@ www.theotherpress.ca

Opinions

 

Label me hungry

The relevance of
Californias Proposition 37

By Steven Mulleady,
Contributor

(): November 6 is
an important vote
that, if passed, would
require Californian
businesses to label food
made from certain geneti-
cally modified plants
or animals and also
creates prohibitions on
marketing such food as
‘natural.’ Also included
will be a regulatory
body to implement the
labeling and marketing
restrictions, presumably
costing the state from a
few hundred thousand
dollars to an estimated
one million dollars. Such
products were approved
by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA)
and other regulatory
bodies with the sale and
distribution of geneti-
cally modified organism
(GMO) ingredients start-
ing in the mid-’90s. There
wasn’t any scientific test-
ing on the health implica-
tions, with the FDA citing
that if a GMO ingredient
has no nutritional differ-
ence to a conventional
ingredient, then no label-
ing is required. However,
this leaves the judgment
of what constitutes a dif-
ference in these ingredi-
ents to agribusiness itself,
an industry that has a
history of poor quality
standards for its employ-
ees and products in
regards to self-regulation.
A few critics opposed
to the proposition begin
their stance by claiming
that the labeling scheme
is “deceptive” and that
it’s just another intrusion
of “Big Government”
over the “free market.”
It’s laughable that pro-
ponents of agribusiness

would claim that such a
regulatory scheme would
impede on the free mar-
ket when big businesses
wouldn’t last without the
state providing subsidies
to such conglomerates,
while also supporting

a patent industry that
destroys true innovation
and the independence

of farmers alike.

Also argued by these
critics is that this legisla-
tion would force food
prices to go up hundreds
of dollars per year, when
in reality this has not
come true. For example,
in Europe, the cost of
food attributed to such
labeling has increased
less than two-tenths
of one per cent. Then
Commissioner of the
Health and Consumer
Protection for the
European Parliament
David Byrne said of
the issue: “When the
current labeling regime
... was introduced in

1997, it did not result in
increased costs, despite
the horrifying (double-
digit) prediction of some
interests.” Recently in
the US, a study done by
the Emory University
School of Law showed
that “Consumers will
likely see no increases in
prices as a result of the
relabeling required.”

It’s unsurprising that
the biggest contributors
to the “No” side of the
campaign include such
delights like Coca-Cola—
one of the biggest users
of genetically modified
corn syrup for its popular
drink—and Monsanto—
the once chemical
company, now a model
‘agricultural’ company
that controls the major-
ity of the seed market
worldwide. One of the
main engineering feats
of Monsanto’s seeds is
that they resist the effects
of their most popular
herbicide Roundup (no,

not Agent Orange).
However, Monsanto’s
claim of Roundup being
“tough on plants, but
no more toxic to people
and animals than table
salt” was found to be
false and the company
itself was found guilty
of false and misleading
advertising for the above
bogus claims not once,
but multiple times.

For the sake of
healthy communities
and true free market
principles, the power of
these agricultural giants
needs to be substan-
tially reduced through
individuals making
decisions on what food
products they buy. This
ultimately comes back
to supporting a labeling
law like what Prop 37
advocates. More than
50 countries around the
world, including China,
have implemented some
sort of labeling on GMO
ingredients. Do we really

 

Photo courtesy of www.aljazeera.com

want to hold ourselves
to China’s standards?
All joking aside, I
think the passage of
this bill is imperative
to California because
consumers will be able
to judge whether such
foods are right for them
or their families in a way
that could economically
affect the way interna-
tional agribusiness and
biochemical companies
create and market
such products, making
alternative sources of
food—such as local
farmers markets—more
appealing. Since
California is such a huge
market, both nationally
within the US and inter-
nationally, the passage
of this legislation could
provide an interesting
development of a more
broad movement against
GMOs in general; one I
look forward to joining.

7