News & Features » News

Freak Foods

GMO labeling seems like a no-brainer, but opposition to Prop. 37 does exist

by

comment
BLEECH Opponents of Proposition 37 claim labeling genetically engineered food will be costly, potentially driving jobs out of state. - BRUCE STENGL
  • Bruce Stengl
  • BLEECH Opponents of Proposition 37 claim labeling genetically engineered food will be costly, potentially driving jobs out of state.

Over the last several years, awareness of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, has spread, as has the call for required labeling on food that's been genetically modified. On the November ballot, California's Proposition 37, if passed, would do just that.

Called the Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act, it's already gathering widespread support. The Right to Know campaign in California reports that it took roughly 10 weeks to obtain close to 1 million signatures in its petition to place the requirement of labeling for GMO foods.

"In Sonoma County, we had 200 volunteers to help us collect signatures," says Karen Hudson, one of the Sonoma County co-coordinators for Right to Know. "We're a completely grassroots volunteer movement. People are really passionate about this. In Sonoma County, we collected about 35,000 signatures when we were just expecting 10,000."

According to a national poll conducted by Just Label It, 92 percent of Americans want the FDA to label genetically engineered food. Another study by IBOPE (formerly Zogby International) reports support at 87 percent.

But what might seem like a simple issue—who of us doesn't want to know what's in our food?—has opposition in the form of a group calling itself Stop the Costly Food Labeling Proposition, which says the labeling proposal is extreme and would put "California farmers and food companies at a competitive disadvantage," because these labels would not be required outside of California.

The opposition also criticizes Proposition 37 for having "arbitrary exemptions" to its labeling requirements. Under the proposition, foods for immediate consumption—restaurant foods and alcoholic beverages—and meat from animals fed GE products do not have to be labeled as genetically engineered. Additionally, the site states that labeling would "increase food costs paid by California consumers."

These types of arguments might sound familiar in Sonoma County.

In 2004, Sonoma County voted down Measure M, a 10-year moratorium on growing genetically engineered crops in the county. Although Measure M was considerably stricter than the current debate on GMO labeling, Dave Henson, cofounder of the GE Free Sonoma movement, reports that the public had seemed overwhelmingly supportive. So why didn't the measure pass at the ballot box?

Henson believes this was mostly due to lobbying efforts against the measure from biotech and big agricultural industries, adding that over a half million dollars was spent lobbying against the measure.

Add a comment