About “Beyond the Rows”

Beyond the Rows is a Monsanto Company blog focused on one of the world’s most important industries, agriculture. Monsanto employees write about Monsanto’s business, the agriculture industry, and the farmer.
[x] close

Taking a Stand: Proposition 37, the California labeling proposal

Featured Article

Proposition 37 is a ballot initiative Californians will vote on in November that would require a warning label on food products that include a genetically modified (GM) ingredient.  Food companies routinely use corn, soy or canola ingredients in their products, and have had the choice and used GM ingredients for a long time. The safety and benefits of these ingredients are well established.  The debate will be heating up in advance of the November vote in California, so we want to be clear about our taking a stand on Proposition 37. 

Consumers have broad food choices today, but could be denied these choices if Prop 37 prevails.  Accordingly, we are supporting NO on 37: Coalition Against the Deceptive Food Labeling Scheme, a coalition of California farmers, food producers, grocers and retailers formed to oppose Proposition 37.  The NO on 37 coalition includes stakeholders involved in producing, manufacturing and selling food products. Interestingly, the main proponents of Proposition 37 are special interest groups and individuals opposed to food biotechnology who are not necessarily engaged in the production of our nation’s food supply. They are gearing up a campaign of misinformation. 

Labeling and Consumers’ Food Choices

Opinion surveys consistently report that consumers support FDA’s current labeling policy – mandatory labeling for important nutrition or safety information.  Food companies can and do provide additional information voluntarily to meet the preferences of their customers. Hundreds of organic or certified non-GM products are available for consumers who prefer these products.  This approach offers choices for all consumers and does so without the risk of confusing consumers who are satisfied with the products they know, trust and can afford. 

Impact on Food Safety Confidence

Food safety is a top priority for consumers as well as those involved in producing and selling food products.  Proponents of the California labeling proposal are misleading people about the safety of food in the marketplace, and their opinions are in stark contrast with leading health associations and government agencies.   For example, the American Medical Association just re-affirmed that there is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods.  FDA says that such labeling would be inherently misleading to consumers.  

Scare Tactics

Leading proponents of Proposition 37 blatantly describe foods containing GM ingredients as untested and unsafe.  This is simply untrue. Beneath their right to know slogan is a deceptive marketing campaign aimed at stigmatizing modern food production.  While we respect that some people may choose to avoid GM ingredients, it is wrong to mislead and scare people about the safety of their food choices.  The California proposal would serve the purposes of a few special interest groups at the expense of the majority of consumers. 

The Right Thing to Do

Farmers have seen the environmental and economic benefits of modern food technologies for more than 15 years.  Food companies see Proposition 37 as threatening the public’s confidence in the safety of their products.  Both have encouraged us to join with them in the effort to oppose the California proposition.   We agree and believe that supporting the NO on 37 coalition is the right thing to do. 

For more information on Proposition 37 and NO on 37: Coalition Against the Deceptive Food Labeling Scheme, click on www.NoProp37.com.

Related:

Monsanto.com: What’s the Problem with Labeling Genetically Modified (GM/GMO) Foods?

2 Responses to "Taking a Stand: Proposition 37, the California labeling proposal"

  1. In one place on this Web site you say: “Leading proponents of Proposition 37 blatantly describe foods containing GM ingredients as untested and unsafe. This is simply untrue.” In another place you say: “There is no need for, or value in testing the safety of GM foods in humans.” Isn’t that another way of saying GM foods aren’t tested, so that when GM opponents say GM foods aren’t tested they are telling the truth … right?

    Reply

Join in the conversation - add a comment.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *