Prop 37

What does it mean for California and the rest of that country that Prop 37 did not pass?   If approved, California would have been the first state to require such labeling for foods sold in the state, and would have prohibited products containing genetically modified ingredients to be labeled or marketed as "natural."  Much of Europe already requires this labeling and has a general anti-GMO sentiment.  The argument against the proposition was that not enough evidence showed any health effects for consuming transgenics, and that putting that information on labels would unnecessarily the uninformed.  Big agriculture and industries like Kellogg raised over $45 million while grass-root Purist and organic groups only had $6.7 million.  Supporters of the "Right to Know" bill believe that it is up to the consumer to decide whether they want to ingest transgenics since their effects are not yet conclusive.  Companies like Monsanto argue that it would stigmatize certain foods.  One point of contention was whether or not the consumer would have to pay more for making new labels.  Although Prop 37 did not pass, some still see it as a victory.

According to Michael Pollen, this proposition has "raised the bar on the food industry," forcing them to pay attention to issues like the treatment of animals and sustainable farming.  Some see Prop 37 as an important step in the making of the food movement.  It highlighted some of the issues of the scattered food movement and gave them a statewide audience.  Some see this as just a way to get started bringing  some aspects of the unfocused food movement before California as well as the rest of the nation.

My family is not a particularly political one.  We vote at all opportunities but don't really go beyond that in terms of getting involved.  My dad in particular is aware of my opinions related to food.  He has taken in personally that I choose not to indulge in his beef or pork dishes anymore, but deep down I know that he is supportive of me making conscious decisions regarding what I put in my body.  He also believes in the value of making healthy, informed decisions about what he eats.  He was an amateur body builder in his younger years and watched his food intake religiously.  Even today, he is a Trader Joe's and Sprouts shopper, almost always choosing the "natural" route over any other.  So I was surprised when he told me that he voted against Prop 37.  In this time of economic uncertainty, he felt wary of passing the re-labeling cost to the consumer, which I understand.  As a retiree and sort-of-foodie, he still valued the cost over the benefit of having more information about your food.  To me, it felt like we represented what might be contributing to the food movement's slow-going.  Obviously, this is an oversimplification, but my father is a member of an older generation, one that did not grow up with the food pyramid memorized.  And even though we both care about knowing what's in our food, maybe that difference in childhood is what contributed to his vote.  And I wonder if that's an indication that the food movement will take several more years to come into itself, when my generation, the ones that were taught the difference between corn syrup and fructose, will be the ones with the strongest voices.