A proposed statewide measure in California, appearing on the ballot there in November, could change the way Americans approach their food supply. Proposition 37, also known as “The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act”, would require labels on all foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
Supporters of Prop. 37 say now is the right time for the bill. According to the text for the proposed measure, a large majority of consumers want to know if their foods have been produced with GMOs. It notes that over 50 countries, including several major U.S. trading partners, already have laws in place requiring the disclosure of GMO foods. And it points out that California has more organic farming than anywhere else in the United States, accounting for nearly 25 percent of all certified organic operations in the country.
Several major corporations and food producers are lined up against the bill and have reportedly invested about $25 million in their fight against Prop. 37. Food giant Monsanto (NYSE: MON), chemical company E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company (NYSE: DD.PA) and the Grocery Manufacturers Associations are among the organizations funding the No on 37 campaign. That campaign describes the measure as a deceptive food labeling scheme that would raise food costs, increase taxes and add to government bureaucracy.
“We support the position of the U.S. government, the American Medical Association and our customers that there is no health or safety need for labeling GMO food,” said Dow (NYSE: DOW) spokesman Garry Hamlin in an email to GreenBiz. “We recognize that some consumers want their food produced according to unique specifications. However, we believe that demands like these can be readily met by market dynamics, as demands for unique food products have always been met within free market systems in the past.”
Image of cubed tomato by Franck Boston via Shutterstock.
Next page: Passing the cost on to consumers?
Farmers primarily use GM
Farmers primarily use GM seeds because it reduces their cost or production per unit, and thus increases their net income. (Sometimes they also appreciate the benefit of using less-toxic pest control--safer chemicals. Their families appreciate this benefit too.) Farmers might switch from using GM seeds if buyers offered to pay more for non-GM crops (as they do for organic crops, or for non-GM identity-preserved crops for some uses). If buyers pay more for non-GM crops, they will have to charge consumers more for the products that contain them. So get ready to pay more for some foods. You already do this for kosher or halal foods, which are a similar situation. But for kosher or halal foods we don't label most foods "non-kosher" or "haraam" to help such consumers find the ones that fit their needs. We label the foods that fit their needs and concerns. Likewise with organic foods. We don't label all the rest of the food supply "non-organic". That would be silly.
The thing with GM is it is
The thing with GM is it is sometimes used to reduce environmental impact of a crop. For example by making water resistant crops that reduce the need for so much irrigation. But often GMs crops have a worst environmental impact – such as making them herbicide resistant so the crops can be sprayed with huge amounts of chemicals that only damage the weeds and not the crops.
As there are many different arguments both pro & anti GM, there is not yet a consensus either way, for that reason transparency is key so consumers and/or retailer can choose.
another idiotic idea from the
another idiotic idea from the la-la land (as if we did not have enough regulations and a deficit)