containing ingredients that were derived by genetic engineering would have to be labelled as such on the packaging. This labeling would provide consumers with information on what they were buying and would further enable consumers to make proper food choices. If Proposition 37 had passed, California would be the only state in the country with mandatory GMO (genetic modified organism) labeling on food. However, by a six-point margin, about 53-47 percent (Miller, 2012 www.kcet.org), it was defeated in the voting booth. The food movement is seeing this defeat as a crushing blow blaming Big Ag for investing large amounts of money into the campaign in order to defeat Prop 37. However, the way economists have viewed the defeat was as a means to prevent the passing of a piece of legislature that would cost millions of dollars for the state of California in its implementation and regulation and have far reaching implications to the whole food industry at large. This article will attempt to summarize what Proposition 37 had set out to do and present some of the implications of the ruling had it passed. (www.votersguide.sos.ca.gov)

With the completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003 and the techniques associated with making this monumental achievement possible, genetic engineering clearly became a game-changer for modern science. The ability to be able to transfer a single part of an organism’s DNA and place it into another organism, usually through microinjection of embryos, and have that trait expressed in the recipient organism saw new advancements in creating new animal models for studying diseases like cancer, obesity and diabetes. It also saw the application of genetic engineering techniques in the creation of crops that could withstand extreme climate changes, even have resistance to pests and pesticides. Some of the most common genetically engineered plants today are corn and soybeans. (www.votersguide.sos.ca.gov)

An analysis performed in 2011 found that about 80 percent of all of our corn produced in this country is produced through the use of GE seeds. GE foods are also used to make food ingredients, such as high fructose corn syrup, which are also included in processed food products such as processed baked goods. In California alone, about 40 percent to 70 percent of food products in grocery stores contain some GE food ingredients. However, despite these advancements there are always questions and fears by those that do not understand the technology. Many people don’t know what the effects of ingesting GE foods would have on their bodies and many have concerns about the transference of unwanted genetic material. Also many religious groups have food limitations and restrictions and these people are concerned that they will unwittingly ingest something that their religious doctrines have prohibited. (www.votersguide.sos.ca.gov) These are all valid concerns by consumers and the fact of the matter is that there haven’t been many studies conducted that had demonstrated that GE foods were unsafe. Those that argued in favor of Proposition 37 say that they don’t know how safe GE foods are but that they, as consumers, should have the right to decide for themselves what they and their families eat.

Currently in the state of California, the Federal government does not specifically require the regulation of GE foods, however the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has placed certain restrictions on the use of GE crops that have been shown to be harmful to other plants. The U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is cited with the task of ensuring that most food ingredients and additives are safe, regardless of whether they were produced through the use of genetic engineering and that they have some form of labeling on their packaging.

At the time Prop 37 was put to a vote, California’s existing law held that state agencies were not specifically required to regulate GE foods. However, it is the responsibility of the state’s Department of Public Health (DPHS) to regulate the safety and labeling of most foods. (www.votersguide.sos.ca.gov)

Under the proposed provision, all GE foods sold in California stores must be properly labeled as either containing genetic engineered products and ingredients, or have been produced using genetic engineering.. It would also require the Department of Public Health to implement the new provision and regulate the labeling of such foods. It would also give individuals the ability to sue food manufacturers for violation of the measure’s labeling provisions. All raw foods including fruits and vegetables either produced in part or entirely by means of genetic engineering would be labeled with the words “Genetically Engineered”, “Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering” or “May be Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering” on the front of the package or label. If the item is not in a package or does not have a label, those words must appear somewhere on the shelf where the item is being displayed. Retailers, such as grocery stores would be held primarily responsible to ensure compliance with the measure by making sure all their food products are correctly labeled. If a product was not adequately labeled, the retailer has to be able to document why that product is exempt from labeling. This documentation could be obtained in two ways: either the wholesaler of the product has provided a sworn written statement that the product was not intentionally or knowingly genetically engineered or by receiving independent certification that the product does not contain any GE ingredients. Other facilities along the food industry supply chain including farmers and food manufacturers must also be responsible for maintaining those records. The provision also provides certain exemptions from labeling of other products like alcoholic beverages, such as beer and wine, milk and diary products and raw meat and fish. Beef and chicken would also be exempted from labeling regardless of whether they have ingested grain that was produced through genetic engineering. (www.votersguide.sos.ca.gov)

As economists have analyzed the financial feasibility of Proposition 37 this provision would not only affect the food industry supply chain within the state of California, it would also have an enormous impact on other states supplying food and food ingredients into California. Other states would also have to conform to the same provisions as California food supply facilities under the Proposition 37 statute. Global suppliers as well would also have to comply with these same standards for any GE food products entering California. The cost of litigation to maintain the regulations would be considerably high and economists that were studying the feasibility of Prop 37 suggested that if the provision passed the high costs of maintaining the regulations, provision compliance, and any possible litigations that individual consumers happened to make, would take its toll on the state’s economy overall. (www.votersguide.sos.ca.gov)

Still even with the failure to pass Prop 37, the debate over the safety of GE foods will remain. There’s no question that having plants that have better crop yields and withstand pests and extreme weather conditions is a huge boon to the food industry. It has been suggested that GE foods should be placed under the same scrutiny by the performance of clinical trial studies to ensure the safety of these unique products. However just as we are given warning labels on the drugs we take either over the counter or through prescription, don’t we also have the right to know what is in our food that we consume every day? These are questions that still remain to be answered.

References
Miller, E (November, 2012) Why Prop 37 failed. Commentary. downloaded from http://www.kcet.org/socal/food/prop-37/c...ailed.html.

California General Election Website Prop 37 Genetically Engineered Foods Labelling Initiative Statute
Downloaded from http://www.votersguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/37
Like Post Reply
  

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread
Author
  /  
Last Post



Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

California's Proposition 37: Why its failure to pass is a good thing00