retail news in context, analysis with attitude

Food Safety News reports that a year and a half after the California electorate narrowly defeated Proposition 37, a referendum that would have required the labeling of products containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the effort is being revived.

According to the story, State Sen. Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa) has introduced a bill that would require GMO labeling, but that is described as being simpler and more clear-cut than the earlier version.

The bill provides some wiggle room for manufacturers and retailers, saying that products containing "some" GMOs would be labeled as “Produced with Genetic Engineering” or “Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering.” Plus, retailers who did not know they were selling mislabeled foods would be protected from prosecution, a provision not in the original referendum. And, there is no language in the bill that would prevent foods with GMOs from being labeled as "natural."

Another big difference: the original effort was a statewide ballot initiative, while the current one is legislative … meaning that as the current debate takes shape, the decision will be made by elected officials, not voters.
KC's View:
Gee, y'think that elected officials will be less susceptible to lobbying by pro-GMO forces than voters were back in 2012?

I'm not persuaded … the pressure points may be different, and methods of applying pressure may be different, but the result could be the same.

I'm not sure that the bill is enough; the idea that products with GMOs can be labeled as "natural" strikes me as a little weird, but then again, "natural" is one of the more useless terms bandied about by the food industry. (Except, of course, as a sales tool.)