Opinion

Details

Written by: Annelle Durham

Published: 19 October 2012

I find that it is very easy to get off topic when discussing Proposition 37, which would simply require the labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods.

The list of what Proposition 37 isn’t about is longer that what it is about.

It is not about the possible health consequences of eating GE foods, the increased use of Round-up herbicide on Round-up Ready GE crops, the revolving door between Monsanto and the FDA, or even that the seeds that give us food and life are now patented.

These issues are close to my heart but they are not what Proposition 37 is about.

Proposition 37 will require the labeling of GE foods so that when we take a product off the shelf at the supermarket we will be able to clearly read for ourselves if it contains GE foods or not. That’s it!

It doesn’t tell anyone what they may grow, what kind of research they may do, how they may use this new technology, or in any way restrict the use of GE drugs.

This is simply about truth in labeling of GE food. Many countries already have labeling of GE food and have not suffered ill consequences or increased food prices as a result.

As an organic farmer here in Lake County, I have to pay attention to the consumer’s desires and adjust my crops as needed.

What is lacking now, with regards to GE crops, is this feedback loop. Without labeling the consumer has no choice and then the farmers and food processors have no way of knowing what the consumers really want. Nothing speaks like the dollar in the marketplace.

Polls show between 85 and 95 percent of us – including Democrats, Republicans, men and women – want labeling of GE foods, but polls don’t make law or policy.

We have tried and tried again to get the FDA to require labeling but they aren’t listening to the consumer, even when they received almost one million letters in support of labeling.

The Vermont legislature tried to require labeling but backed down when Monsanto threatened to sue them.

So here we are in California, trying to make history, thanks to Pamm Larry, a grandmother who passionately wants GE foods labeled and got the proverbial ball rolling.

Proposition 37 is simple – label GE foods. Yes, there are some exemptions but we have 15 years of not labeling GE foods, and it will take more than one initiative to completely reverse directions.

We know how badly the opposition wants this initiative to fail by the amount of money they are putting into the “No on 37” campaign, upwards of $35 million, of which $7 million is from Monsanto alone! The “Yes on 37” campaign has raised barely one-tenth of what the opponents have to work with.

Fortunately it is not just about dollars when it comes to ballot initiatives. It is about voting, it is about all of us voting.

It is about reminding each other that just because there are many more ads against Proposition 37 (thanks to all that money) than for Proposition 37, it doesn’t mean that they are right and that is how we should vote. We should vote for what we want – not for what “they” want.

If you want a choice, and truth in labeling, when at the supermarket, you should cast your vote for Proposition 37. I know I will.

Annelle Durham farms in Upper Lake, Calif.

Details

Written by: Melissa Fulton

Published: 18 October 2012

The Lake County Chamber of Commerce definitely supports the position of people having the right to know what is in the food they choose to consume.

After investigation, research and much discussion, the Board of Directors for the Lake County Chamber of Commerce voted to oppose Proposition 37, the Food Labeling Initiative.  

This initiative is very poorly written and opens up many avenues for lawsuits. The exemptions contained in the language defeat any legitimate “right to know” position.

It exempts two-thirds of the foods Californians consume. Proposition 37 creates a new category of shakedown lawsuits allowing lawyers and private citizens to sue farmers, grocers, and food companies without any proof of violation or damage.  

The following paragraph from the language of the initiative points out the conflicting and misleading thought process of this poorly written piece of legislation:

Exempts foods that are: certified organic; unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material; made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves; processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients; administered for treatment of medical conditions; sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant; or alcoholic beverages.

Some exemptions:

• Cow’s milk and dairy products, but requires special labels on soy milk;
• Food imported from China and other foreign countries ;
• Animal products (beef or chicken) that were not directly produced through genetic engineering would also be exempted, regardless of whether the animal had been fed GE crops.

Proposition 37 would ban the sale of tens of thousands of perfectly-safe, common grocery products (only) in California unless they are specially repackaged, relabeled or made with higher cost ingredients.

Proposition 37 is a deceptive, deeply flawed food labeling scheme that would add more government bureaucracy and taxpayer costs, create new frivolous lawsuits, and increase food costs by billions — without providing any health or safety benefits.

That’s why Proposition 37 is opposed by a broad coalition of family farmers, scientists, doctors, business, labor, taxpayers and consumers.

The Lake County Chamber of Commerce shares the same rationale for opposing Proposition 37 as those stated by the San Francisco Chronicle, the Oakland Tribune, the Sacramento Bee, the Contra Costa Times, the Modesto Bee, the Merced-Sun Star, the Redding Record Searchlight and many more newspapers throughout the state – while many people feel strongly about the premise of labeling in foods, labeling and legislation are not synonymous.

This initiative’s random exemptions of products, the lack of specifics about funding and implementation, and the crafting of legal language that allows lawsuits to be filed against a retailer merely on the basis of a “suspicion” does not a good legal mandate make.

The San Francisco Chronicle states: “This measure is an example of why some public policy – no matter how well intentioned and benign sounding – should not be decided at the ballot box. Prop. 37 is fraught with vague and problematic provisions that could make it costly for consumers and a legal nightmare for those who grow process or sell food … An issue of this consequence should be considered in the Legislature, where the language would be subject to hearings and input from myriad stakeholders. But advocates of the labeling law never attempted that step, despite Democratic majorities in both houses.”

The Legislative Analyst’s Office noted that the initiative authorizes “consumers to sue without needing to demonstrate that any specific damage occurred as a result of the alleged violation.”

Opponents of Proposition 37 cite this issue as the main problem with the initiative – their very real concern is that it “invites citizen lawsuits as the primary means of enforcing the labeling law” (Modesto Bee).

California has experienced firsthand the negative consequences of a voter-approved law being used as a potential tool for frivolous lawsuits as seen in the over 16,000 legal actions initiated in the aftermath of Proposition 65 (passed in 1986).

We agree that Prop. 37 is indeed an imperfect piece of proposed legislation. We disagree though with the conclusion that the end justifies the means.

We believe that a voluntary labeling of “no-GMO” by the producers of those products would better suit the end purpose for those who care passionately about whether or not they consume food products containing GMOs.

The Modesto Bee stated, “Even voters who worry about genetically modified food should reject Proposition 37. This flawed measure would set back the cause of labeling.”

The statement by the San Francisco Chronicle sums up our position on this proposition best: “But precision of language matters in law, and opponents claim that this clause was written so loosely that it could include any processed food. The nonpartisan legislative analyst agreed. Californians will be voting on the language of the law, not merely the concept. Vote no on Prop. 37.”

Melissa Fulton is chief executive officer of the Lake County Chamber of Commerce, based in Lakeport, Calif.

Details

Written by: Ellen Karnowski

Published: 17 October 2012

Around the nation, people in the other 49 states are watching and waiting to see if we make an informed decision in November. Only the future of generations to come is at stake.

Jeffery Smith, world expert on GMOs and author of “Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods,” testified at a state committee hearing on GMO labeling in Connecticut in September.

He told legislators that genetic engineering is an “infant science” and is irrevocably polluting the gene pool and threatening human health and nature.

Smith is not anti-science, but would like to see responsible testing done to let the science “grow up.”

Humans should not be guinea pigs, and right now we are.

Women are not going to be warned by any government agency that their reproductive health is at risk, because those agencies have been instructed to fast-track bioengineered products.

Smith explained that for the 16 years GMOs have been in the food system, the federal government, including the FDA, whose GMO policy was written by a former attorney at Monsanto, has been promoting biotechnology.

GMOs have been linked to illnesses from cancer, food allergies and most recently to infertility in animals and humans, due to the manner in which engineered genetic material  (called Franken genes) take up residency in those consuming them.

Engineered genes entering the food chain from Roundup Ready plants are designed to break open the stomachs of insects, but also create punctures in human cells.

A filmmaker Zofia Hausman testified to the same committee that she filed in an Iowa town where infertility was high and where there “had not been a live birth in five years.”

In the amniotic fluid of those women whose babies died, genetic material engineered by Monsanto had been found.

We need a choice whether to consume GMOs or not. Corporate ads on television and in the mail are heavily claiming the poorest will suffer if labeling passes.

Actually, we all will suffer, poor or not. European citizens who did pass labeling laws did not see their costs rise.

Wake up and let’s set a good example for the nation. Passing 37 is only a small step in the process.

Ellen Karnowski lives in Kelseyville, Calif.