California’s Prop. 37 is not stricter food regulation

Sept. 26, 2012

By Colin A. Carter

Californians will soon vote on Proposition 37, which requires that genetically modified (GM) food to be labeled in food stores throughout the state. Supporters argue that mandatory labeling would offer consumers greater choice and provide them with more information on the content of the foods they eat. How can anyone argue with such a simple and compelling claim that Prop. 37 will give us more information on food content?

Well, suppose the message isn’t true because the fine print of the proposed mandatory food labeling regulations would result in a much different outcome than promised. The most likely outcome would be a market where food category choice decreases under Prop. 37, rather than increases; and the added labeling information would be very imprecise and downright confusing to most consumers.

Prop. 37 would introduce a double standard for testing for GM purity in organic versus non-organic foods, which should be a huge red flag to voters. The organic industry helped write Prop. 37, and it exempted organic food from the very type of mandatory testing it wants to impose on other food suppliers.

If Prop. 37 passes, organic food may contain GM without violation of the new regulation. But non-organic food would have to comply with an impractical zero percent tolerance.

Suppose the lawyers behind Prop. 37 test two boxes of breakfast cereal, one box “organic” and one labeled as “non-GM.” If the tests come back showing each box has an identical low-level trace of GM (say due to a low amount of canola mixed in with wheat), then the lawyers can go after the supplier of the non-GM cereal, but the organic supplier is exempt.

Higher costs

Consumers who have no interest in GM warning labels will face higher food bills. And those who want to avoid buying GM food will not be better informed.

There are so many exemptions (such as organic, restaurant food, dairy products, etc.) that consumers will not know what percent GM ingredients they are eating if it is organic, a dairy product or restaurant food. At the same time, many food products will end up carrying a GM warning label in case they might have a trace amount of GM. How does such a regulation give consumers a better option for avoiding GM? The answer is that it does not.

Prop. 37 is not about stricter food regulations. Instead, it is about improving business opportunities for some of those behind the initiative.

Consumer activists, lawyers and organic-food groups are behind the initiative; while agribusiness, food manufactures and most retailers are opposed. If implemented, Prop. 37 would constitute the first mandatory GM labeling law in the United States. Similar attempts to pass mandatory GM labeling laws in other states have failed.

Voluntary labeling

Voluntary labeling is a much better solution for those consumers who want more practical information on the content of their food and they are willing to pay for it.

In the U.S. market where GM crops (such as corn, soybeans, canola and sugar beets) are common, zero tolerance for commingling with non-GM is just is not practical and is not even met today by the organic food industry. In fact, U.S. organic food regulations for processed foods require that the food contain at least 95 percent certified organic ingredients — a 5 percent tolerance. Why didn’t the organic industry use their own 5 percent standard for accidental contamination when Prop. 37 was drafted?

Other countries truly interested in mandatory labeling have not taken such an unrealistic zero tolerance approach as Prop. 37. In the European Union, the threshold is 0.9 percent for adventitious presence of GM, which is roughly the level used in California today by voluntary “GM free” labeling schemes such as the Non-GMO Project, a verification process organized by food retailers such as Whole Foods Market.

In Japan, a country much more averse to biotech foods than the United States, the legal tolerance level for accidental presence of GM ingredients in non-GM food is 5.0 percent of the top three ingredients. As a result of a practical labeling scheme, the Japanese consumer can purchase non-GM products, an option that would all but disappear with Prop. 37 in California.

If passed, the full economic effects of Prop. 37 are uncertain. But there is little doubt that the measure will soon end up in domestic and international courts as it would exclude certain foods from the California market due to the zero-tolerance criterion. Federal law, not state law, governs international trade in America.

Food manufacturers and retailers will be unwilling to provide non-GM products because of the litigation it would invite and the difficulty associated with obtaining non-GM ingredients that meet the zero percent tolerance. As a consequence, Prop. 37 would result in many products on the food shelf carrying a GM warning label.

In the breakfast cereal aisle, consumers’ choice would be reduced to either organic corn flakes or corn flakes labeled as possibly containing GM. It might get to the point where there are so many products with GM labels that most consumers would just ignore the labels because they would be everywhere.

Colin A. Carter is a professor of agriculture at the University of California, Davis, and the director of the Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics.

11 comments

Write a comment
  1. Edward Steele, Chief Investigator
    Edward Steele, Chief Investigator 26 September, 2012, 12:52

    I am 100% for voluntary labeling only. I don’t want our nanny state telling the job creators ™ what to put on the packages. In fact, I prefer to eat the food that out corp. masters tell us to eat. I trust our masters to feed us well.

    Reply this comment
  2. That Woman
    That Woman 26 September, 2012, 13:58

    The purpose of the Proposition is to kill businesses that use, make, produce, or sell agricultural products enhanced by that method. It is nothing more than more legislation to tarnish technological progress under the idiotic guise of a health threat. California seeks to send itself back to the Stone Age.

    Reply this comment
  3. eck
    eck 26 September, 2012, 19:53

    I think we have MORE than adequate food labeling. (by the way, is there some study as to whether or not more of this “fine print” stuff, just reduces the number of folks who even read it?) But, OK, if we’re going to this, we’ve got to require organic stuff carry the label “grown in shit, without those chemicals that protect you from disease”. No?

    Reply this comment
  4. Ted
    Ted "Eddy Baby" Steele, Associate Prof. 26 September, 2012, 20:14

    It’s all about FREEDOM !! Our sacred job creator masters ought to be free to put whatever they deem proper in our foods and we must and should eat same!

    LIBERTY FOR PATRIOTS!!!!!!!

    Reply this comment
  5. Richard Rider
    Richard Rider 27 September, 2012, 05:46

    Posted on my new blog http://www.riderrants.blogspot.com/ and Facebook. MANY thanks!

    Reply this comment
  6. Anna Severin
    Anna Severin 27 September, 2012, 22:15

    thanks for watching!

    Reply this comment
  7. Annika Speckhart
    Annika Speckhart 27 September, 2012, 22:16

    this is interesting

    Reply this comment
  8. JLSeagull
    JLSeagull 28 September, 2012, 12:18

    How many people pay attention to the Prop 65 warning about cancerous chemicals on the property that businesses are required to display. Prop 37 was written by lawyers for lawyers.

    Reply this comment
  9. Mark Talmont
    Mark Talmont 30 September, 2012, 11:40

    Interesting point of view, I was leaning towards “Yes” because I feel this GMO stuff has been imposed without adequate review in the first place–the initial federal ruling that GMO are presumed safe came from a committee chaired by Dan Quayle relying on Monsanto for advice. Obama appointed Monsanto lawyer Michael Taylor as the key advisor on such matters to the FDA.

    Perusing the stories about who is funding the “No” campaign raises more questions, the “Pro” side is able to cite data showing how much is coming from the biggest “organic” marketers, which raises the question why would they be against it if they are situated to benefit from mandatory labelling?

    Reply this comment
  10. Lisa
    Lisa 24 October, 2012, 17:20

    I just read the whole text of prop 37 and NO WHERE is it written that there will be a zero percent tolerance for unintentional contamination. In fact, the text says no sampling shall be take place unless it is consistent with the “principles recommended by by internationally recognized sources such as the International StandArds organization and the the Grain and feed Trade Association.” Where exactly did you come up with that zero tolerance information?? Also, any organic company has to already, by law, not use GMO methods. Here’s a question: why have the makers of Roundup herbicide and other big corporate giants like Kellog and Nestle put TENS of millions of dollars into the “no on 37” campaign. Hummmmmm.

    Reply this comment
  11. Ken
    Ken 8 November, 2012, 21:11

    I buy the argument that a tolerance threshold should be allowed — i.e. 1-5% GM contamination. Although it takes less than that level of contamination for Monsanto to sue you over the illegal seed usage. I see no issue giving exemptions to organics as they have many criteria they must meet to be certified organic. Still it really shouldn’t bother them one way or another if they are exempt or not – they should be GM free. I hope the repackage prop 37 with some of the above recommendations – Information is always good…

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply



Related Articles

In debate, Brown mocks Mississippi and Arkansas (i.e., the Clintons)

In Thursday night’s debate between Gov. Jerry Brown and Neel Kashkari, the candidates sounded pretty scripted until Brown was asked

Tilting at pension reform

Jan. 22, 2010 By ANTHONY PIGNATARO What to do about public employee pensions is the thorniest, nastiest, most difficult question

CA GOP convention reached ‘whole new level’ of inclusiveness

At last weekend’s spring convention in Burlingame, California Republicans promised an effort to “Rebuild, Renew, Reclaim.” “We’re pushing the party