SR-10-23-2012-3JCity Council Meeting: October 23, 2012
Agenda Item: 3 °S
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Andy Agle, Director of Housing and Economic Development
Dean Kubani, Director, Office of Sustainability and the Environment
Subject: Resolution in Support of Proposition 37
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution to support
mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods in California as proposed in
Proposition 37, the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act.
Executive Summary
In November 2012, Proposition 37, a statewide ballot initiative aimed at changing the
state law to explicitly require the regulation of genetically engineered (GE) foods, will be
put before the voters. This measure requires all GE foods to be properly labeled,
requires the Department of Public Health (DPH) to regulate the labeling of such foods,
and allows individuals to sue food manufacturers who violate the labeling provisions.
This report recommends the adoption of the attached resolution in support of the
measure to reaffirm that the citizens of California have the right to know whether the
foods they purchase were produced using genetic engineering.
Background
Proposition 37 was initiated by the California non - profit organization, Right to Know,
which collected 971,126 signatures in ten weeks to get the measure on the ballot.
Supporters include a wide range of environmental, labor and organic groups including
the California Democratic Party, the California Federation of Labor, United Farm
Workers, Sierra Club, Public Citizen, Consumer Federation of America, American Public
Health Association, CALPIRG, the Environmental Working Group, and leading
businesses in the natural products industry including Nature's Path, Lundberg Family
Farms, Organic Valley and many more. Proposition 37 supporters have raised nearly
$2.7 million to promote the initiative and raise public awareness of the issue.
1
Groups opposed to Proposition 37 include Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Cargill, PepsiCo,
Coca Cola, Kellogg, Kraft, General Mills and Con Agra, which have contributed nearly
$25 million to the No on 37 Campaign and The Coalition Against Costly Food Labeling
Proposition to defeat the measure.
Several attempts to pass GE labeling laws in other states including Oregon, Vermont
and Connecticut have failed. However, recent polls indicate that a majority of adults in
California are in favor of labeling GE foods.
Discussion
Currently, under existing state law, California agencies are not specifically required to
regulate GE or GMO (genetically modified) foods. However, the Department of Public
Health (DPH) is responsible for regulating the safety and labeling of most foods. As
described in the ballot initiative, the purpose of Proposition 37 is "to create and enforce
the right of California citizens to be informed about whether the food they purchase and
eat is genetically engineered and not misbranded as natural so that they can choose for
themselves whether to purchase and eat such foods ". A summary of the formal ballot
initiative and proposed requirements is provided as Attachment A. Briefly, the major
provisions are:
• Labeling of Foods. This measure requires GE foods sold at retail in the state to
be clearly labeled as genetically engineered. Specifically, the measure requires
that raw foods (such as fruits and vegetables) produced entirely or in part
through genetic engineering be labeled with the word "Genetically Engineered"
on the front package or label.
• State Regulation. The labeling requirements for GE foods under this measure
would be regulated by DPH as part of its existing responsibility to regulate the
safety and labeling of foods.
• Litigation to Enforce the Measure. Violations of the measure could be prosecuted
by state, local, or private parties.
A significant amount of research data regarding the efficacy and desirability of GE foods
is available, with both sides of the issue challenging the respective findings and
conclusions of the other's. The science involved is complex and challenging, but both
sides draw contradictory conclusions to support their points. The objective of the
2
initiative is to support the labeling of GE foods, not the veracity of scientific claims
regarding GE food's efficacy and desirability. A general understanding of the prevailing
issues, however, would be helpful. As detailed in the peer- reviewed report titled "GMO
Myths and Truths" by the London -based non - profit Earth Open Source, the major issues
of the GMO debate involve assertions from the GE crop industry and its supporters that
GE crops:
• Are an extension of natural breeding and do not pose different risks from
naturally bred crops
• Are safe to eat and can be more nutritious than naturally bred crops
• Are strictly regulated for safety
• Increase crop yields and will help feed the world
• Reduce pesticide use and energy use
• Benefit the environment and farmers
• Bring economic benefits and can help solve problems caused by climate change
A growing body of scientific and other authoritative evidence, however, indicates that
these claims are not true. On the contrary, evidence presented in the Earth Open
Source report suggests GE crops:
• Are laboratory -made, using technology that is totally different from natural
breeding methods, and pose different risks from non -GE crops
• Can be toxic, allergenic. or less nutritious than their natural counterparts
• Are not adequately regulated to ensure safety
• Do not successfully increase yield potential or effectively reduce pesticide use
• Create serious issues for farmers, including herbicide - tolerant "superweeds ",
compromised soil quality, increased disease susceptibility in crops' soil quality,
disruptions to ecosystems, and reduced biodiversity
Do not offer effective solutions to climate change
• Are as energy -hungry as any other chemically- farmed crops
• Are ineffective at solving the problem of world hunger and distract from its real
causes — poverty, lack of access to food and, increasingly, lack of access to land
to grow it on.
Based on the findings presented in Earth Open Source's report and other studies, the
claims that scientific evidence does not connect significant risks with the production and
consumption of genetically engineered foods, or that genetically modified foods can
3
increase food supplies to address global hunger and environmental concerns are
inconclusive. Conventional plant breeding, in some cases helped by safe modern
technologies like gene mapping and marker - assisted selection, continues to outperform
GE in producing high - yield, drought - tolerant, and pest- and disease - resistant crops that
can help meet present and future food needs.
At this time, genetically engineered foods are labeled in nearly 50 countries including
the entire European Union. The same companies challenging mandatory labeling in
California comply with the labeling regulations in all those countries where it is required.
Support of Proposition 37 does not hinder industry from continuing its current practices.
The objective of the measure is to provide consumers the ability to make informed
decisions about the foods they eat every day. Labeling of genetically engineered foods
is an important first step to helping consumers. Santa Monica's farmers markets prohibit
GE /GMO, though Santa Monica consumers should have information to make choices
no matter where they shop. Below is a list of California municipalities and organizations
that endorse Prop 37:
• Arcata City
• Carpinteria
• City of Long Beach
• Eureka
• Fairfax Town Council
• Humboldt County Board of Supervisors
• Mar Vista Community Council
• Oxnard City Council
• Pacifica City Council
• Palms Neighborhood Council
• Pescadero Municipal Advisory Council
• Rampart Village Neighbohood Council
• Richmond City Council
• Santa Rosa City Council
• Westside Neighborhood Council
• Westwood Neighborhood Council
4
Commission Action
On October 15, 2012, the Task Force on the Environment (TFE) met to discuss the
recommendation regarding Genetically Engineered Foods Labeling. The TFE
recommends that the Council support California Proposition 37, Mandatory
Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food.
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
There are no budget or financial impacts as a result of adopting the attached resolution
in support of Proposition 37, provided as Attachment B.
Prepared by: Laura Avery, Farmers Market Supervisor
Approved: Forwarded to Council:
Andy Agle, Director Rod Gould
Housing and Economic Development City Manager
Approved:
Dean Kubani, Director
Office of Sustainability and the
Environment
Attachments:
Attachment A: Summary of Proposition 37 Ballot Initiative
Attachment B: Resolution in Support of Proposition 37
5
Attachment A
LAW OFFICES OF JAMES WHEATON
CALIFORNIA BUILDING 1736 FRANKLIN STREET, 9TH FLR OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612
�1 ^0089
19 December 2011
Office of the Attorney General IV
Dawn L. McFarland,
Acting Initiative Coordinator DEC 2 0 2019
1300I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814 INITIATIVE COORDINATOR
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
By hand delivery
RR: Request to Prepare Title and Summary fm• , Initiative Measure
Dear Ms, McFarland:
Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9001, I hereby request that the Attorney General
prepare a title and summary of the enclosed statewide ballot.initiative.
I have previously submitted a request for title and summary, No. 11 -0071. If you have
any questions regarding the differences, please feel free to contact me.
Please also find enclose:
o the statement required under Elections Code Section 9608;
o the certificate required by Elections Code Section 9001(b);
o the address at which I am currently registered to vote; my public contact information;
o the text of the proposed measure;
o -Ind a check payable to the State of California in the amount of $200.00.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter, and please direct any inquiries
regarding this request to myself. or Doug Linney at (5 10) 444 -4710 x309.
Sincerely yours,
James Wheaton
\ \01dfa1Ihfu1\Users \JW LAMMMM02 -AO Ilrl.wpd
II -0099
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
THE CALIFORNIA RIGHT TO I {NOW GENE,TICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD
ACT
SECTION 1. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS
(a) California consumers have the right to know whether the foods they purchase
were produced using genetic engineering, Genetic engineering of plants and
animals often causes unintended consequences. Manipulating genes and
inserting them into organisms is an imprecise process. The results are not
always predictable or controllable, and they can lead to adverse health or
environmental consequences.
(b) Government scientists have stated that the artificial insertion of DNA into
plants, a technique unique to genetic engineering, can cause a variety of
significant problems with plant foods. Such genetic engineering can increase
the levels of known toxicants in foods and introduce new toxicants and health
concerns.
(c) Mandatory identification of foods produced through genetic engineering can
provide a critical method for tracking the potential health effects of eating
genetically engineered foods.
(d) No federal or California law requires that food producers identify whether
foods were produced using genetic engineering. At the same time, the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration does not require safety studies of such foods.
Unless these foods contain a known allergen, the FDA does not even require
developers of genetically engineered crops to consult with the agency.
(e) Polls consistently show that more than 90 percent of the public want to know
if their food was produced using genetic engineering.
(f) Fifty countries— including the European Union member states, Japan and
other key U.S. trading partners —have laws mandating disclosure of
genetically engineered foods. No international agreements prohibit the
mandatory identification of foods produced through genetic engineering.
(g) Without disclosure, consumers of genetically engineered food can
unknowingly violate their own dietary and religious restrictions.
(h) The cultivation of genetically engineered crops can also cause serious impacts
to the environment. For example, most genetically engineered crops are
designed to withstand weed - killing pesticides known as herbicides. As a
result, hundreds of millions of pounds of additional herbicides have been used
on U.S. fauns. Because of the massive use of such products, herbicide-
resistant weeds have flourished —a problem that has resulted, in turn, in the
use of increasingly toxic herbicides. These toxic herbicides damage our
agricultural areas, impair our drinking water, and pose health risks to farm
workers and consumers. California consumers should have the choice to avoid
purchasing foods production of which can lead to such environmental harm.
(i) Organic farming is a significant and increasingly important part of California
agriculture. California has more organic cropland than any other state and has
almost one out of every four certified organic operations in the nation.
California's organic agriculture is growing faster than 20 percent a year.
(j) Organic farmers are prohibited from using genetically engineered seeds.
Nonetheless, these farmers' crops are regularly threatened with accidental
contamination from neighboring lands where genetically engineered crops
abound. This risk of contamination can erode public confidence in
California's organic products, significantly undermining this industry.
Californians should have the choice to avoid purchasing foods whose
production could harm the state's organic farmers and its organic foods
industry.
(k) The labeling, advertising and marketing of genetically engineered foods using
terms such as "natural," "naturally made," "naturally grown," or "all natural"
is misleading to California consumers.
SECTION 2. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
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 so that they can choose for
themselves whether to purchase and eat such foods. It shall be liberally construed to
fulfill this purpose.
SECTION 3. THE CALIFORNIA RIGHT TO KNOW GENETICALLY
ENGINEERED FOOD ACT
Article 6.6 (commencing with section 110808) is added to Chapter 5 of Part 5 of Division
104 of the Health and Safety Code (the Sherman Food, Ding and Cosmetic Law), to read
as follows:
THE CALIFORNIA RIGHT TO KNOW
GENETICALLYENGINEERED FOOD ACT
§270808 Definitions
The following definitions shall apply only for the purposes of thisArticle:
(a) Cultivated commercially. "Cultivated cormnercially" means grown or raised by a
person in the course of his business or trade and sold within the United States.
(b) EnUme. 'Enzyme" means a protein that catalyzes chemical reactions of other
substances without itself being destroyed or altered upon completion of the reactions.
(c) Genetically engineered.
(1) "Genetically engineered" means any food that is produced from an
organism or organisms in which the genetic material has been changed
through the application of.-
(i) In vitro nucleic acid techniques, including recombinant deoxyribonucleic
acid (DNA) techniques and the direct injection of nucleic acid into cells or
organelles, or
(ii) Fusion of cells (includingprotoplastfusion) or hybridization techniques
that overcome natural physiological, reproductive or recombination
barriers, where the donor cells /protoplasts do not fall within the same
taxonomic family, in a way that does not occur by natural multiplication
or natural recombination.
(2) Forpurposesofthissubsection(c):
(i) "Organism" means any biological entity capable of replication,
reproduction or transferringgenetic material.
(it) "In vitro nucleic acid techniques" include but are not limited to
recombinant DNA or RNA techniques that use vector systems and
techniques involving the direct introduction into the organisms of
hereditary materialsprepared outside the organisms such as micro -
injection, macro - injection, chemoporation, electroporation, micro -
encapsulation and liposome fusion.
(d) Processed food. "Processedfood" means any food other than a raw agricultural
commodity and includes any food produeedfrom a raw agricultural commodity that has
been subject to processing such as canning, smoking, pressing, cooking, freezing,
dehydration, fermentation or milling.
(e) Processing aid. "Processing aid" means:
(1) A substance that is added to a food during the processing of such food but
is removed in some manner from the food before it is packaged in its
finished form;
(2) Asubstance that is added to a, food duringprocessing, is converted into
constituents normally present in the food, and does not significantly
increase the amount of the constituents naturally found in the food, or
(3) A substance that is added to a foodfor its technical or firnetional effect in
the processing but is present in the finished food at insignificant levels and
does not have any technical or fractional effect in thatfinishedfood.
(fl Food Facility. "Food facility "shall have the meaning set forth in Section 113789.
§110809 Disclosure With Respect to Genetic Engineering of Food
(a) Commencing on July 1, 2014, anyfood offered for retail sale in California is
misbranded if it is or may have been entirely or partially produced with genetic
engineering and that fact is not disclosed-
(i) In the case of a raw agricultural commodity on the package
offeredfor retail sale, with the clear and conspicuous words "Genetically
Engineered" on thef•ont ofthepackage ofsuch commodity or in the case
of any such commodity that is not separately packaged or labeled, on a
label appearing on the retail siore shelf or bin in which such commodity is
displayedfor sale;
(ii) In the case ofanyprocessedfood, in clear and conspicuous
language on the f font or back of the package ofsuch food, with the words
"Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering" or `May be Partially
Produced with Genetic Engineering".
(b) Subdivision (a) of this section and subdivision (e) of section 110809.2 shall not be
construed to require either the listing or identification of any ingredient or ingredients
that were genetically engineered, nor that the term "genetically engineered" be placed
immediatelypreceding any common name or primary product descriptor of a food.
§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 rom labeling
under section 110809.2, the food may not in California, on its label, accompanying
signage in a retail establishment, or in any advertising or promotional materials, state or
imply that the food is "natural' "naturally made ", "naturally grown ", "all natural" or
any words ofsimilar import that would have any tendency to mislead any consumer.
§110809.2 Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food— Exemptions
The requirements of Section 110809 shall not apply to any of the following.'
(a) Food consisting entirely of or derived entirely f -om, an animal that has not
itself been genetically engineered, regardless of whether such animal has
been fed or injected with any genetically engineered food or any drug that has
been produced through means ofgenetic engineering.
4
(b) A raw agricultural commodity orfood derived therefrom that has been grown,
raised or produced without the knowing and intentional use ofgenetically
engineered seed orfood. Food will be deemed to be described in the
preceding sentence only if the person otherwise responsible for complying
with the requirements of subsection (a) of Section 110809 with respect to a
raw agricultural commodity orfood obtains, from whoever sold the
commodity orfood 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 fioin his own supplier that contains the affirmation set forth in the
preceding sentence.
(c) Anyprocessed food that would be subject to section 110809 solely because it
includes one or more genetically engineered processing aids or enzymes.
(d) Any alcoholic beverage that is subject to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act,
set forth in Division 9 (commencing with section 23000) of the Business and
Professions Code.
(e) Until July 1, 2019, any processed food that would be subject to section
110809 solely because it includes one or more genetically engineered
ingredients, provided that: (i) no single such ingredient accounts for more
than one -half of one percent of the total weight ofsuch processed food; and
(ti) the processedfood does not contain more than ten such ingredients.
(f) Food that an independent organization has determined has not been
knowingly and intentionally produced fi-om or commingled with genetically
engineered seed or genetically engineeredfood, provided that such
determination has been made pursuant to a sampling and testing procedure
approved in regulations adopted by the department. No sampling-procedure
shall be approved by the department unless sampling is done according to a
statistically valid sampling plan consistent with principles recommended by
internationally recognized sources such as the International Standards
Organization (ISO) and the Grain and Feed Trade Association (GAFTA). No
testingprocedure shall be approved by the department unless: (i) it is
consistent with the most recent "Guidelines on Performance Criteria and
Validation ofMethods forDetection, Identification and Quantification of
Specific DNA Sequences and Specific Proteins in Foods, " (CAC /GL 74
(2010)) published by the Codex Alimentarius Commission; and (ii) it does not
rely on testing ofprocessed foods in which no DNA is detectable.
(g) Food that has been lawfully certified to be labeled, marketed and offeredfor
sale as "organic "pursuant to thefederal Organic FoodProductsAct of 1990
and the regulations promtilgated pitrsuaiit thereto by the United States
Department ofAgricutture.
(h) Food that is not packagedfor retail sale and that either; (i) is a processed
foodprepared and intended for immediate human consumption or (ii) is
served, sold or otherwise provided in any restaurant or other foodfaeility that
isprimarily engaged in the sale offood prepared and intendedfor immediate
human consumption.
(i) Medical Food
§ 110809.3 Adoption of- Regulations
The department may adopt any regulations that it determines are necessary for the
enforcement and interpretation of this Article, provided that the department shall not be
authorized to create any exemptions beyond those specified in section 110809.2.
§110809.4 Enforcement
In addition to any action under Article 4 of Chapter 8, any violation of sections 110809
or 110890.1 shall be deemed a violation of Civil Code section 1770(a) (5) and may be
prosecuted under Title 1.5 of Part 4 of Division 3 of that code (commencing with section
1750), save that the consumer bringing the action need not establish any specific damage
from, orprove any reliance on, the alleged violation. The failure to make any disclosure
required by Section 110890, or the making of a statementprohibited by section 110809.1,
shall each be deemed to cause damage in at least the amount of the actual or offered
retail price of each package or product alleged to be in violation.
SECTION 4: ENFORCEMENT
Section 111910 of Article 4 of Chapter 8 of Part 5 of Division 104 is amended to read:
111910. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 111900 or any other provision of
law, any person may bring an action in superior courtpursuant to this section and the
court shall have jurisdiction upon hearing and for cause shown, to grant a temporary or
permanent injunction restraining any person from violating any provision of Article 6.6_
(commencing with Section 110808) , or Article 7 (commencing with Section 110810) of
Chapter 5. Any proceeding under this section shall conform to the requirements of
Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 525) of Title 7 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, except that the person shall not be required to allege facts necessary to show,
or tending to show, lack of adequate remedy at law, or to show, or tending to show,
irreparable damage or loss, or to show, or tending to show, unique or special individual
injury or damages.
(b) In addition to the injunctive relief provided in subdivision (a), the court may award
to thatperson, organization, or entity reasonable attorney's fees and all reasonable costs_
incurred in investigating and prosecuting the action as determined by the court.
(c) This section shall not be construed to limit or alter the powers of the department and
its authorized agents to bring an action to enforce this chapter pursuant to Section 111900
or any other provision of law.
SECTION S. MISBRANDING
Section 110663 is added to Article 6 of Chapter 5 or Part 3 of Division 104 to read;
Section 110663. Any food is misbranded if its labeling does not conform to the
requirements of section 110809 or 110809.1.
SECTION 6. SEVERABILITY
If any provision of this initiative or the application thereof is for any reason held to be
invalid or unconstitutional, that shall not affect other provisions or applications of the
initiative that can be given effect without the invalid or unconstitutional provision or
application, and to this end the provisions of this initiative are severable.
SECTION 7. CONSTRUCTION WITH OTHER LAWS
This initiative shall be construed to supplement, not to supersede, the requirements of any
federal or California statute or regulation that provides for less stringent or less complete
labeling of any raw agricultural commodity or processed food subject to the provisions of
this initiative.
SECTION 8. EFFECTIVE DATE
This initiative shall become effective upon enactment pursuant to Article 2, section 10(a)
of the California Constitution,
SECTION 9. CONFLICTING MEASURES
In the event that another measure or measures appearing on the same statewide ballot
impose additional requirements relating to the production, sale and/or labeling of
genetically engineered food, then the provisions of the other measure or measures, if
approved by the voters, shall be harmonized with the provisions of this Act, provided that
the provisions of the other measure or measures do not prevent, or excuse, compliance
with the requirements of this Act.
In the event that the provisions of the other measure or measures prevent, or excuse,
compliance with the provisions of this Act, and this Act receives a greater number of
affirmative votes, then the provisions of this Act shall prevail in their entirety, and the
other measure or measures shall be null and void.
J
SECTION 10. AMENDMENTS
This initiative may be amended by the Legislature, but only to further its intent and
purpose, by a statute passed by a two - thirds vote in each house.
Reference Resolution No.
10710(CCS).