Lounge of Tomorrow - View Single Post

Alex · 11-03-2012, 10:30 PM

I don't think that having to put a "may contain products of genetic engineering" label on packaging will force manufacturers to change their purchasing of GMOs and kill the market for them.

I think the proposition would result in almost every processed food item having that label, regardless of whether it has GMO products in it or not and the result will be a label widely ignored by people. In other words, a situation similar to the Prop 65 signs you see all over the place. (And even worse because unlike Prop 65, Prop 37 has been specifically written to loosen restrictions of litigation farming, further incentivizing just adding the label out of caution except for the most motivated of "No GMO" marketers.

To the extent it changes the marketplace, I would predict:

1. It will be harder for non-GMO products to get into general retail outlets. The proposition allows civil lawsuits not just against producers who fail to label anything but certified non-GMO but against stores who sell products that did not carry a label they should have. These civil suits are waived from any requirement that the retailer be notified of violation prior to filing suit and allowing for them to resolve the issue. The person filing the suit also does not need to show any direct harm from mislabeled food. So why would your corner convenience store or mom-and-pop grocer be willing to take the risk of selling products not labeled at least with the "may contain" label unless they're willing to do a fair amount of due diligence. When a lawyer walks in and says "settle or we'll sue" the store owner may know they'd prevail in court but that is an expensive gamble. This type of lawsuit happens all the time under Prop 65 and it has more restrictions on it than Prop 37.

2. The only non-GMO products will be extreme niche for whom the label is worth the expense or very large companies for whom the expense of proving and maintaining record of compliance isn't that big of an issue. As with many regulations, once the dust settles they actually tend to benefit large corporations as they increase the barrier to entry.

3. Without evidence of actual direct harm caused by foods containing GMO (and even Michael Pollan admits there really isn't any such evidence) there'll be an initial uproar and then people will ignore the label, producing little long term change in consumer behavior.

11-03-2012, 10:30 PM	#6
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	I don't think that having to put a "may contain products of genetic engineering" label on packaging will force manufacturers to change their purchasing of GMOs and kill the market for them. I think the proposition would result in almost every processed food item having that label, regardless of whether it has GMO products in it or not and the result will be a label widely ignored by people. In other words, a situation similar to the Prop 65 signs you see all over the place. (And even worse because unlike Prop 65, Prop 37 has been specifically written to loosen restrictions of litigation farming, further incentivizing just adding the label out of caution except for the most motivated of "No GMO" marketers. To the extent it changes the marketplace, I would predict: 1. It will be harder for non-GMO products to get into general retail outlets. The proposition allows civil lawsuits not just against producers who fail to label anything but certified non-GMO but against stores who sell products that did not carry a label they should have. These civil suits are waived from any requirement that the retailer be notified of violation prior to filing suit and allowing for them to resolve the issue. The person filing the suit also does not need to show any direct harm from mislabeled food. So why would your corner convenience store or mom-and-pop grocer be willing to take the risk of selling products not labeled at least with the "may contain" label unless they're willing to do a fair amount of due diligence. When a lawyer walks in and says "settle or we'll sue" the store owner may know they'd prevail in court but that is an expensive gamble. This type of lawsuit happens all the time under Prop 65 and it has more restrictions on it than Prop 37. 2. The only non-GMO products will be extreme niche for whom the label is worth the expense or very large companies for whom the expense of proving and maintaining record of compliance isn't that big of an issue. As with many regulations, once the dust settles they actually tend to benefit large corporations as they increase the barrier to entry. 3. Without evidence of actual direct harm caused by foods containing GMO (and even Michael Pollan admits there really isn't any such evidence) there'll be an initial uproar and then people will ignore the label, producing little long term change in consumer behavior.
	Submit to Quotes