Hypocrisy has a strange way of coming to light during campaign season. For candidates and for ballot initiatives alike, the incongruent motivations of the groups promoting a particular vote often tanks what, at first glance, seemed to be a positive, simple campaign. A ruling last week clarifying the ballot language to be used on California Proposition 37, the GMO-labeling law, brought the hypocritical intentions of the measures proponents to the forefront.
Simply, Prop. 37 backers claim consumers have a right to know if the food they purchase contains any ingredients which have been genetically modified. Playing off public fears of the unknown, they appeal to mass hysteria instead of the reasoned, scientific judgment of relevant authorities, including the World Health Organization and American Medical Association, that genetically engineered crops pose no health risk.
On the surface, the claims of those supporting the labeling-measure appear to be about consumer rights. From early on in the campaign, it became apparent this measure was different, as it would base a mandatory food label on something for an unscientific reason. Now, it appears these agenda-driven niche market proponents have masked another troubling provision with their consumer rights costume.
The labeling mandated in this proposition actually does not only target genetically modified ingredients, it also targets any processed food, even those without GE ingredients. In addition to the new labels, these supposed champions of the people would ban any processed food, regardless of what is actually in it, from claims of being “natural.”
Could this actually add to consumer confusion and hurt farmers? Yes, it most certainly could.
In a recent Farm Press interview, one California olive oil producer explained that, even though genetically modified olives do not even exist, his oils would no longer be able to be labeled as “natural” simply because the olives were processed into oil.
Does this seem a bit over the top to anyone? Or is anyone even paying attention?
If there is not a greater public outrage forming over situations like these, the later seems more probable. Which is troubling because, on its very surface, proponents of the labeling measure have cloaked it in the nearly sacred robes of a consumer’s right to information. Underneath those shiny garments lies something far less glorious, a regulation that would mandate the use of labels that would confuse and mislead shoppers.
If no one is paying attention now, how can they possibly be expected to understand what exactly they see should this pass? Seemingly, Yes on 37 campaigners hope that they pay just as little attention then.