There are great arguments on both sides of the fence and if you desire to actually read the text of the proposition, here it is:
http://www.kcet.org/news/ballotbrief/elections2012/propositions/prop-37-read-the-text.html
I know I am no medical expert, or scientist by any means, however, through about a year of researching, studying, and asking questions, the issue of the food we consume has been on my mind and through our change to eating real, whole food, I can see both sides of the equation.
Though I am not that old, I have been a life long Republican to the core. So, supporting a measure like this might seems like I've gone off on the hippie bandwagon. However, when it comes to food and health, my research has led me to places that I didn't want to go. It really is an unfortunate thing that you can't "unlearn" something. The reality behind all that is "genetic engineering" is quite frightening.
Genetic engineering is the manipulation of DNA from plants inserting them with another molecule or substance. For instance, most Genetically modified seeds are inserted with a virus. A virus that makes the crop withstand pesticide application. So, normally if you sprayed Round Up Weed Killer on a little corn stalk, it would wither and die. However, a Genetically modified corn stalk has been hardwired to resist the Round Up Weed Killer and can be sprayed with heavy amounts of pesticide and still remain alive.
Sure, this seems to be the solution to world hunger! We can genetically modify seeds so we can have less weeds and bugs and less crop failure. However, this model is proving year after year to be unsustainable. Land is producing less. Farm workers are getting sicker from the increasing need for more pesticide. Dirty farm water flooded with pesticide is seeping into unsuspecting farms (hence the big spinach outbreak a few years ago, the water was tainted, not the plant itself). What was once thought of the "savior of the hungry" is turning into the problem of the century. More pesticides, year after year, more resistance to the pesticides, more pesticides (which were created after we had access to Hilter's labs in Germany after WW2 and discovered "Agent Orange" the nerve gas used in wars. Pesticides are simply a slight modification of "Agent Orange").
Gene mutation is the stuff of science fiction and while many people will balk and cry foul at the thought of cloning human life, it is already being done in the laboratory with genetically modified food.
All these scientific reasons are well and good, and I am no crusader for the environment. God gave us the earth to populate, enjoy and from it, reap a harvest. However, not all "science" is wise. Not only do the scientific arguments make sense, the health side of things is increasingly concerning. NO long term human studies have been done on the safety of these crops. NONE. NONE. NONE. And, the way that these crops and other products of Big-Agricultural Food Processing (think aspartame, rBGH, etc) have had a pretty shady and shameful way thought the FDA and USDA. Secrets, lies, and very sneaky things done to get these crops approved for use.
Back to Prop 37. Yes? No? Well, I read the entire proposition and have read PROs and CONs. And you know what, it is up to you to do your own research on the topic.
The Proposition is not perfect. No law is. Only the Bible, God's law is perfectly right. So, in this case, I believe the good outweighs the bad.
Yes, some things are exempt (mostly because there are previous laws and regulations on the labeling of those foods that they could not get around) and the opponents say it will create frivolous lawsuits and cost the government $1 million in new patrolling agencies.
This is a very silly argument. The food label in general is a beast. Do you see how many "objections" and "statements" need to be on a standard label?
It must list the serving size, vitamin content, fat, saturated fat, protein, sodium, carbohydrates, fiber, sugar, full ingredient list, it must say if it was produced in a facility producing wheat, soy, or fish. It must say where it was made, what country. It must have detailed Daily Value table. It must say who made it and the address of the corporation that produced it.
All that proposition 37 would add to this list, would be two words following an ingredient in the list that is ALREADY there. "genetically engineered". It would also prohibit using the word "natural" on product packaging if that product used genetically modified ingredients because it is very clear that the Generically modified corn is not natural corn.
Don't you want to know what is in your food? I think the majority of people don't want to know... and those who are making genetically modified food DON'T want you to know.
They claim it will raise prices. However, they are already proving the point of their opposition, people won't want genetically modified food. The NO on 37 website claims "it will force manufactures to use higher priced ingredients." GOOD!!!!!!! Manufacturers shouldn't be using crud chemicals in food! This is a wake up call to scientific "food manipulators." Stop messing with our food. It is a deeper issue than money. It is our health.
Sure, it will be an inconvenience to people to relabel stuff. I worked in graphic design and I know how much of a pain it can be to redesign a company's logo and branding. But this isn't requiring that! ADD TWO WORDS TO THE INGREDIENTS LIST... and stop lying and claiming something is "natural" when it is not... Genetically modified food... don't you want to know?
Again... I don't want to part of the world's largest science experiment. And from what potentially diet epidemics are yielding (increases in obesity, allergies, auto immune disease, cancer, diabetes, autism, etc...) I choose to say no thanks. Many other countries of the world have banned GMOs and hopefully America will follow suit. Many major companies, Kraft, Mars, Wal Mart, already label their food like this in the UK... so, just tell us too..
so for me, I'm inking the yes box for proposition 37. that's all :)