Tweet
Voters of California will likely have an opportunity to vote to require labeling of some genetically modified foods. The California Right to Know campaign filed over 970,000 signatures to the Secretary of State. Even if a significant percentage of the signatures are found to be invalid, the initiative will likely clear the 504,760 valid signature threshold to make it on the ballot. Barring some unusual developments, this mean the “California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act” would appear on the general election ballot in November.
If approved, the initiative would require food that is sold at retail outlets to be labeled if it contains ingredients that have been genetically engineered. The information would be included below the product’s ingredient list. The measure would not require such labeling for foods that are not packaged or food prepared for immediate consumption, i.e. at restaurants. The campaign claims there are already 50 other countries, including those in the European Union, that require similar labeling.
This initiative could easily have implications well beyond California, given the incredible size of the California market. Roughly 12% of the country lives in the state. It is possible companies will not want to deal with the added cost and difficulty of doing two different labels, one for California and one for the rest of the country. As a result they might start labeling the presence of genetically engineered food all over the country. Either way, expect an intense battle if this initiative qualifies for the ballot.
7 Comments
Seems like an easy fix for the food manufacturers would be to label all foods as “This package could contain Genetically Modified foods”.
Or “at least 10% ethanol”.
That would effectively inform the public and decrease cash flow to the corporate farming industry. It would create transparency, and we know that’s not how things work in USA,Inc. I’d like to see all seafood from the Gulf of Mexico labeled as such, but that won’t happen as it might negatively impact the cancer treatment industry’s bottom line.
Should the initiative pass, it’s also very likely that food manufacturers and packagers would seek to block implementation via the courts, claiming some sort of federal pre-emption doctrine. They might claim that requiring different labels for products shipped to California for sale there would violate the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution and/or the federal regulatory authority of agencies such as the FDA, FTC, etc.
Resolving this court battle could easily take a couple of years, and given the unrecoverable costs to the manufacturers of having dual labels, it’s pretty likely that the courts would enjoin enforcement of the labeling requirement until the issue is settled.
Regardless, the initiative is definitely worth supporting, and the court fight would only serve to further raise awareness of the GMO issue (as was the case with Prop 8).
Why not for fresh fruits and vegetables, too?
This is terrific news.
They have already tried that regarding the different requirements for smog controls on cars, and the original organic labels before the USDA Organic thing came along. It didn’t work. California won all those cases. So even if they try again in this instance, I doubt that Monsanto et al will win against California using the same logic as before.
In the case of cars, Detroit does manufacture just for California (and now Oregon and a couple of other states that have now adopted California smog standards). The USDA adopted California’s organic rules for the entire country so that one is now moot but it went nationwide. Kind of what we’re hoping for here.
Wisconsin and a few other big dairy states successfully got labeling for non-BGH milk. But they weren’t big enough to affect the markets like California is.
This initiative could go a long ways towards ending Monsanto’s grip on the nations crops. And about time too.