According to the Official Voter Guide of California, Proposition 37 requires labeling of food sold to consumers made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways. Proposition 37 also prohibits marketing such food, or other processed food, as “natural.”
In short, genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, would be labeled for consumers to have a better understanding of what they are buying. Now, there are exceptions for the labeling as well. Food that is "certified organic," that an "independent organization has determined" is not produced from genetically engineered seed, that is "made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material," is "processed food containing less than 0.5% of genetically engineered ingredients," or is "sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant" according to biotech.com.
The pros from voting yes on Proposition 37 is the simply label of informing your consumers the right to information that should already be transparent. GMO labels are already a requirement in over 40 countries and if California passes this proposition, it would be the first state in the United States to do so and pave the way for more regulations to come.
The cons from voting yes on Proposition 37 could increase annual state costs from a few hundred thousand dollars to over $1 million to regulate the labeling of GMOs. Additional, but likely not significant, governmental costs to address violations under the measure would be the financial impact. Big time companies of GMOs could lose out on a lot of business even though there have been many reputable sources stating GMOs pose no real big health risk.
In my humble opinion, I want to vote yes on Proposition 37 and urge you to vote yes as well. To give you a sense of who's backing what side, the backers of "No on Proposition 37" raised nearly $35 million mainly to the contributions of major companies specializing in pesticides and genetically engineered seeds like Monsanto, DuPont and Bayer. In comparison, the “Yes on 37” campaign, California Right to Know, raised about $4 million by the end of September due to multiple donations from all over the place.
I hate how backers of No on 37 use scare tactics to persuade their audience. On the other hand, I love how backers of 37, try and keep it simple asking the simple question why major companies are spending millions of dollars to stop a bill that does virtually any damage except for informing the customers. I'm a public relations major and I was taught that transparency and honesty are just two of the key public relations values that everyone should practice.
Not correctly labeling your own products seem misleading and shady. If major GMO companies are scared of losing business because of the reputation of GMOs, they should instead launch a public relations campaign in changing people's opinion of GMOs. However, GMOs scare the public for a reason as well, herbicide-resistant GMOs commit us to a "chemical treadmill" that, "may induce detrimental health effects even at low exposure levels." After taking multiple environmental studies classes, I just can't vote for No on Proposition 37 when I see too many pros for it.
http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/37/
http://biotech.about.com/b/2012/11/03/gmo-labeling-does-proposition-37-false-alarm-or-empower-consumers.htm
http://www.carighttoknow.org/tags/proposition_37
http://baldwinpark.patch.com/articles/proposition-37-genetically-modified-food-could-get-labels
