After the quarter-century disgrace that is Proposition 65 litigation — run by and for lawyers’ interests, with no discernible benefit to the health of the citizenry — you’d think California voters would have learned a thing or two. But unless poll numbers reverse themselves, they’re on the way to approving this fall’s Proposition 37, ostensibly aimed at requiring labeling of genetically modified food, whose main sponsor just happens to be a Prop 65 lawyer. I explain in a new piece at Daily Caller. More coverage: Western Farm Press; Hank Campbell, Science 2.0; Ronald Bailey, Reason (& Red State).
More: defenders of Prop 37 point to this analysis (PDF) by economist James Cooper, arguing that 37 is drafted more narrowly than 65 in ways that would avert some of the potential for abusive litigation. And from Hans Bader: would the measure be open to challenge as unconstitutional, or as federally preempted?
11 Comments
How about a generic warning: “May contain GMO”. And stick it on everything. Put on “Earthquakes May Happen Here” too.
They should also require labels on non-genetic food that it is sprayed with more insccticide, and on “organic food” that it requires taking of more wild land and resources for no scientifically proven benefit to health.
Doesn’t California already require labels warning against nearly every chemical known to man?
The quest for the substance that does NOT cause cancer in rats, continues.
It makes you wonder why rats haven’t become extinct.
Note that even if no bull sperm were ever in a lab, then we’d have to label beef GMO, because beef cattle are not naturally-occuring animals. They were specifically bred to be what they are.
Why does NO ONE point out that all foods are genetically modified? Tomatoes, such as for sale at markets are hybrids, have been for over half-a-century and nobody has pointed out the “dangers”. Nobody has shown a contagion, allergy, or serious disease from eating genetically modified fruits, vegetables and proteins (meat, fish, fowl), yet all these foods come down through the centuries as GMO.
Why does NO ONE point out that all foods are genetically modified?
Because the terms ‘genetically modified’ and GMO specifically refer to foods modified by genetic engineering as opposed to say crossing two kinds of tomatoes by pollination.
While I see nothing wrong with GM food per se, consumers ought to be allowed to find out what they’re getting — and correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe the FDA allows most non-GM food to be labeled as such, even if both producers and consumers want to know it.
(I say “most” because some milk products are now labeled as coming from non-hormone-treated cattle. I assume this is because foods under USDA jurisdiction are exempt from FDA rules.)
[…] Times does draw the link to Proposition 37, the lawyer-sponsored measure I wrote about last week, which could open up a basis for rich new suits based on failure to correctly affix […]
Food lawsuits…
A New York Times story seems drafted from a press release as it implies that billionaire tobacco lawyers are successfully targeting the food industry. While it’s true that food manufacturers have been cosseted with dozens of class actions over labelin…
[…] thumbs down [editorial] “Natural” language a flashpoint [Glenn Lammi, WLF] Earlier here, […]