The Council for Biotechnology Information was part of a large coalition of California family farmers, doctors, scientists, food producers, grocers, small business and taxpayer groups that was formed to defeat Proposition 37. We opposed Prop 37 because this poorly-written measure would have mandated that misleading and confusing information be provided to consumers. In addition, it would have unnecessarily increased food costs for California consumers and would have spawned frivolous lawsuits against farmers, grocers and food companies.

California voters have rejected this poorly written and costly measure. In doing so, they expressed their support for science and reason-based policy. Prop 37 was a poorly-written mandate, aimed at disparaging one production method in favor of others. The voters were right to reject it.

We continue to support the FDA’s food labeling policy, which is that labeling should be used to indicate “any significant differences in the food itself.”  The FDA says it has no information to indicate that bioengineered food crops are different “in any meaningful or material way” from their conventionally produced counterparts.

The industry will continue to move forward with developing innovations to feed and fuel the world.

California’s Proposition 37 to require labeling of foods with biotech ingredients, if it is passed and goes into effect, would be a “boondoggle” for litigation attorneys, a legal expert says, since it authorizes citizen lawsuits against alleged violators.

“This will result in employment for lawyers,” commented Gary E. Marchant, professor of emerging technologies, law and ethics at the Arizona State University College of Law.  Lawyers can collect legal fees and seek punitive damages under Prop 37 and California law, he noted.  Marchant spoke during a teleconference debate on Prop 37 sponsored by the American Bar Association.

Prop 37 authorizes private citizens - and plaintiff’s attorneys - to bring lawsuits alleging violations of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA).  This law allows consumers to sue without having to demonstrate that any specific damage occurred as a result of the alleged violation, according to the California Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO).  CLRA allows for punitive damages, which can be substantial.  Prop 37 also allows the court to award these parties all reasonable costs incurred in investigating and prosecuting the action. READ MORE »