What’s next for Prop 37?

I think we’re all smarting from the failure of California’s Proposition 37. Or maybe not, but whether you saw the tree fall in the forest or not, were all going to be hearing it fall for some time to come. The measure, which graced the ballot in California this past November election, would have required the food industry to label all foods that contain GMO’s. At first blush this seems like a common sense measure, of the same ilk as calorie labeling requirements and would fall in rank and file with other measures that provide critical information about how our food was raised. And yet lobbying groups spent over $46 million dollars to defeat it.

Despite its failure to win sufficient votes this November, the reverberations from the fight over Proposition 37 will unsettle key proponents like Monsanto, or at least make them sit less comfortably.

For many engaged consumers there’s a tipping point after which zealous outrage becomes white noise. Sadly for many consumers we’ve reached our saturation point for terror and concern. It’s hard to maintain that level of vigilance. So all the arguments against GMO’s sound a little tired, a little stale. We start to backslide into checking labels less rigorously.

If we revisit the arguments against GMO’s it will easily breathe new vitality into the fight. Frances Moore Lappé and Anna Lappé co-wrote a searing manifesto. A list of 7 reasons the reader should be alarmed that GMO’s are infiltrating our food. The manifesto is a countdown to our demise and when you get to number 7 you’re practically shaking with renewed outrage. This argument doesn’t even need the vitriol that lays thick over a lot of other politicking. Among the seven fits is the argument that GMO’s have never undergone rigorous testing for health and safety. In fact there have been some leads into research that suggests GMO’s are harmful to animals.

The other most compelling argument against GMO’s is the total patent monopoly Monsanto has. Any accidental cross hybridization of adjacent non GMO crops, and Monsanto can sue for unlawful use of their product, a perverted system that burdens the innocent.

Shame is a powerful motivator. We are a few long steps behind Europe and even China, which requires mandatory reporting and labeling of GMO food. Hopefully as we look around at our peers and realize were leagues behind it will propel us forward.

Despite the early demise off the proposition, many of its advocates were already looking towards the silver lining. After the measure failed there was no expected collective disappointment, there was vitriolic fallout against the measure and instead a sigh of relief that it hadn’t passed. Many were distressed over the poor wording of the proposition. The author, a litigation lawyer by reputation, says that even he didn’t apply much thought to the vague verbosity. That he hadn’t thought of crafting the language to better provide for lawyers who would us it to litigate.
Hopefully this was just a false start. Shouldn’t break our momentum.

Despite its failure and unpopularity, Proposition 37 changed the landscape of the environmental food movement. It furthers the conversation on GMO reporting, and food transparency in general.