s
s
Sections
We don't just cover the North Bay. We live here.
Did You Know? In the first 10 days of the North Bay fire, nearly 1.5 million people used their mobile devices to visit our sites.
Already a subscriber?
iPhone
Wow! You read a lot!
Reading enhances confidence, empathy, decision-making, and overall life satisfaction. Keep it up! Subscribe.
Already a subscriber?
iPhone
Oops, you're out of free articles.
Until next month, you can always look over someone's shoulder at the coffee shop.
Already a subscriber?
iPhone
We don't just cover the North Bay. We live here.
Did You Know? In the first 10 days of the North Bay fire, we posted 390 stories about the fire. And they were shared nearly 137,000 times.
Already a subscriber?
iPhone
Supporting the community that supports us.
Obviously you value quality local journalism. Thank you.
Already a subscriber?
iPhone
Oops, you're out of free articles.
We miss you already! (Subscriptions start at just 99 cents.)
Already a subscriber?
iPhone

SAN FRANCISCO — California voters will soon decide whether to require special labels for food made from genetically modified ingredients, in a closely watched test of consumer attitudes about the merits of genetically engineered crops.

Advocates collected more than half a million signatures supporting the stronger labeling requirements, and the secretary of state this week certified the measure for the state's November ballot.

If it passes, California would be the first state to require labeling of such a wide range of foods containing genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.

The proposal would require most processed foods by 2014 to bear a label telling shoppers that they contain ingredients derived from plants whose DNA was altered with genes from other plants, animals, viruses or bacteria.

Many backers of similar labeling legislation in more than a dozen states say the intent is to give consumers more information about what they're eating, and foster transparency and trust in the food system. Major agricultural groups and the processed food industry oppose stricter labeling, saying it risks sowing fear and confusion among shoppers.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration says genetically modified foods pose no greater health risks than traditional foods, and opponents of labeling rules say they could prompt packaging costs to rise unnecessarily.

If the measure passes, most raw or processed food made from plants or animals with engineered genetic material would need to be labeled, although certified organic foods and alcohol would be exempted. Meat and dairy products also would not require a label even if the animals are fed with genetically engineered grains, which the initiative's opponents say amounts to a loophole.

"Consumers have a fundamental right to know what is in their food and make choices, so I think everyone should be working toward this," said Albert Straus, founder and president of the Straus Family Creamery, an organic dairy in Petaluma. "Our labeling costs do not go through to the consumer."

Straus already avoids using genetically modified feed for his herd, and became the first creamery in the country to be voluntarily certified as GMO-free in 2010.

Organic farmers say they stand to benefit from better-informed consumers who may reject genetically modified products and instead choose organic food. The Organic Consumers Association has said labeling GMO ingredients in the U.S. would make domestic markets more competitive with markets in Europe, which imposes guidelines on informing consumers about genetically modified food.

Opponents, however, say the measure could spark frivolous lawsuits brought by citizens who believe a product is mislabeled, even if they don't claim to have been harmed.

"This could become a lawsuit magnet well beyond the borders of California," said Tom Scott, executive director of the Sacramento-based California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse. "You're just going to see trial lawyers walking up and down grocery store aisles saying this doesn't meet the labeling requirements."

The change could also place a new financial burden on farms, said Jamie Johansson, an Oroville farmer who is second vice president of the California Farm Bureau Federation.

"Then, of course, there are the legal concerns about verifying that you are GMO-free," he said.

Show Comment