Not sure whether I should be amused, frustrated or angry about some of the recent news from the left, I mean West Coast.
 Apparently, California Proposition 37, “Genetically Engineered Foods. Labeling. Initiative Statute.” is reported to be favored by the majority of Californians as Election Day approaches. The natural beauty of that area of the country is unmistakable, the technology originating from high-end companies is remarkable, and the fresh produce we enjoy during our winter months is greatly appreciated. Please recognize however, that everything comes with a cost and evidently the pleasures we enjoy from our western state are often tempered by ill-conceived legislation that emanates from there.

I first read about the proposed legislation early last spring, naively thinking this was just another crazy idea of little concern to us in the Midwest. Unfortunately, too many California generated concepts come back to haunt us, largely because the state’s consumer base represents such a large percentage of the market share for food companies and other businesses.  

According to the California Attorney General, Proposition 37:

•Requires labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways.

•Prohibits labeling or advertising such food, or other processed food, as “natural.”

Exempts foods that are: certified organic; unintentionally produced with genetically-engineered material; made from animals fed or injected with genetically-engineered material, but not genetically engineered themselves; processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically-engineered ingredients; administered for treatment of medical conditions; sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant; or alcoholic beverages.

The state legislative analyst writes that the measure makes several changes to state law to explicitly require the regulation of GE foods. Specifically, it (1) requires that most GE foods sold be properly labeled, (2) requires the Department of Health to regulate the labeling of such foods, and (3) allows individuals to sue food manufacturers who violate the measure’s labeling provisions.

Now, doesn’t that sound like a litigation attorney’s heaven? By the way, the attorney who filed the ballot language for the initiative, James Wheaton, has reportedly earned a handsome living under California’s Proposition 65. Since 1986, that act has required labeling of a wide range of consumer products in a manner that suggests they cause cancer, creating a boon for he and other trial lawyers. Wheaton told the Sacramental Bee that he put so little thought into the verbiage of Proposition 37 that he had not given any thought to whether he might litigate over the new measure, if it passes.

Even the left leaning newspapers, LA Times and San Francisco Chronicle, have come out against the issue for the vagueness of the ballot language and potential legal costs to the entire food production sector of the economy. The arguments in opposition to Proposition 37 in the state’s official voter guide include:

“It’s a deceptive, deeply-flawed food labeling scheme that would add more government bureaucracy and taxpayer costs, create new frivolous lawsuits, and increase food costs by billions-without providing any health or safety benefits.”

“It’s full of special interest exemptions.”

“It authorizes shakedown lawsuits.”

While I can appreciate people’s interest in knowing the safety of the food they eat, we already have the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration, and Environmental Protection Agency providing federal oversight to our food and amendments that might affect food safety. Do we really need more governmental bureaucrats complicating the process?

Although we cannot vote on bizarre legislation in other states, maybe we should take our voting responsibility seriously enough to avoid similar pitfalls in our own backyard.

Readers with questions or comments for Roger Bender may write to him in care of this publication.