California Proposition 37, Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food Initiative (2012)

California Proposition 37
Election date November 6, 2012
Topic Food and agriculture
Status d Defeated
Type State statute	Origin Citizens

2012 propositions
June 5
Proposition 28
Proposition 29
November 6
Proposition 30
Proposition 31
Proposition 32
Proposition 33
Proposition 34
Proposition 35
Proposition 36
Proposition 37
Proposition 38
Proposition 39
Proposition 40
Donations • Vendors
Endorsements • Full text
Ballot titles • Fiscal impact
Local measures

California Proposition 37 was on the ballot as an initiated state statute in California on November 6, 2012. It was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported requiring labeling for foods that are genetically modified and prohibiting labeling such foods as "natural".

A "no" vote opposed requiring labeling for foods that are genetically modified and prohibiting labeling such foods as "natural".

Election results

California Proposition 37
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		6,088,714	48.59%
No		6,442,371	51.41%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Full text

The full text can be read below:

This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of Article II of the California Constitution.

This initiative measure amends and adds sections to the Health and Safety Code; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in underline type to indicate that they are new.

PROPOSED LAW The people of the State of California do enact as follows: The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act

SECTION 1. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS

(a) California consumers have the right to know whether the foods they purchase were produced using genetic engineering. Genetic engineering of plants and animals often causes unintended consequences. Manipulating genes and inserting them into organisms is an imprecise process. The results are not always predictable or controllable, and they can lead to adverse health or environmental consequences.

(b) Government scientists have stated that the artificial insertion of DNA into plants, a technique unique to genetic engineering, can cause a variety of significant problems with plant foods. Such genetic engineering can increase the levels of known toxicants in foods and introduce new toxicants and health concerns.

(c) Mandatory identification of foods produced through genetic engineering can provide a critical method for tracking the potential health effects of eating genetically engineered foods.

(d) No federal or California law requires that food producers identify whether foods were produced using genetic engineering. At the same time, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not require safety studies of such foods. Unless these foods contain a known allergen, the FDA does not even require developers of genetically engineered crops to consult with the agency.

(e) Polls consistently show that more than 90 percent of the public want to know if their food was produced using genetic engineering.

(f) Fifty countries--including the European Union member states, Japan and other key U.S. trading partners--have laws mandating disclosure of genetically engineered foods. No international agreements prohibit the mandatory identification of foods produced through genetic engineering.

(g) Without disclosure, consumers of genetically engineered food can unknowingly violate their own dietary and religious restrictions.

(h) The cultivation of genetically engineered crops can also cause serious impacts to the environment. For example, most genetically engineered crops are designed to withstand weed-killing pesticides known as herbicides. As a result, hundreds of millions of pounds of additional herbicides have been used on U.S. farms. Because of the massive use of such products, herbicide-resistant weeds have flourished--a problem that has resulted, in turn, in the use of increasingly toxic herbicides. These toxic herbicides damage our agricultural areas, impair our drinking water, and pose health risks to farm workers and consumers. California consumers should have the choice to avoid purchasing foods production of which can lead to such environmental harm.

(i) Organic farming is a significant and increasingly important part of California agriculture. California has more organic cropland than any other state and has almost one out of every four certified organic operations in the nation. California's organic agriculture is growing faster than 20 percent a year.

(j) Organic farmers are prohibited from using genetically engineered seeds. Nonetheless, these farmers' crops are regularly threatened with accidental contamination from neighboring lands where genetically engineered crops abound. This risk of contamination can erode public confidence in California's organic products, significantly undermining this industry. Californians should have the choice to avoid purchasing foods whose production could harm the state's organic farmers and its organic foods industry.

(k) The labeling, advertising and marketing of genetically engineered foods using terms such as "natural," "naturally made," "naturally grown," or "all natural" is misleading to California consumers.

SEC. 2. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

The purpose of this measure is to create and enforce the fundamental right of the people of California to be fully informed about whether the food they purchase and eat is genetically engineered and not misbranded as natural so that they can choose for themselves whether to purchase and eat such foods. It shall be liberally construed to fulfill this purpose.

SEC. 3.

Article 6.6 (commencing with Section 110808) is added to Chapter 5 of Part 5 of Division 104 of the Health and Safety Code, to read:

THE CALIFORNIA RIGHT TO KNOW GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD ACT

110808. Definitions

The following definitions shall apply only for the purposes of this article:

(a) Cultivated commercially. "Cultivated commercially" means grown or raised by a person in the course of his business or trade and sold within the United States.

(b) Enzyme. "Enzyme" means a protein that catalyzes chemical reactions of other substances without itself being destroyed or altered upon completion of the reactions.

(c) Genetically engineered. (1) "Genetically engineered" means any food that is produced from an organism or organisms in which the genetic material has been changed through the application of:

(A) In vitro nucleic acid techniques, including recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) techniques and the direct injection of nucleic acid into cells or organelles, or

(B) Fusion of cells, including protoplast fusion, or hybridization techniques that overcome natural physiological, reproductive, or recombination barriers, where the donor cells/protoplasts do not fall within the same taxonomic family, in a way that does not occur by natural multiplication or natural recombination.

(2) For purposes of this subdivision:

(A) "Organism" means any biological entity capable of replication, reproduction, or transferring genetic material.

(B) "In vitro nucleic acid techniques" include, but are not limited to, recombinant DNA or RNA techniques that use vector systems and techniques involving the direct introduction into the organisms of hereditary materials prepared outside the organisms such as micro-injection, macro-injection, chemoporation, electroporation, micro-encapsulation, and liposome fusion.

(d) Processed food. "Processed food" means any food other than a raw agricultural commodity, and includes any food produced from a raw agricultural commodity that has been subject to processing such as canning, smoking, pressing, cooking, freezing, dehydration, fermentation, or milling.

(e) Processing aid. "Processing aid" means:

(1) A substance that is added to a food during the processing of such food, but is removed in some manner from the food before it is packaged in its finished form;

(2) A substance that is added to a food during processing, is converted into constituents normally present in the food, and does not significantly increase the amount of the constituents naturally found in the food; or

(3) A substance that is added to a food for its technical or functional effect in the processing, but is present in the finished food at insignificant levels and does not have any technical or functional effect in that finished food.

(f) Food Facility. "Food facility" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 113789.

110809. Disclosure With Respect to Genetic Engineering of Food

(a) Commencing July 1, 2014, any food offered for retail sale in California is misbranded if it is or may have been entirely or partially produced with genetic engineering and that fact is not disclosed:

(1) In the case of a raw agricultural commodity on the package offered for retail sale, with the clear and conspicuous words "Genetically Engineered" on the front of the package of such commodity or, in the case of any such commodity that is not separately packaged or labeled, on a label appearing on the retail store shelf or bin in which such commodity is displayed for sale;

(2) In the case of any processed food, in clear and conspicuous language on the front or back of the package of such food, with the words "Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering" or "May be Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering."

(b) Subdivision (a) of this section and subdivision (e) of Section 110809.2 shall not be construed to require either the listing or identification of any ingredient or ingredients that were genetically engineered or that the term "genetically engineered" be placed immediately preceding any common name or primary product descriptor of a food.

110809.1. Misbranding of Genetically Engineered Foods as "Natural"

In addition to any disclosure required by Section 110809, if a food meets any of the definitions in subdivision (c) or (d) of Section 110808, and is not otherwise exempted from labeling under Section 110809.2, the food may not in California, on its label, accompanying signage in a retail establishment, or in any advertising or promotional materials, state or imply that the food is "natural," "naturally made," "naturally grown," "all natural," or any words of similar import that would have any tendency to mislead any consumer.

110809.2. Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food--Exemptions

The requirements of Section 110809 shall not apply to any of the following:

(a) Food consisting entirely of, or derived entirely from, an animal that has not itself been genetically engineered, regardless of whether such animal has been fed or injected with any genetically engineered food or any drug that has been produced through means of genetic engineering.

(b) A raw agricultural commodity or food derived therefrom that has been grown, raised, or produced without the knowing and intentional use of genetically engineered seed or food. Food will be deemed to be described in the preceding sentence only if the person otherwise responsible for complying with the requirements of subdivision (a) of Section 110809 with respect to a raw agricultural commodity or food obtains, from whoever sold the commodity or food to that person, a sworn statement that such commodity or food: (1) has not been knowingly or intentionally genetically engineered; and (2) has been segregated from, and has not been knowingly or intentionally commingled with, food that may have been genetically engineered at any time. In providing such a sworn statement, any person may rely on a sworn statement from his or her own supplier that contains the affirmation set forth in the preceding sentence.

(c) Any processed food that would be subject to Section 110809 solely because it includes one or more genetically engineered processing aids or enzymes.

(d) Any alcoholic beverage that is subject to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, set forth in Division 9 (commencing with Section 23000) of the Business and Professions Code.

(e) Until July 1, 2019, any processed food that would be subject to Section 110809 solely because it includes one or more genetically engineered ingredients, provided that: (1) no single such ingredient accounts for more than one-half of one percent of the total weight of such processed food; and (2) the processed food does not contain more than 10 such ingredients.

(f) Food that an independent organization has determined has not been knowingly and intentionally produced from or commingled with genetically engineered seed or genetically engineered food, provided that such determination has been made pursuant to a sampling and testing procedure approved in regulations adopted by the department. No sampling procedure shall be approved by the department unless sampling is done according to a statistically valid sampling plan consistent with principles recommended by internationally recognized sources such as the International Standards Organization (ISO) and the Grain and Feed Trade Association (GAFTA). No testing procedure shall be approved by the department unless: (1) it is consistent with the most recent "Guidelines on Performance Criteria and Validation of Methods for Detection, Identification and Quantification of Specific DNA Sequences and Specific Proteins in Foods," (CAC/GL 74 (2010)) published by the Codex Alimentarius Commission; and (2) it does not rely on testing of processed foods in which no DNA is detectable.

(g) Food that has been lawfully certified to be labeled, marketed, and offered for sale as "organic" pursuant to the federal Organic Food Products Act of 1990 and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto by the United States Department of Agriculture.

(h) Food that is not packaged for retail sale and that either: (1) is a processed food prepared and intended for immediate human consumption or (2) is served, sold, or otherwise provided in any restaurant or other food facility that is primarily engaged in the sale of food prepared and intended for immediate human consumption.

(i) Medical food.

110809.3. Adoption of Regulations

The department may adopt any regulations that it determines are necessary for the enforcement and interpretation of this article, provided that the department shall not be authorized to create any exemptions beyond those specified in Section 110809.2.

110809.4. Enforcement

In addition to any action under Article 4 (commencing with Section 111900) of Chapter 8, any violation of Section 110809 or 110890.1 shall be deemed a violation of paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 1770 of the Civil Code and may be prosecuted under Title 1.5 (commencing with section 1750) of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code, save that the consumer bringing the action need not establish any specific damage from, or prove any reliance on, the alleged violation. The failure to make any disclosure required by Section 110809, or the making of a statement prohibited by section 110809.1, shall each be deemed to cause damage in at least the amount of the actual or offered retail price of each package or product alleged to be in violation.

SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT

Section 111910 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read:

111910. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 111900 or any other provision of law, any person may bring an action in superior court pursuant to this section and the court shall have jurisdiction upon hearing and for cause shown, to grant a temporary or permanent injunction restraining any person from violating any provision of Article 6.6 (commencing with Section 110808), or Article 7 (commencing with Section 110810) of Chapter 5. Any proceeding under this section shall conform to the requirements of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 525) of Title 7 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, except that the person shall not be required to allege facts necessary to show, or tending to show, lack of adequate remedy at law, or to show, or tending to show, irreparable damage or loss, or to show, or tending to show, unique or special individual injury or damages.

(b) In addition to the injunctive relief provided in subdivision (a), the court may award to that person, organization, or entity reasonable attorney's fees and all reasonable costs incurred in investigating and prosecuting the action as determined by the court.

(c) This section shall not be construed to limit or alter the powers of the department and its authorized agents to bring an action to enforce this chapter pursuant to Section 111900 or any other provision of law.

SEC. 5. MISBRANDING

Section 110663 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:

110663. Any food is misbranded if its labeling does not conform to the requirements of Section 110809 or 110809.1.

SEC. 6. SEVERABILITY

If any provision of this initiative or the application thereof is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, that shall not affect other provisions or applications of the initiative that can be given effect without the invalid or unconstitutional provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this initiative are severable.

SEC. 7. CONSTRUCTION WITH OTHER LAWS

This initiative shall be construed to supplement, not to supersede, the requirements of any federal or California statute or regulation that provides for less stringent or less complete labeling of any raw agricultural commodity or processed food subject to the provisions of this initiative.

SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE

This initiative shall become effective upon enactment pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 10 of Article II of the California Constitution.

SEC. 9. CONFLICTING MEASURES

In the event that another measure or measures appearing on the same statewide ballot impose additional requirements relating to the production, sale and/or labeling of genetically engineered food, then the provisions of the other measure or measures, if approved by the voters, shall be harmonized with the provisions of this act, provided that the provisions of the other measure or measures do not prevent or excuse compliance with the requirements of this act.

In the event that the provisions of the other measure or measures prevent or excuse compliance with the provisions of this act, and this act receives a greater number of affirmative votes, then the provisions of this act shall prevail in their entirety, and the other measure or measures shall be null and void.

SEC. 10. AMENDMENTS

This initiative may be amended by the Legislature, but only to further its intent and purpose, by a statute passed by a two-thirds vote in each house.

Fiscal impact

See also: Fiscal impact statements for California's 2012 ballot propositions

The following is a summary of the initiative's estimated fiscal impact on state and local government that was prepared by the California Legislative Analyst's Office and the Director of Finance.

“

Increase in State Administrative Costs. This measure would result in additional state costs for DPH to regulate the labeling of GE foods, such as reviewing documents and performing periodic inspections to determine whether foods are actually being sold with the correct labels. Depending on how and the extent to which the department chooses to implement these regulations (such as how often it chose to inspect grocery stores), these costs could range from a few hundred thousand dollars to over $1 million annually. Potential Increase in Costs Associated With Litigation. As described above, this measure allows individuals to sue for violations of the labeling requirements. As this would increase the number of cases filed in state courts, the state and counties would incur additional costs to process and hear the additional cases. The extent of these costs would depend on the number of cases filed, the number of cases prosecuted by state and local governments, and how they are decided by the courts. Some of the increased court costs would be supported by the court filing fees that the parties involved in each case would be required to pay under existing law. In the context of overall court spending, these costs are not likely to be significant in the longer run.

”

Measure design

Proposition 37 would have done the following:

• required labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if the food is made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways;
• required the California Department of Public Health (DPH) to regulate food labeling;
• prohibited labeling or advertising such food as "natural";
• exempted 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."

Proposition 37 would have required that raw foods produced wholly or in part by genetic engineering to have a label on the front package with the words Genetically Modified. The measure would have required processed produced wholly or in part by genetic engineering to be labeled with the words Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering or May be Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering.

Support

The "Yes on 37" logo

Supporters

• The Institute for Responsible Technology
• The California Democratic Party
• The Green Party of California
• Dr. Michelle Pero, pediatrician
• Rebecca Spector, West Coast Director of the Center for Food Safety
• Grant Lundberg, Cchief Executive Officer of Lundberg Family Farms
• Jamie Court, president of Consumer Watchdog
• Jim Cochran, general manager of Swanton Berry Farm
• Dr. Marcia Ishil-Eiteman, senior scientist with the Pesticide Action Network
• Organic Consumers Association]
• Nature's Path
• Chipotle Mexican Grill

Official arguments

The official arguments in favor of Proposition 37 that were presented in the state's 2012 voter guide were signed by the following people:

• Dr. Michelle Pero, pediatrician;
• Rebecca Spector, West Coast Director of the Center for Food Safety;
• Grant Lundberg, Cchief Executive Officer of Lundberg Family Farms;
• Jamie Court, president of Consumer Watchdog;
• Jim Cochran, general manager of Swanton Berry Farm; and
• Dr. Marcia Ishil-Eiteman, senior scientist with the Pesticide Action Network.

The arguments were as follows:

“

YES ON PROPOSITION 37—because you should have the right to know what is in your food. Voting Yes on Prop. 37 means three things YOU WILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT’S IN YOUR FOOD, and whether your food is produced using genetic engineering. FOOD WILL BE LABELED ACCURATELY. Food labels will have to disclose if the product was produced through genetic engineering. PROTECTING YOUR FAMILY’S HEALTH WILL BE EASIER. You’ll have the information you need about foods that some physicians and scientists say are linked to allergies and other significant health risks. The food we buy already has nutritional information on the labels. With Proposition 37, we will have information, in plain language, if the food was genetically engineered, which means the food has DNA that was artificially altered in a laboratory using genes from viruses, bacteria, or other plants or animals. Because genetically engineered foods are controversial, over 40 countries around the world require labels for genetically engineered foods, including most of Europe, Japan, and even China and India. Shouldn’t American companies give Americans the same information they give foreigners? There are no long-term health studies that have proven that genetically engineered food is safe for humans. Whether you buy genetically engineered food or not, you have a right to know what you are buying and not gamble on your family’s health. Labeling lets us know what’s in our food so we can decide for ourselves. PROPOSITION 37 IS A SIMPLE, COMMON SENSE MEASURE. It doesn’t cost anything to include information on a label, and it’s phased in, giving manufacturers time to print new labels telling you what’s in the food, or change their products if they do not want to sell food produced using genetic engineering. Proposition 37 also prevents the misleading use of the word “natural” on products that are genetically engineered. Big food manufacturers and agrichemical companies and their lobbyists oppose this measure. Many of these are the same companies that lied to us about the effects of pesticides or fought to keep other information off food labels, such as the number of calories, or how much fat or salt is in their products. Now they want to keep us in the dark about their genetic engineering of our foods. Whether you want to eat genetically engineered foods or not, PROPOSITION 37 GIVES YOU THE POWER to choose what foods to feed your family. The big chemical companies should not make the decision for you. Consumers, family farmers, doctors, nurses, nutritionists, and small business people and NEARLY ONE MILLION CALIFORNIANS ALREADY STEPPED UP TO SIGN THE PETITIONS GIVING YOU THE RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT’S IN OUR FOOD. WILL YOU JOIN THEM? Find out more or join us now at www.CARightToKnow.org. When you vote on Prop. 37, please ask yourself just one question: DO I HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT IS IN THE FOOD I EAT AND FEED MY FAMILY? The answer is Yes on Proposition 37. 37’s so-called “right to know” regulations are really a deceptive scheme, full of special-interest exemptions and hidden costs for consumers and taxpayers. 37 exempts milk, cheese and meat from its labeling requirements. It exempts beer, wine, liquor, food sold at restaurants and other foods containing genetically engineered (GE) ingredients. In fact, IT EXEMPTS TWO-THIRDS OF THE FOODS CALIFORNIANS CONSUME—including products made by corporations funding the 37 campaign. CREATES NEW SHAKEDOWN LAWSUITS 37 was written by a trial lawyer who specializes in filing lawsuits against businesses. It creates a new category of shakedown lawsuits allowing lawyers to sue farmers, grocers, and food companies— without any proof of violation or damage. CONSUMERS WOULD GET MISLEADING INFORMATION More than 400 scientific studies have shown foods made with GE ingredients are safe. Leading health organizations like the American Medical Association, World Health Organization, National Academy of Sciences, 24 Nobel Prize winning scientists, and US Food and Drug Administration agree. “There is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods.”—American Medical Association HIGHER COSTS FOR CONSUMERS AND TAXPAYERS Studies show that, by forcing many common food products to be repackaged or remade with higher-priced ingredients, 37 would cost the average California family hundreds of dollars more per year for groceries. The official state fiscal impact analysis concludes that administering 37’s red tape and lawsuits would cost taxpayers millions. Even 37’s largest funder admits it “would be an expensive logistical nightmare.” 37 IS A DECEPTIVE AND COSTLY SCHEME. Vote NO! www.NoProp37.com

”

Opposition

The "No on Prop 37" logo

Opponents

• The California Republican Party.

Arguments

Official arguments

The official arguments in opposition to Proposition 37 that were presented in the state's 2012 voter guide were signed by the following people:

• Dr. Bob Goldberg, member of the National Academy of Sciences;
• Jamie Johansson, family farmer in California;
• Betty Jo Toccoli, president of the California Small Business Association;
• Jonnalee Henderson of the California Farm Bureau Federation;
• Dr. Henry I. Miller, founding director of the Office of Biotechnology of the Food & Drug Administration;
• Tom Hudson, executive director of the California Taxpayer Protection Committee

The arguments were as follows:

“

Prop. 37 isn’t a simple measure, like promoters claim. It’s 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. And, it’s full of specialinterest exemptions. PROP. 37 CONFLICTS WITH SCIENCE Biotechnology, also called genetic engineering (GE), has been used for nearly two decades to grow varieties of corn, soybeans and other crops that resist diseases and insects and require fewer pesticides. Thousands of common foods are made with ingredients from biotech crops. Prop. 37 bans these perfectly safe foods in California unless they’re specially relabeled or remade with higher cost ingredients. The US Food and Drug Administration says such a labeling policy would “be inherently misleading.” Respected scientific and medical organizations have concluded that biotech foods are safe, including: • National Academy of Sciences • American Council on Science and Health • Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics • World Health Organization “There is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods.”—American Medical Association, June 2012 PROP. 37: FULL OF SPECIAL-INTEREST EXEMPTIONS “Prop. 37’s arbitrary regulations and exemptions would benefit certain special interests, but not consumers.”—Dr. Christine Bruhn, Department of Food Science and Technology, UC Davis 37 is full of absurd, politically motivated exemptions. It requires special labels on soy milk, but exempts cow’s milk and dairy products. Fruit juice requires a label, but alcohol is exempt. Pet foods containing meat require labels, but meats for human consumption are exempt. Food imported from China and other foreign countries are exempt if sellers simply claim their products are “GE free.” Unscrupulous foreign companies could game the system. PROP. 37 AUTHORIZES SHAKEDOWN LAWSUITS It was written by a trial lawyer to benefit trial lawyers. It creates a new class of “headhunter lawsuits,” allowing lawyers to sue family farmers and grocers without any proof of harm. “37 lets trial lawyers use shakedown lawsuits to squeeze money from family farmers and grocers—costing California courts, businesses and taxpayers millions.”—California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse PROP. 37: MORE BUREAUCRACY AND TAXPAYER COSTS 37 requires state bureaucrats to administer its complex requirements by monitoring tens of thousands of food labels. It sets no limit on how many millions would be spent on bureaucracy, red tape and lawsuits. It’s a blank check . . . paid by taxpayers. PROP. 37 MEANS HIGHER FOOD COSTS 37 forces farmers and food companies to implement costly new operations or switch to higher-priced, non-GE or organic ingredients to sell food in California. Economic studies show this would increase food costs for the average family by hundreds of dollars annually—a HIDDEN FOOD TAX that would especially hurt seniors and low-income families who can least afford it. “37 would unfairly hurt family farmers and consumers. It must be stopped.”—California Farm Bureau Federation, representing 80,000 farmers Join scientists, medical experts, family farmers, taxpayer advocates, small businesses. VOTE NO ON 37. STOP THIS DECEPTIVE, COSTLY FOOD LABELING SCHEME.

”

Media editorials

2012 propositions
June 5
Proposition 28
Proposition 29
November 6
Proposition 30
Proposition 31
Proposition 32
Proposition 33
Proposition 34
Proposition 35
Proposition 36
Proposition 37
Proposition 38
Proposition 39
Proposition 40
Donations • Vendors
Endorsements • Full text
Ballot titles • Fiscal impact
Local measures

See also: Endorsements of California ballot measures, 2012

Support

• The Bay Area Reporter: "Prohibited in many countries (e.g. France), no one really knows the health risks of genetically engineered food. This is a transparency measure, which will allow the consumer to make an informed decision. It would be the first such measure of its kind in the United States."

• The Marin Independent Journal: "Consumers have a right to know what they are buying and consuming."

• The North County Times: "Proposition 37 is as common-sense a measure as Californians have had a chance to approve in quite some time."

• The San Francisco Bay Guardian: "Prop. 37 doesn't seek regulations or limits in any way. It just mandates that GMO food be labeled — the way it is in at least 50 countries worldwide, including all of the European Union, China, Japan and Russia."

Opposition

• The Contra Costa Times: "Proposition 37 purports to be a simple law that requires proper labeling to identify so-called genetically modified food. If that was all it did, we would be for it. Unfortunately, it does much more, and we think voters should send it back to its creators for some modification."

• The Daily Democrat (Woodland, California): "While we support identification of genetically modified food, this measure is so convoluted as to impose excessive costs on our state's farmers and agricultural industries."

• The Fresno Bee: "Under Prop. 37, no food that uses genetically engineered ingredients could be called natural. That seems to make certain sense. But it contains wording that could prohibit 'natural' labels on any food that has been pressed or milled. That might include grain, which is milled, or olive oil, which is produced by pressing olives. Proponents say that wasn't their intent. But that's no guarantee against lawsuits."

• The Los Angeles Daily News: "...once you get past the pleasing outside surface of this proposition (more information is good, right?), it reveals a rotten interior that pits the organic food industry against the non-organic food industry, includes special interest exemptions and sets up a system ripe for lawsuit abuse."

• The Los Angeles Times: "Unfortunately, the initiative to require labeling of those ingredients is sloppily written. It contains language that, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office, could be construed by the courts to imply that processed foods could not be labeled as 'natural' even if they weren't genetically engineered. Most of the burden for ensuring that foods are properly labeled would fall not on producers but on retailers, which would have to get written statements from their suppliers verifying that there were no bioengineered ingredients — a paperwork mandate that could make it hard for mom-and-pop groceries to stay in business. Enforcement would largely occur through lawsuits brought by members of the public who suspect grocers of selling unlabeled food, a messy and potentially expensive way to bring about compliance."

• The Merced Sun-Star: "The initiative would grant authority over labeling to the California Department of Public Health, which already has plenty of work combating food-borne pathogens. For state government, the cost of the additional duty would be relatively small, but the initiative provides no funding to cover the additional work."

• The Modesto Bee: " This flawed measure would set back the cause of labeling."

• The Orange County Register: "Voters should be concerned that Prop. 37 would likely spawn waves of lawsuits, with the litigation and enforcement costs passed on to grocers and the consumers. The initiative's language invites abuse."

• The Press-Enterprise: "Prop. 37 is the wrong approach to addressing the merits or dangers of genetically engineered food. Whatever its intent, this badly written, logically muddled initiative stands to do more mischief than good."

• The Redding Record Searchlight: "But as written, Proposition 37 would create a fertile new field of litigation. Retailers would be mainly responsible for ensuring the proper labeling of the products they sell, overseen by the state Department of Public Health, but private lawyers and activists would have the power to sue over alleged violations and collect their costs and fees — even if nobody's suffered any damages. More work for creative plaintiff's lawyers and more hassles for businesses? That is not what California needs."

• The Sacramento Bee: "Proposition 37 is a classic example of an initiative that shouldn't be on the ballot. It is an overreach, is ambiguous, and would open the way for countless lawsuits against retailers who sell food that might lack the proper labeling."

• The San Bernardino Sun: "The most concerning aspect of Prop. 37 is its method of 'enforcement.' It allows every member of the public to become an enforcer, dropping lawsuits if they only suspect noncompliance but have no evidence...What a nightmare scenario for grocers small and large who, under the terms of the initiative, would have to keep reams of paperwork certifying that all the food they sell is properly labeled as to which might contain genetically modified organisms or not."

• The San Diego Union-Tribune: "Should genetically modified food be labeled and face more thorough regulation? That is a completely valid question, one that should be the focus of congressional hearings and possible federal legislation. It is not, however, an issue that should be addressed via a weakly crafted state ballot proposition whose leading donor appears to stand to gain from its passage."

• The San Francisco Chronicle: "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."

• The Santa Cruz Sentinel: "Citizens would be empowered to sue grocers they believe to be selling unlabeled GE foods, without needing to prove any damages. Clearly, this provision would create even more lawsuits. And who would this benefit? Lawyers."

• The Ventura County Star: "Such a law would create mistrust and confusion about the foods that Californians eat."

• The Victorville Daily Press: "Proposition 37 is, at bottom, another means of adding income to those lawyers — and they seem to be legion — who seek remuneration by bringing suit under what would otherwise be frivolous circumstances."

Polling information

See also: Polls, 2012 ballot measures

Poll results for the measure are detailed below.

Date of Poll	Pollster	In favor	Opposed	Undecided	Number polled
September 17-23, 2012	USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times	61%	25%	14%	1,504
October 7-9, 2012	SurveyUSA	39%	30%	31%	700
October 7-10, 2012	California Business Roundtable	48.3%	40.2%	11.5%	830
October 21-28, 2012	California Business Roundtable	39.1%	50.5%	10.5%	2,115

Path to the ballot

See also: California signature requirements and California ballot initiative petition signature costs

• James Wheaton submitted a letter requesting a ballot title for Version #11-0071 on November 9, 2011.
• Wheaton submitted a letter requesting a ballot title for Version #11-0099 on December 20, 2011.
• The ballot title and ballot summary for Version #11-0071 was issued by California's attorney general's office on January 5, 2012. The issue date for Version #11-0099 was February 14, 2012.
• 504,760 valid signatures were required to qualify the measure for the ballot.
• The 150-day circulation deadline for #11-0071 was June 4, 2012, while the 150-day deadline for Version #11-0099 was July 13, 2012.
• Supporters filed about 970,000 signatures in early May on Version #11-0099.
• The measure was certified for the November 6, 2012, ballot on June 11, 2012.

Cost of signature collection:

The cost of collecting the signatures to qualify Proposition 37 for the ballot came to $1,463,968.

The signature vendor was Masterson & Wright.

Lawsuits

See also: List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2012

Analysis lawsuit

Supporters of Proposition 37 filed a lawsuit in Sacramento Superior Court on August 9, 2012. The lawsuit was successful. The purpose of the lawsuit was to force the California Secretary of State to revise the state's "impartial analysis" of Proposition 37 that appeared in the state's official voter guide. The correction asked for by Proposition 37 supporters, and ordered by the court, amounted to the change of one word. Specifically, the court ordered that the word "some" replace the word "all" in this sentence: "Given the way the measure is written, there is a possibility that these restrictions would be interpreted by the courts to apply to some processed foods regardless of whether they are genetically engineered." (In the actual voter guide, the word some will not appear in underlined bold form.)

See also

2012 Measures

• 2012 Measures
• Food policy on the ballot
• Business regulations on the ballot
• 2012 legislative sessions

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

Suggest a link

• November 2012 official voter guide
• Ballot title, summary and LAO analysis of Proposition 37
• Arguments for and against Proposition 37 in the official state voter guide
• Letter requesting a ballot title for Initiative 11-0099
• Living Voters Guide to Proposition 37
• Proposition 37, an overview prepared by the League of Women Voters of California
• Proposition 37 on Voter's Edge
• Proposition 37 Cheatsheet from KCET
• Proposition 37 on California Choices (sponsored by Next 10, IGS at UC Berkeley, the UC San Diego Political Science Department, the Bill Lane Center for the American West at Stanford, and the Center for CA Studies at Sac State)
• Proposition 37 at the California Voter Foundation

Supporters:

• "California Right to Know"/Yes on 37 website
• "Yes on 37" on Facebook
• "Yes on 37" on Twitter
• "Yes on 37" campaign finance disclosures (dead link)
• Organic Consumer's Association "Yes on 37" campaign finance disclosures
• "Yes on 37 Lake County" campaign finance disclosures

Opponents:

• "No on Prop 37" website
• "No on Prop 37" on Facebook
• "No on Prop 37" on Twitter
• "No on Prop 37" campaign finance disclosures

Additional reading:

• Why PepsiCo Is Fighting GMO Labeling in California
• The Mercenary Intent Behind Proposition 37's GM Food Labeling
• Is Team Organic Outspending Team Big Ag in the GMO Labeling Fight?
• Big-food company bucks make Prop. 37 unpredictable