Proposition 37: Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods
•
1 like•419 views
Recommended
More Related Content
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (12)
Similar to Proposition 37: Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods
Similar to Proposition 37: Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods (20)
More from Minnesota AgriGrowth Council
More from Minnesota AgriGrowth Council (14)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Proposition 37: Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods
- 1. Proposi'on 37: Mandatory Labeling of Gene'cally Engineered Foods A California Ballot Measure
- 2. Proposi'on 37: California Right to Know Gene'cally Engineered Food Act Requires Front of Package label for GMO: “Gene%cally Engineered” “Par%ally Produced with Gene%c Engineering” “May be Par%ally Produced with Gene%c Engineering” Prohibits Natural labeling: “Natural” “Naturally made” “Naturally grown” “All natural” For all GMO products For all processed foods, including canned, smoked, pressed, cooked, frozen, dehydrated, fermented, milled, etc.
- 3. Proposi'on 37: California Right to Know Exemp'ons Foods cer%fied as organic Foods consis%ng of or derived en%rely from animals Alcoholic beverages Foods eaten away from home Foods made using GE processing aids or enzymes
- 4. Proposi'on 37: Timing and Thresholds Effec've date for label changes: July 1, 2014 Exemp'on for processed foods un'l July 1, 2019: Contain 10 or fewer GMO ingredients; and No single GMO ingredient accounts for more than 0.5% of the food’s total weight ASer July 1, 2019 Threshold drops to 0%
- 5. Proposi'on 37: Enforcement State, local or private par'es Injunc%ve relief No need to show: Inadequate remedy at law Irreparable harm Individual injury ONLY need to show failure to label product containing GE materials No requirement to give no%ce to aUorney general or alleged violator no%ce Plain%ff can recover aUorneys’ fees and costs California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) Damages – actual, res%tu%onary and puni%ve Must give alleged violator 30 days no%ce and opportunity to cure
- 6. Real Intent? Ban Ag Biotechnology “label would be the equivalent of a skull and crossbones” -Joseph Mercola, mercola.com “If we pass this initiative… we will be on our way to getting GE-tainted foods out of our nation's food supply for good.” -Organic Consumers Association
- 8. Most voters have heard something about GMOs, but few are well-‐informed Have you seen, heard, or read anything about genetically engineered foods, also called genetically modified organisms, or GMOs? Yes, a great deal Total Yes Yes, a liUle 72% No, have not seen/heard anything Q3.
- 9. Conceptually, California voters overwhelmingly support a labeling law In general, do you favor or oppose requiring labels on genetically-engineered foods or foods containing genetically-engineered ingredients? Total Favor 83% Total Oppose 11% Q6.
- 10. Ini'al Support for the Measure was Strong (Feb 2012) Total Yes 64% Total No 29% Q6.
- 11. Focusing on “flaws” provoke greater opposi'on than a frame about the benefits of G.E. foods Benefits of G.E Foods Flaws of the Measure Definitely yes 25% Total 22% Total Probably yes 21% Yes 11% Yes Undecided, lean yes 4% 50% 4% 36% Undecided, lean no 3% 4% Total Total Probably no 18% No 22% No Definitely no 21% 42% 30% 56% Undecided 8% 8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 0% 20% 40% 60%
- 12. The Strategy Focus on provisions and flaws of Proposi%on 37 Safety of Biotech foods: Reinforcement message, but not key to winning
- 13. The Campaign
- 14. Broad, Ac've Coali'on Engaged More than 160 organiza%ons opposed to Proposi%on 37 Micro-‐coali%on of 500 scien%sts, doctors, academics and Nobel Prize winners
- 16. Online Campaign: Ads, Infographics
- 17. Targeted Mail
- 18. Television and Online Video
- 21. Yes on 37 Ad
- 22. Public Polling California Business Roundtable and Pepperdine University Poll Television Advertising 9/26: 67% yes; 22% no 10/30: 39.1% yes; 50.5% no Final Vote: 47%Y, 53%N
- 23. Is it Over? “Net net, we believe consumers con%nue to voice their concerns about GMOs and think this debate will persist regardless of the Prop 37 outcome . . . . “ Efforts underway in Washington, Oregon, Connec%cut & Vermont Pressure against FDA “I think we’re going to get some victories in the next 12 months, and this will put addi%onal pressure on the federal government.”
- 24. Compliance: What Foods Would Have Been Affected? 88% of corn 94% of soybeans 40-‐70% of all food sold in grocery stores 34% of all food expenditures, adjusted for exemp%ons GMO Ingredients: • Corn flour, oil, starch & syrup • Fructose, dextrose, glucose, beet sugar • Soy flour & protein • Vegetable protein and oil • Canola oil
- 25. Compliance Op'ons 1. Label 2. Comply Non-‐GMO counterpart ingredients Organic counterpart ingredients Subs%tute ingredients 3. Sue
- 27. Compliance Op'ons 1. Label 2. Comply Non-‐GMO counterpart ingredients Organic counterpart ingredients Subs%tute ingredients 3. Sue
- 29. Legal Challenges 1. Free Speech 2. Express Preemp%on – USDA Products 3. Implied Preemp%on – FDA Products Field preemp%on Implied conflict preemp%on – frustra%on of purpose Implied conflict preemp%on -‐ impossibility
- 30. Legal Challenges 1. Free Speech 2. Express Preemp%on – USDA Products 3. Implied Preemp%on – FDA Products Field preemp%on Implied conflict preemp%on – frustra%on of purpose Implied conflict preemp%on -‐ impossibility
- 31. Legal Challenges 1. Free Speech 2. Express Preemp%on – USDA Products 3. Implied Preemp%on – FDA Products Field preemp%on Implied conflict preemp%on – frustra%on of purpose Implied conflict preemp%on -‐ impossibility
- 32. 1 Billion people are undernourished By 2050, we will have two more Chinas to feed Only about 12% more land, most of it marginal, is available to put into produc%on globally Each year, lack of food kills more people worldwide than war, AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis combined “If we pass this initiative… we will be on our way to getting GE-tainted foods out of our nation's food supply for good. ”