California voters sent a loud-and-clear message to special interests and anti-biotech agitators last week: Keep your hands off our food.
The rejection of Proposition 37, a deeply flawed ballot initiative, shows that an informed electorate can make wise choices about food policy. In the face of a propaganda campaign that relied on junk science and scare tactics, 53 percent of voters said no to Prop 37.
The advocates of this radical proposal had a simple but misleading message: Just label it. They sought to require special labels on certain food products that might carry ingredients derived from biotechnology. Yet their unnecessary rules would have raised everyone’s grocery-store bills and raised suspicion without delivering a single consumer benefit.
Prop 37 also would have been a jackpot for trial lawyers, who were its actual authors. Their goal was to rig a system of complex and burdensome regulations, spawning an untold number of petty and destructive lawsuits whose main purpose was to enrich the most aggressive litigators.
Farmers like me condemned Prop 37. So did doctors. The American Medical Association released a statement on the safety of genetically modified food and the pointlessness of politically motivated labeling. Scientists, grocers, and food producers also joined an impressive coalition of truth tellers.
Early signs suggested that the battle would be hard fought. The first polls hinted that voters might approve Prop 37. The organic food industry and its allies pumped nearly $9 million into an effort to coax voters to favor labeling. They understood the stakes: One of Prop 37’s most prominent backers, Mark Bittman of the New York Times, described the initiative as “the most important vote on food policy this decade.”
Media celebrities jumped into the fray as well. On his daytime television show, Dr. Mehmet Oz plumped for Prop 37. “For the first time ever in this country, genetically modified foods are on the ballot,” he said on October 17.
Like so many of Oz’s preposterous allegations about biotech crops, this statement was just plain wrong: In 2002, voters in Oregon overwhelmingly rejected a ballot proposal to mandate labeling. Several California counties have voted on biotech crops too.
Yet this was the hallmark of the Yes-on-37 campaign: Bad information, masquerading as fact.
As November approached, an educational campaign on Prop 37 and its defects began to reach the public.
Almost every daily newspaper in California advised voters to spurn Prop 37. They recognized Prop 37 as reckless and harmful. Their unanimity was a rare and remarkable thing, and voters understood the significance of this sweeping rebuff.
The polls started to change, reflecting popular sentiment as it turned against a fatally flawed initiative.
On Election Day, the people finally spoke. And when they did, they spoke decisively.
In beating back Prop 37; they said that America shouldn’t turn away from proven technologies. Nor should consumers bear the cost of expensive regulations that don’t offer any upside.
The most sensible anti-biotech activists may conclude that it’s time to abandon their quixotic quest. GM crops are an essential tool of 21st-century food production; helping farmers from Bakersfield to Burkina Faso grow even more safe and healthy food as they meet the huge challenge of feeding our families and the planet.
Unfortunately, the political battle over food probably will go on. Before the defeat of Prop 37, activists boasted about running similar initiatives in Oregon and Washington. Last week’s rout should discourage them, but perhaps it will drive them to try again, work harder, and spend more. They may also double down on their ruthless demonization of modern food production.
Our victory last week is a case study in success, but almost 4.3 million Californians voted against us. We must continue to tell our compelling story. In the months ahead, we can do it with the knowledge and confidence that educated voters will be on our side.
Ted Sheely raises lettuce, cotton, tomatoes, wheat, pistachios, wine grapes and garlic on a family farm in the California San Joaquin Valley. He volunteers as a board member for Truth About Trade and Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org).
Loading ...
(A) There’s 3.3 Million Votes to count, so don’t consider the battle BOUGHT, yet.
(2) All you Companies that stood with Monsanto? The cost of this action has just begun-guess whose goods we are NOT buying this Holiday Season?
(3) So, $46+ Million spent, so you could save US the “Costs associated with Labeling”…like you’re not going to recover that from us-right?
(4) Oh, by the way, WE’LL be labeling, expanding our activities nation-wide, so everybody ready to pony up MORE money-again-and again-and again.
(sighs and Groans from the Food Industry.)
“The organic food industry and its allies pumped nearly $9 million into an effort to coax voters to favor labeling.”
What about the seed companies like Monsanto and processed food giants like Coca Cola who pumped in $46 million dollars to coax voters into thinking a label that would resemble labels like “may contain wheat” was deceptive?
Yes, $46 million dollars. And you’re going to tell me those companies are worried about costs going up? Good grief.
It’s just a label, much like indicating wheat, peanuts or soy are in our foods: that information helps people make decisions about what they are consuming. There were no special interests other than concern for transparency. That’s it.
For people who actually want to “know” there is no mystery and anyone could learn the short list of crops that have any commercial biotech options: corn, soy, sugar beets, canola, cotton, alfalfa – on the produce side only some sweet corn and squash and papayas from Hawaii. Only a few other crops are even likely candidates. Its really not that hard – not hard enough to justify complicating the system for everyone just to address your own irrational fears
It’s only “irrational” if you “buy into” the Creve Coeur protestations of their products safety. As it’s 30+ year old Science and Tech, it seems to me their only hedging their profits until they find a way to “punt”, as if the recent Strategic Partnerships with Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, S Dak Univ, Stanford and CSIRO might suggest. Labeling exists in 61 Industrial Nations, in which the products actually sell for up to 1/2 the price as here-so Labeling doesn’t have a huge cost impact. Telling Americans to essentially “Shut up and buy what you’re told to…” IS having one. Monsanto and Friends can now plan on a State by State redux of California, as the Food brands that stood with them start seeing their Customer Base erode away. How much will make an impact? Consider what might happen to Kelloggs if just 10% of it’s Customers stop buying…not a pretty picture. But, hey, I THANK Monsanto for it’s little Pyrrhic victory-it awakened America to the scope of the issue, and guess what? Americans don’t like being robbed of choice.
I read and cannot believe. Why are you worried all the time with Monsanto? What did they do? I’mnot an employee but you act as an ex one…
Think in the people not in companies. Think in you. You want an organic nice-labeling food? N problem. There’s room for everyone. But that doesn’t mean we need to extermine all the rest. This is not black or white, in or out. Don’t act as JWB…
Let’s stop complaining and start acting. Thinking in all the people. Labeled or not. Monsanto fans or not. And propose. As people in Africa, South America, Asia, Oceania, Europe and North America are already doing. Think and act.
Gabriel Carballal.
Well,
(1) The Technology they promote is out-dated, an epic fail and downright dangerous to the Biosphere.
(2) They are polluting the soil, water and atmosphere in an effort to keep their obsolete goods in the Marketplace, rather than get back to the Lab and “stir up” the next generation-corporate laziness is inexcusable.
(3) Our soil is getting toasted. The nutrient factors are way down and thanks to their (yes-THEIR) coordinated efforts with the USDA (they have resistance to the same soil toxicity caused by this-who knew…of, yeah-ME)to “Geo-Engineer” using a heavy metal cocktail of Aluminum Oxide, Barium and Strontium…yum-yums all around.
Those will do for starters. I sent them a well-crafted Summary Proposal months ago with the research available then. Since then, new discoveries have only added impact to the positive programs I suggested. Of course, I’m not from Stanford, so I don’t rate daring to use my brain. You can do your own research. Start with the collected writings of Dr Don Huber, Professor Emeritus of Purdue. Oh, yeah…we have Monsanto Alumnus in charge of all of the key Cabinet Posts that have to do with Food and Crop Safety-you know, like Michael Taylor, Tom Vilsack, etc., etc. ad nauseum.