Voters have rejected Proposition 37 in California, the flawed and misguided food labeling measure. The No on 37 campaign, a coalition of family farmers, doctors, scientists, researchers, Nobel Prize winners, retailers, food companies, business groups, tax payer groups and community groups, said Californians saw through Prop. 37 and rejected the measure.
From the beginning, No on 37 allies argued that Prop. 37 was more than just a simple labeling measure, pointing out that it was misleading, costly and unnecessary based on the science of genetically engineered foods.
“California voters clearly saw through Prop 37 and rejected higher food costs, more lawsuits and more bureaucracy,” says Henry I. Miller, M.D., a fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and the founding director of the FDA’s Office o f Biotechnology (1989-1993). “Food labeling policy should be based on logic and science, not fear. Leading scientific organizations have all agreed that foods containing genetically engineered ingredients are safe and are not materially different from their traditional counterparts. We’re glad the voters rejected this misleading, costly and unnecessary measure.”
Nearly every daily newspaper in California urged a “No” vote on Prop. 37. In fact, more than 40 California newspapers recommended No on 37.
“Grocery retailers would have been hit the hardest by passage of Prop. 37, through more lawsuits, more bureaucracy and higher costs,” says Ronald Fong, president and CEO of the California Grocers Association. “These costs would have been passed on to consumers in the form of higher grocery bills.”
“California family farmers can breathe a little easier today,” says Jamie Johansson, an Oroville farmer who grows olives to make olive oil. Johansson is also second vice president of the California Farm Bureau Federation. “Prop. 37 would have imposed costly new regulations on California family farmers that no other state requires, putting us at a competitive disadvantage. Thankfully voters understood this and rejected Prop. 37 and voted instead to protect family farmers.”