So why is Proposition 37 so important?
What will it change? All it does is label GMOs. It is reasonably
easy to avoid GMOs if you really want to already, we don't need
labeling...
We DO need labeling! Although you can
follow certain rules, and there are a lot of them, to avoid eating
GMOs, it is not simple. The Center for Food Safety produces a “True
Food Shopper's Guide” designed to help consumers avoid GMOs when
grocery shopping (1). This guide is a great resource, but is also 17
pages long. The easiest way to avoid GMOs is to buy organic, but
this is not always an option for consumers, and is usually
substantially more expensive. If we label GMOs, we can much more
easily avoid them. Another, and perhaps the greater, impact that
this proposition will have if passed is that it will inform people
that their food is being produced using GMOs. Several people that I
have talked to about Proposition 37 don't know what GMOs are. They
are unaware that their food is being produced using genetic
engineering. These people should know what they are eating, even if
they don't care. If companies are willing to use methods to produce
food that are outside the assumed realm, they should be required to
tell you.
When you buy a car, you assume certain
things about how it is made. You assume, for example, that the tires
are made of rubber. But imagine that the car you are considering is
made using a new type of substance for tires that doesn't appear to
be different than rubber, but is. You might not ask what the tires
are made of because they look like rubber to you and you are unaware
of any other substance that they could be made of. You don't ask
because you don't know that there is a question. In this example,
the car dealer is arguably committing fraud. He is selling you a
product that he knows is something slightly different than what you
are assuming it is. The car salesman should tell you before you buy
the car that the tires are made of this new substance instead of
rubber.
The same thing is happening with our
food. People assume that their food is grown in the dirt, and that
the seeds to start that food have come from a previous generation of
the same plant, with little alteration from human beings. While
genetically modified organisms are still grown in the dirt, the seed
has been changed through human insertion of a section of genetic code
from a different plant, animal, bacteria, or virus (3). We have
changed this process in a substantial way, but we are still producing
a similar product, one that is not obviously different. Just like
the example with the car tires, the company making or selling the
product has an obligation to tell us that this new process is being
used. Some people do not know to ask if there are GMOs in their
food, therefore companies should have the responsibility to inform
them.
GMOs are in a vast majority of our
food. According to the Pesticide Action Network of North America,
and Californians for Pesticide Reform, up to 80% of the food in our
grocery stores contain genetically engineered ingredients (2). PAN
North America also finds that 99% of genetically engineered seeds are
designed to either contain or survive repeated exposure to pesticides
and herbicides (3). Over 60 countries in the world already require
labeling of genetically engineered ingredients and some countries
have outlawed the sale of foods containing them altogether (4).
What difference does California make?
And what difference does labeling make? If we really want to do
something about GMOs shouldn't we push for a country-wide ban on
GMOs, not just labeling them in one state? Honestly, yes. But this
is where my political science background comes in handy. Although
some people might find this proposition a bit manipulative, it is
important to realize that politics is a game of compromises. Why not
go for a nation-wide ban? Because there is not enough public support
for it. So what is something that everyone can agree with? Labeling!
It does not cost corporations a great deal of money, and it makes
consumer decisions easier to make. This is something that the
general public, even those who don't know anything about GMOs, can
support.
This is what I mean by manipulative;
some people in the food movement are concerned about the safety of
GMOs and would like to see them no longer sold anywhere in the world.
To accomplish this, they have drafted this proposition, which does
not accomplish their ultimate goal. They have chosen this plan of
action with the hope that labeling GMOs will be enough legislation to
cause people to stop buying them, and corporations to stop using
them. This proposition is a method of raising support for non-GMO
food. When some supporters of this proposition say that they just
want GMOs labeled, they are not being completely honest. They have
temporarily compromised their goal to accomplish a step towards it.
This is how politics works, and this is part of the reason that
change is slow. Change cannot happen much faster than public
support, and social change is slow. With these facts in mind, it is
easier to see why Proposition 37 should be supported by many people.
This proposition will accomplish some
very useful things if it passes. If GMOs are labeled, we will
eliminate the car sales problem that I described. People will know
what is in their food if they simply read the label. They will no
longer have to ask a question about GMOs that many people may not
know to ask. Labeling will also raise awareness of GMOs. Some
people may know about GMOs but not know that many of the foods that
they eat contain them. Some people already don't want to eat GMOs
and labeling will make that easier and in some cases much more
affordable. There are products that are not organic that are also
GMO-free. With labeling, those products will be identifiable and
people will a smaller food budget will be able to vote against GMOs
with their dollar without having to buy more expensive organic food.
So why California? California has a
legislative system that allows propositions. A proposition is a
proposed law that any citizen in the state can add to the ballet if
they get enough signatures from other citizens that think it should
be voted on. In short, this proposition could make it on the ballet
in California. Also, California is the 8th largest
economy in the world (5). This means that if people can more easily
vote with their dollars against GMOs in California, it could have a
substantial effect on the rest of the country and the world as far as
what corporations want to sell. Also if corporations have to label
GMOs in their products for California, they may find it easier to
label them in other states as well, increasing even more the number
if people who will be able to vote with their dollar.
All in all this is a great
proposition. While the goals of the creators of this proposition
might be more drastic than the proposition, it is nothing more than a
requirement to label foods that contain genetically modified
ingredients. While some people may view this as a step towards a
more strict regulation of GMOs, you do not have to. I would ask that
you take the proposition for what it is and ask yourself if you could
vote for it. Don't think about the implications or the possible side
affects, think about how you would feel if you could tell if a
product contained GMOs simply by looking at the label. If you would
like this, vote for Proposition 37! If you are not in California and
you would like this, find a way to pass legislation where you are and
make it happen. This proposition allows us to know more about where
our food comes from, something that we desperately need in our food
system today.
