Avatar of J

CA Prop 37 Is A Trojan Horse: Provisions & Rebuttal

1 rating, 1 vote1 rating, 1 vote (+1 rating, 1 votes, rated)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading ... Loading ...

September 15, 2012 in Health


——  After considering the Author’s article, and referencing the provided links – I conclude; that without a clear & blatant violation of the plain interpretation of this Act, the mandate will stand just fine.

What does ‘Natural’ have to do with ‘labeling Genetically Engineered Foods’??    8/9/12 :http://www.mercurynews.com/health/ci_21273032/prop-37-would-gmo-measure-block-natural-label…………………… “Aim, or intent, doesn’t matter, only the LANGUAGE,” said Kathy Fairbanks, a spokeswoman for the No on 37 campaign [bottom of page]


The people of the State of California do enact as follows:    

The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act 



The purpose of this measure is to create and enforce the fundamental right of the people of California to be fully informed about whether the food they purchase and eat is genetically engineered and not misbranded as natural…..It shall be liberally construed to fulfill this purpose.



§110809.1 Misbranding of Genetically Engineered Foods as “Natural”

In addition to any disclosure required by subdivisions 110809, if a food meets any of the definitions in section 110808(c) or (d), and “IS NOT OTHERWISE EXEMPTED FROM LABELING UNDER SECTION 110809.2, the food may not in California…..state or imply that the food is “natural” “naturally made”, “naturally grown”, “all natural”…..


§110809.2 Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food—Exemptions

The requirements of Section 110809 shall not apply to any of the following:

(b) A raw agricultural commodity or food derived therefrom that has been grown, raised or produced without the knowing and intentional use of genetically engineered seed or food.

Food will be deemed to be described in the preceding sentence only if the person otherwise responsible…..obtains, from whoever sold the commodity or food to that person, a sworn statement that such commodity or food: (i) has not been knowingly or intentionally genetically engineered; and (ii) has been segregated from, and has not been knowingly or intentionally commingled with, food that may have been genetically engineered at any time. IN PROVIDING SUCH A SWORN STATEMENT, ANY PERSON “MAY RELY” ON A SWORN STATEMENT FROM HIS OWN SUPPLIER THAT CONTAINS THE AFFIRMATION SET FORTH IN THE PRECEDING SENTENCE.

…..(c) Any processed food that would be subject to section 110809 solely because it includes one or more genetically engineered processing aids or enzymes.


I’ve been a volunteer in putting Prop 37 on the ballot & getting it passed in CA. I remember when first going over the provisions in the Act about 12 months ago & seeing some of the potential ruff edges – of which I also saw it’s clear structure & explicit language. The only possible downside in my estimation, was that it didn’t go far enough – getting into restaurants, live-stock, and the specific ingredients themselves But nonetheless, it’s a pretty conservative/ straight-forward bill thats long overdue



Infowars.com Videos:

Comment on this article:

2 responses to CA Prop 37 Is A Trojan Horse: Provisions & Rebuttal

  1. J, I appreciate you addressing my concerns in my post (http://planet.infowars.com/health/ca-prop-37-isa-trojan-horse)

    I have read through your rebuttal, and I don’t think I am quite seeing the rationale. This is what I see:

    - 110808 (d) defines “processed food”
    - 110809.1 says “processed food” is misbranded as “natural” unless it is “processed food” exempted under 110809.2
    - 110809.2 lists exemptions to the label “genetically engineered” (not “natural”).

    I agree with your argument – “processed food” would not be subject to the “genetically engineered” labeling requirement because of: “…..110809.1 Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food—Exemptions … (c) Any processed food that would be subject to section 110809 solely because it includes one or more genetically engineered processing aids or enzymes.”

    but how do you explain the restriction for “natural” labeling of processed foods defined by 110808 (d).

    I welcome your input, since you are actively involved in prop 37. Like I said in my post, GMO sucks – but I see prop 37 going beyond just labeling GMO.

    your thoughts?

Leave a reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.