November 2012 Election, California, Proposition 37

Vote Recommendation: No

Requiring labeling for something that cannot even acknowledge to have any appreciable health-related significance does not seem to be a meritous idea, especially considering the likely additional cost that will be incurred and invariably get passed on to the consumers who can derive no benefit from the information, except for a psychological one, and to that extent, much ill can come from it as well, since the required labeling makes an apparently meaningless trait seem unnecessarily alarming. The potential for more shakedown lawsuits also seems a significant factor to me. Furthermore, how does one imagine to control or even know where the results of genetic engineering are present? Certainly, the direct results of genetic engineering can be accounted for, but DNA has a way of spreading around. This is simply too useless and broad to be supportable.

See: November 2012 Election, California

Details

Genetically Engineered Foods. Mandatory Labeling.

Initiative Statute

Summary

Requires labeling of food sold to consumers made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways. Prohibits marketing such food, or other processed food, as “natural.” Provides exemptions. Fiscal Impact: Increased annual state costs from a few hundred thousand dollars to over $1 million to regulate the labeling of genetically engineered foods. Additional, but likely not significant, governmental costs to address violations under the measure.

External Resources

• Voter Information Guide - Secretary of State
• Official Title and Summary - Secretary of State
• Analysis - Secretary of State
• Arguments and Rebuttals - Secretary of State
• Text of Proposed Law - Secretary of State
• California Proposition 37 - Ballotpedia