User:Hvminer/sandbox

'''Prop. 37''' (The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act) is a November 2012 ballot measure that will help consumers make informed choices and have more control over the food they eat. The proposition requires clear requires clear labels letting consumers know if foods are genetically modified. If passed, companies have 18 months to change their labels to include the GMO disclosure on packaging. Currently, genetically engineered foods are not labeled, thus, there is no way to know if the food we are consuming is a product of this artificial process. Labeling of these types of modified foods is not a new concept. Over 50 other countries already require labeling of all GE foods in order to inform the consumers of what they are eating. Most GE foods are engineered to either produce pesticides in their own tissues or to resist herbicides sprayed on them. If the proposition is accepted in California, it will increase the likelihood that other states will also adopt the same rules. In turn, if enough states do decide to adopt GMO labeling laws, the national government may become involved and take action.

What are GMO’s?
A genetically engineered food is a plant or meat product that has had its DNA artificially altered in a laboratory by genes from other plants, animals, viruses, or bacteria. This process produces foreign compounds in that food. Since this experimental genetic alteration is not found in nature, manipulating genes and inserting them into organisms is an imprecise process. For example, Genetically Modified corn has been engineered in a laboratory to produce pesticides in its own tissue. Although GMO corn is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency as an Insecticide, it is sold unlabeled. Monsanto, (an agricultural biotechnology corporation), is selling sweet corn that has been genetically engineered to contain an insecticide, but consumers don't know because it is not labeled.

Safety
Genetic engineering can increase the levels of known toxicants in foods and introduce new health concerns. The results of these modifications are not always predictable or controllable. A number of peer-reviewed studies have linked these foods to allergies, organ toxicity, and other health problems. GMOs have not been proven safe, and the impacts of these foods have not been subjected to long-term health studies. There are strict safety evaluations that are required for the approval of new drugs, the US Food and Drug Administration. Conversely, they do not require safety studies for genetically engineered foods.

Environmental problems
The various environmental problems associated with genetic engineering have been well documented. Prevalent issues surrounding the environment, in regards to genetic engineering, include biodiversity loss, the emergence of super weeds that are threatening millions of acres of farmland, an overall increase in pesticide use, and the unintentional contamination of organic and non-GMO crops. Not only are GE crops potentially damaging to bodies, they are also poisoning the planet. Since most GE crops are designed to withstand powerful herbicides, they cause food producers to use much higher levels of herbicides.

Fiscal impact
US food processors agree that the changes in labeling will have no effect on consumer costs because companies change their labeling all the time, as it is, and changing labels is a regular cost already built into the price consumers pay for products. “We, as with most manufacturers, are continually updating our packaging. It is a regular cost of doing business - a small one at that - and is already built into the price consumers pay for products,” said Arran Stephens, president and founder of Nature’s Path. Costs associated with the addition of the GM label are derived from the desire for those who are selling these products to change them. Companies may choose to switch to higher-priced, non-GE ingredients, like organics, in order to sell pleasing amounts of their food in California. The proposition does not ban any foods. It only requires that GMO-containing foods be labeled with the phrase “partially produced with genetic engineering” somewhere on the front or back of packages.

Arguments in favor

 * “California consumers have the right to know whether the foods they purchase were produced using genetic engineering.”
 * “Mandatory identification of foods produced through genetic engineering can provide a critical method for tracking the potential health effects of eating genetically engineered foods.”
 * “Fifty countries—including the European Union member states, Japan and other key U.S. trading partners—have laws mandating disclosure of genetically engineered foods.”

Supporters
The right to know what's in our food is not a Democratic or Republican issue. This issue is additionally largely supported by those with children who are concerned with the potential health threats of the long-term consumption of these foods.

The measure is largely backed by the Organic Consumers' Association, Nature's Path, The Institute for Responsible Technology and other organic food advocates. Despite the fact that Prop. 37 has the potential to make it harder and more costly for organic producers, they embrace the labeling. Organic food producers believe that we should know what we are eating, even if it means a bit more expense and work. This widespread support stems from the fact that organic food is at risk of GMO pollution.

Some of the leading opponents of the Proposition 37 have even spoken favorably of labeling in other countries. For example, Monsanto,, the big herbicide and seed company produced an ad in the UK touting the labeling law, while they continue to oppose Prop 37. In the UK, Monsanto's advertisement, under a heading "Food Labeling, It Has Monsanto's Full Backing" reads: "Recently you may have noticed a label appearing... to inform you about the use of biotechnology in food. Monsanto fully supports UK food manufacturers and retailers in their introduction of these labels. We believe you should be aware of all the facts before making a purchase."

Organizations urging YES on Prop 37:
 * Consumers Union
 * United Farm Workers
 * Center for Food Safety
 * California Council of Churches
 * America Public Health Association
 * Organic Consumers Association
 * California Nurses Association
 * Sierra Club
 * Public Citizen
 * Food Democracy Now

Arguments against

 * “Proposition 37 is a deceptive and costly measure”
 * “It would ban the sale of tens of thousands of perfectly safe, common food products unless they are specially repackaged, relabeled or remade with higher cost ingredients.”
 * “This misguided food labeling scheme would add more government bureaucracy, red tape and taxpayer costs, create a whole new class of frivolous lawsuits, and increase Californians’ food costs — without providing any health or safety benefits.”

Opponents
Organizations urging NO on Prop 37:
 * American Council on Science and Health
 * California Farm Bureau Federation
 * California Small Business Association
 * California Chamber of Commerce
 * California Taxpayer Protection Committee
 * Council for Biotechnology Information
 * Grocery Manufacturers Association
 * Agricultural Council of California
 * Orange County Taxpayers Association
 * Southern California Black Chamber of Commerce
 * California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse
 * California Independent Grocers Association

(Contributions)
 * Monsanto:  $8,112,069
 * DuPont:  $5,400,000
 * Pepsi:  $2,145,400
 * BASF:  $2,000,000
 * Bayer:  $2,000,000
 * DOW:  $2,000,000
 * Syngenta:  $2,000,000
 * Coca-Cola:  $1,690,500
 * Nestle:  $1,461,600
 * ConAgra Foods:  $1,176,700

Exemptions
The requirements of Prop. 37 will not apply to the following :
 * “Food consisting entirely of, or derived entirely from, an animal that has not itself been genetically engineered, regardless of whether such animal has been fed or injected with any genetically engineered food or any drug that has been produced through means of genetic engineering.”
 * “A raw agricultural commodity or food derived therefrom that has been grown, raised or produced without the knowing and intentional use of genetically engineered seed or food. “
 * “Any processed food that would be subject to section 110809 solely because it includes one or more genetically engineered processing aids or enzymes.”
 * “Any alcoholic beverage that is subject to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, set forth in Division 9 (commencing with section 23000) of the Business and Professions Code.”
 * “Until July 1, 2019, any processed food that would be subject to section 110809 solely because it includes one or more genetically engineered ingredients, provided that: (i) no single such ingredient accounts for more than one-half of one percent of the total weight of such processed food; and (ii) the processed food does not contain more than ten such ingredients.”
 * “Food that an independent organization has determined has not been knowingly and intentionally produced from or commingled with genetically engineered seed or genetically engineered food, provided that such determination has been made pursuant to a sampling and testing procedure approved in regulations adopted by the department.
 * “Food that has been lawfully certified to be labeled, marketed and offered for sale as “organic” pursuant to the federal Organic Food Products Act of 1990 and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto by the United States Department of Agriculture.”
 * “Food that is not packaged for retail sale and that either: (i) is a processed food prepared and intended for immediate human consumption or (ii) is served, sold or otherwise provided in any restaurant or other food facility that is primarily engaged in the sale of food prepared and intended for immediate human consumption.”
 * “Medical Food”