Following the failure of California's Prop 37 proposal that advocated for labeling of GM foods, a good number of American citizens, have never been demanding to be informed of the content of the food they consume. About 92% of the citizens have been calling Food and Drug Administration (FDA), to ensure that genetically modified foods are labeled. This issue has raised a heated debate of whether such foods need to be labeled or not. This paper explores Prop 37 campaign and the debate concerning the labeling of GMOs. It examines the background of the issue and examines the supporting and opposing sides of the campaign.
California has been the leading state in advocating for labeling of Genetically Modified foods. Prop 37, also referred to as "Right To Know" was an initiative to demand labeling of food products, which have been genetically modified. This proposal, however, failed to go through. If it was passed, the state would have been the first one to demand labeling of foods sold within the state. It would have forbidden food products that contain genetically modified elements from being labeled as "natural" (Gary par 5).
In spite of the fact that the matter was apparently regarding food products, the discussion over Prop 37 rapidly emerged as political in the recent days, with ground based food conformists behind the policy, while a well-grounded agriculture and industry players going against the proposal. The Prop 37 opponents, mainly from the agricultural and industrial sectors, raised more that $ 45 million, whereas the Vote Yes campaign, mainly backed by consumer lobby groups, as well as, the organic industry, where only able to raise about $ 6.7 million. There was speculation that Prop 37's California's ballot imitative on GM food products was more about politics than science (Gary par 7).
[...] Although the fail of Prop 37 appeared more political than science, more states are going to put into consideration the labeling of GM foods in the near future. This is supported by the fact that more Americans are advocating for their right to know what they are consuming. Works Cited Almendrala, Anna. Prop 37 Defeated: California Voters Reject Mandatory GMO- Labeling. 2012.Web Jan Finz, Stacy. Prop.37: Genetic food labels defeated. 2012.Web Jan Gary, Hirshberg. We have a right to know. 2012.Web Jan Pamm, Larry. [...]
[...] According to Sifferlin (par12), about 85% of maize corn consumed in the United states of America have been artificial hybrids for about twenty years and have had no significant negative effects. This leaves one wondering why there is a push to label genetically modified food products. Particularly in California, it will come out as a fresh found appreciation for matters that several people take for granted, such as sustaining farming and the rights of domestic animals. Inspite of the defeat, the campaign was a triumph of a kind (Almendrala par 12). [...]
[...] This paper explores Prop 37 campaign and the debate concerning the labeling of GMOs. It examines the background of the issue and examines the supporting and opposing sides of the campaign. California has been the leading state in advocating for labeling of Genetically Modified foods. Prop 37, also referred to as “Right To Know” was an initiative to demand labeling of food products, which have been genetically modified. This proposal, however, failed to go through. If it was passed, the state would have been the first one to demand labeling of foods sold within the state. [...]
[...] It's our right to know. 2012.Web Jan Sifferlin, Alexandra. California fails to pass genetically modified foods labeling initiative.2012.Web Jan. 2012. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
