• Like
Proposition 37: Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Proposition 37: Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods

  • 909 views
Published

 

Published in News & Politics
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
909
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2

Actions

Shares
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Proposion  37:  Mandatory  Labeling  of  Genecally  Engineered   Foods   A  California  Ballot  Measure  
  • 2. Proposion  37:    California  Right  to  Know   Genecally  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. Proposion  37:    California  Right  to  Know   Exempons    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. Proposion  37:    Timing  and  Thresholds    Effecve  date  for  label  changes:    July  1,  2014    Exempon  for  processed  foods  unl  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. Proposion  37:    Enforcement    State,  local  or  private  pares     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 togetting GE-tainted foods out of our nations food supply forgood.” -Organic Consumers Association
  • 7. Inial  Polling  
  • 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. Inial  Support  for  the  Measure  was  Strong   (Feb  2012)   Total     Yes   64%   Total     No   29%   Q6.
  • 11. Focusing  on  “flaws”  provoke  greater  opposion   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,  Acve  Coalion  Engaged    More  than  160  organiza%ons  opposed  to   Proposi%on  37    Micro-­‐coali%on  of  500  scien%sts,  doctors,   academics  and  Nobel  Prize  winners  
  • 15. Online  Campaign:  Ads,  Infographics  
  • 16. Targeted  Mail  
  • 17. Television  and  Online  Video  
  • 18. Yes  on  37  Ad  
  • 19. 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
  • 20. 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.”  
  • 21. 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  
  • 22. Compliance  Opons  1.  Label    2.  Comply     Non-­‐GMO  counterpart  ingredients     Organic  counterpart  ingredients     Subs%tute  ingredients  3.  Sue  
  • 23. Compliance  Opons  1.  Label    2.  Comply     Non-­‐GMO  counterpart  ingredients     Organic  counterpart  ingredients     Subs%tute  ingredients  3.  Sue  
  • 24. 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  
  • 25. 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  
  • 26. 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  
  • 27.   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 ourway to getting GE-tainted foods out of our nationsfood supply for good. ”