Read Prop 37

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

The California Right to Know Genetically 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. farms. 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, Drug and Cosmetic Law), to read as follows:

THE CALIFORNIA RIGHT TO KNOW

GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD ACT 

§110808  Definitions

The following definitions shall apply only for the purposes of this Article:

(a) Cultivated commercially. “Cultivated commercially” means grown or raised by a person in the course of his business or trade and sold within the United States.

(b) Enzyme. “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 (including protoplast fusion) 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) For purposes of this subsection (c): 

(i) “Organism” means any biological entity capable of replication, reproduction or transferring genetic material.

(ii) “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 materials prepared outside the organisms such as micro-injection, macro-injection, chemoporation, electroporation, micro-encapsulation and liposome fusion.

(d) Processed food. “Processed food” means any food other than a raw agricultural commodity and includes any food produced from 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) A substance that is added to a food during processing, 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 food for its technical or functional effect in the processing but is present in the finished food at insignificant levels and does not have any technical or functional effect in that finished food.

(f) 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, any food 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 offered for retail sale, with the clear and conspicuous words “Genetically Engineered” on the front of the package of such commodity or in the case of any such commodity that is not separately packaged or labeled, on a label appearing on the retail store shelf or bin in which such commodity is displayed for sale; 

(ii) In the case of any processed food, in clear and conspicuous language on the front or back of the package of such 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 immediately preceding 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 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 of similar 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 from, 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 of genetic engineering. 

(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 for complying with the requirements of subsection (a)  of Section 110809 with respect to a raw agricultural commodity or food 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. 

(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 of such processed food; and (ii) the processed food does not contain more than ten such ingredients.  

(f) Food that an independent organization has determined has not been knowingly and intentionally produced from or commingled with genetically engineered seed or genetically engineered food, 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 testing procedure shall be approved by the department unless: (i) it is consistent with the most recent “Guidelines on Performance Criteria and Validation of Methods for Detection, 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 of processed foods in which no DNA is detectable. 

(g) Food that has been lawfully certified to be labeled, marketed and offered for sale as “organic” pursuant to the federal Organic Food Products Act of 1990 and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto by the United States Department of Agriculture.

(h) Food that is not packaged for retail sale and that either: (i) is a processed food prepared and intended for immediate human consumption or (ii) is served, sold or otherwise provided in any restaurant or other food facility that is primarily engaged in the sale of food prepared and intended for 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, or prove any reliance on, the alleged violation.  The failure to make any disclosure required by Section 110890, or the making of a statement prohibited 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 court pursuant 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 that person, 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 5. 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.

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.

Do you like this page?

Showing 29 reactions

followed this page 2013-10-24 21:06:23 -0700
followed this page 2013-10-14 03:26:17 -0700
commented 2013-09-06 10:48:33 -0700 · Flag
Thanks for sharing this article. Help me a lot. Check our site http://lifeinsurancegreenvillesc.weebly.com/cheap-life-insurance-greenville-sc.html. Thanks.
commented 2013-08-02 15:34:13 -0700 · Flag
commented 2013-08-02 05:34:31 -0700 · Flag
commented 2013-08-02 05:31:14 -0700 · Flag
i never seen this on http://www.chatroulette.re/
commented 2013-08-02 05:05:26 -0700 · Flag
commented 2013-08-02 05:05:00 -0700 · Flag
commented 2013-05-07 09:59:20 -0700 · Flag
Hurrah! At last I got a web site from where I be capable of truly get valuable information concerning my study and knowledge.
http://porniza.com/
commented 2013-04-24 12:15:07 -0700 · Flag
There won’t be a need to “pay for labels” because manufacturers will simply add them to their graphic design that gets printed before they send out product.
http://fridgeadvisor.com/how-long-do-refrigerators-last/
commented 2012-10-29 02:41:49 -0700 · Flag
thanks for all your research Judson! Good to know that you are also looking at the details. I was always for it anyways, but just needed to get the undecided voter to see the deceptions behind the NO campaign
commented 2012-10-27 07:57:31 -0700 · Flag
Saw your comment about not being able to find the 30 day cool down, but it looks like you discovered that the CLRA is the major enforcement mechanism and requires it.
commented 2012-10-27 05:41:34 -0700 · Flag
Hi there, First, I just want to clarify for those that are interested just what the enforcement policies of Prop 37 are and just where exactly the opponents are getting their gunpowder, so to speak, with the bandying about of ‘’Bounty-hunter Trial Lawyers’’ and to give you all an explanation for those who have their doubts about the legal ramifications of this proposition. (Like I did)

Secondly, I’d like to note that I read the entire bill then dug up a Proposition 65 and Prop 37 Comparison of Litigation Incentives [written by a University Law professor, one James C. Cooper, J.D., Ph.D. of George Mason University School of Law]

I’ve taken the liberty of adding 3 arrows e.g: >>> to the really key points where the sources are and I’ve added the link to the .pdf so you can check the veracity of the analysis yourselves.
Okay, so basically someone who isn’t familiar with California law can easily get confused reading the Enforcement and Penalties clause of Prop 37 but read on and you’ll understand that the SHERMAN FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC LAW which is part of the California Health and Safety Code, Division 104, Part 5 is extremely lenient to violators who seek to rectify violations which in this case would be mis-branding processed foods as ‘natural’ when that isn’t the case.

Public officials and private citizens can sue to enforce Label GMO THROUGH TWO MEANS- First, Label GMO provides that ‘’any person may bring an action in superior court… and the court shall have jurisdiction… to grant a temporary or permanent injunction restraining any person from violating any provision [of Label GMO]’’46 In Addition to obtaining injunctive relief, the court may award the person bringing the suit ‘’reasonable attorney’s fees and all reasonable costs incurred in investigation and prosecuting the action as determined by the court.’’47

THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT REGARDING THE CLRA [CALIFORNIA LEGAL REMEDIES ACT]
Second, a person can bring an action under the California Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) on her own behalf and also on behalf of similarly situated consumers.48
Label GMO does not require the plaintiff to ‘’establish specific damage from, or prove any reliance on, the alleged violation.’’49 Under the CLRA, the plaintiff must provide the defendant notice of the alleged violations, and the defendant has thirty days in which to cure the alleged violation through ‘’correction, repair, replacement, or other remedy.’50 If the defendant cures the violation, ‘’no action for damages may be maintained.’’51 Further, a plaintiff cannot collect damages if the defendant’s violation was an accident and the defendant takes appropriate remedial action.52

44 Id. § 110809.2(h)
45 Id § 110809.2(i)
46 Label GMO, Section 4.
47 Id.

48 Label GMO § 110809.4. Specifically Label GMO provides that a violation of the labeling and disclosure requirements shall be deemed a violation of Cal Civ. Code § 1770(a)(5), which prohibits as an unfair or deceptive act or practice ‘’representing that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities which they do not have.’’ The CLRA allows both individual and class actions. See Cal. Civ Code § § 1780(a),1781(a). >>>Only consumers have standing to bring a case under the CLRA.>>50 Cal. Civ. Code § 1782(a). The notice provision of the CLRA is strictly applied, and if not followed precisely will result in dismissal of a CLRA claim. See Von Grabe, 312 F. Supp. 2d at 1303-04; Outboard Marine Corp. v. Superior Ct., 52 Cal. App. 3d 30, 40-41 (1975).

>>>51 Id. § 1782(b). In the class action context, no action for damages can be maintained if the alleged violator had made reasonable efforts to identify and notify all consumers in the class that they will cure the violation upon their request, the violation has been cured, and the alleged violator has ceased engaging in the alleged illegal acts. Id. At § 1782©(1)-(4).

>>>52 Id. § 1784: No award of damages may be given if the [defendant] proves that such a violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the use of reasonable procedures adopted to avoid any such error; and {b} makes an appropriate correction, repair or replacement or other remedy of the goods and services…..

>>>> SOURCE: A Comparative Litigation Analysis of Prop 65 and the Proposed CaRighttoKnow Genetically Engineered Foods Act [Prop 37]: http://www.anh-usa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Prop65-and-GMO-Label-Initiative.pdf
commented 2012-10-27 05:32:27 -0700 · Flag
Okay, I didn’t realize that the website wouldn’t allow underlines and that it made all text in bold so forgive me but I’m going to re-post this. Please don’t ignore it! It contains pertinent information for the law illiterate (Like me! ;P)
commented 2012-10-27 05:29:01 -0700 · Flag
Hi there, First, I just want to clarify for those that are interested just what the enforcement policies of Prop 37 are and just where exactly the opponents are getting their gunpowder, so to speak, with the bandying about of ‘’Bounty-hunter Trial Lawyers’’ and to give you all an explanation for those who have their doubts about the legal ramifications of this proposition: (Like I did) Secondly, I’d like to note that I read the entire bill then dug up a Proposition 65 and Prop 37 Comparison of Litigation Incentives written by a University Law professor, one James C. Cooper, J.D., Ph.D. of George Mason University School of Law*
I’ve taken the liberty of underlining the really key points at the bottom where the sources are and I’ve added the link to the .pdf at the bottom so you can check the veracity of the analysis yourselves.
Okay, so basically someone who isn’t familiar with California law can easily get confused reading the Enforcement and Penalties clause of Prop 37 but read on and you’ll understand that the SHERMAN FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC LAW which is part of the California Health and Safety Code, Division 104, Part 5 is extremely lenient to violators who seek to rectify violations which in this case would be misbranding processed foods as ‘natural’ when that isn’t the case.

Public officials and private citizens can sue to enforce Label GMO through two means. First, Label GMO provides that ‘’any person may bring an action in superior court… and the court shall have jurisdiction… to grant a temporary or permanent injunction restraining any person from violating any provision [of Label GMO]’’46 In Addition to obtaining injunctive relief, the court may award the person bringing the suit ‘’reasonable attorney’s fees and all reasonable costs incurred in investigation and prosecuting the action as determined by the court.’’47
Second, a person can bring an action under the California Legal Remedies Act (CLRA0 on her own behalf and also on behalf of similarly situated consumers.48
Label GMO does not require the plaintiff to ‘’establish specific damage from, or prove any reliance on, the alleged violation.’’49 Under the CLRA, the plaintiff must provide the defendant notice of the alleged violations, and the defendant has thirty days in which to cure the alleged violation through ‘’correction, repair, replacement, or other remedy.’50 If the defendant cures the violation, ‘’no action for damages may be maintained.’’51 Further, a plaintiff cannot collect damages if the defendant’s violation was an accident and the defendant takes appropriate remedial action.52
44 Id. § 110809.2(h)
45 Id § 110809.2(i)
46 Label GMO, Section 4.
47 Id.
48 Label GMO § 110809.4. Specifically Label GMO provides that a violation of the labeling and disclosure requirements shall be deemed a violation of Cal Civ. Code § 1770(a)(5), which prohibits as an unfair or deceptive act or practice ‘’representing that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities which they do not have.’’ The CLRA allows both individual and class actions. See Cal. Civ Code § § 1780(a),1781(a). Only consumers have standing to bring a case under the CLRA. See Von Grabe v. Sprint PCS, 312 F. Supp. 2d 1285, 1303 (S.D. Cal. 2003).
49 Label GMO § 110809.4.
50 Cal. Civ. Code § 1782(a). The notice provision of the CLRA is strictly applied, and if not followed precisely will result in dismissal of a CLRA claim. See Von Grabe, 312 F. Supp. 2d at 1303-04; Outboard Marine Corp. v. Superior Ct., 52 Cal. App. 3d 30, 40-41 (1975).
51 Id. § 1782(b). In the class action context, no action for damages can be maintained if the alleged violator had made reasonable efforts to identify and notify all consumers in the class that they will cure the violation upon their request, the violation has been cured, and the alleged violator has ceased engaging in the alleged illegal acts. Id. At § 1782©(1)-(4).
52 Id. § 1784: No award of damages may be given if the [defendant] proves that such a violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the use of reasonable procedures adopted to avoid any such error; and {b} makes an appropriate correction, repair or replacement or other remedy of the goods and services….. Source: A Comparative Litigation analysis of Prop 65 and the Proposed CaRighttoKnow Genetically Engineered Foods Act [Prop 37]: http://www.anh-usa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Prop65-and-GMO-Label-Initiative.pdf
commented 2012-10-27 04:45:03 -0700 · Flag
Okay, sorry. I did some more digging and found a breakdown of the entire proposition from a university Law professor:

Enforcement
and
Penalties
Public
officials
and
private
citizens
can
sue
to
enforce
Label
GMO
through
two
means.
First,
Label
GMO
provides
that
“any
person
may
bring
an
action
in
superior
court
.
.
.
and
the
court
shall
have
jurisdiction
.
.
.
to
grant
a
temporary
or
permanent
injunction
restraining
any
person
from
violating
any
provision
[of
Label
GMO].”46
In
addition
to
obtaining
injunctive
relief,
the
court
may
award
the
person
bringing
the
suit
“reasonable
attorney’s
fees
and
all
reasonable
costs
incurred
in
investigation
and
prosecuting
the
action
as
determined
by
the
court.”47
Second,
a
person
can
bring
an
action
under
the
California
Legal
Remedies
Act
(CLRA)
on
her
own
behalf
and
also
on
behalf
of
similarly
situated
consumers.48
Label
GMO
does
not
require
the
plaintiff
to
“establish
specific
damage
from,
or
prove
any
reliance
on,
the
alleged
violation.”49
Under
the
CLRA,
the
plaintiff
must
provide
the
defendant
notice
of
the
alleged
violations,
and
the
defendant
has
thirty
days
in
which
to
cure
the
alleged
violation
through
“correction,
repair,
replacement,
or
other
remedy.”50
If
the
defendant
cures
the
violation,
“no
action
for
damages
may
be
maintained.”51
Further,
a
plaintiff
cannot
collect
damages
if
the
defendant’s
violation
was
an
accident
and
the
defendant
takes
appropriate
remedial
action
commented 2012-10-27 04:19:32 -0700 · Flag
Proposition 37 is just getting worse and worse the more I read about 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 court pursuant 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 that person, organization, or entity reasonable attorney’s fees and all reasonable costs incurred in investigating and prosecuting the action as determined by the court. © 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.
commented 2012-10-27 04:13:17 -0700 · Flag
I hate to say it but I have a major major problem with this part of the proposition: §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, or prove any reliance on, the alleged violation. The failure to make any disclosure required by Section 110890, or the making of a statement prohibited 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.

To add to that, there is absolutely no mention of a grace period for farmers, manufacturers, or distributors to correct any misbrandings. This is a lawyer field day waiting to happen..
commented 2012-10-27 04:10:40 -0700 · Flag
Okay, I hate to say it but I don’t see any 30 day cooling off period for the manufacturers, retailer, farmers to correct misbranded labels. It simply isn’t part of the bill unless I’m blind. That concerns me.
followed this page 2012-10-25 20:46:15 -0700
commented 2012-10-23 12:30:37 -0700 · Flag
Thanks Judson

This was a confusing part to me and to many others whom I talk to. Is this in the proposition stating that or is it implied b/c this is the way it has always been? Thanks again
commented 2012-10-23 12:12:53 -0700 · Flag
There won’t be a need to “pay for labels” because manufacturers will simply add them to their graphic design that gets printed before they send out product. It’s the same as any other mandatory label you me see on a product (nutrition labels, peanut allergy warnings, transfat labels, etc.)
commented 2012-10-23 11:33:25 -0700 · Flag
was wondering who was going to pay for the labeling as many people I talk to are confused as am I. Is it going to be the same as always with the manufacturer labeling?
commented 2012-10-04 19:20:01 -0700 · Flag
John and Brandon,

California law only allows ballot measures to address a single issue/modify a single area of the law per proposition.

“No initiative measure addressing more than one subject area may be submitted to the voters or have any effect. (Cal. Const., art. II, §§ 8(d) and 12.)”

Alcoholic beverages, food produced specifically for a medical condition, livestock fed GMOs but not themselves genetically modified, and food served in restaurants are all regulated under separate sections of California law or are subject to special federal laws. Organic foods are exempted because by federal law they already cannot be genetically modified.

The exemptions do not nullify anything, they simply keep the Prop legal under California law.

Hope that clears up any confusion!
commented 2012-10-04 11:44:02 -0700 · Flag
@ John smith EXACTLY!! The exemptions kill this.. :( I’m disappointed. BUT BUT BUT.. It is a step in the right direction.
commented 2012-09-16 15:28:13 -0700 · Flag
We are human beings, we stand united for the aware and those who don’t understand the importance of labeling. We are the bringers of the Brightest Light! 37 is the opportunity to hold hands with humanity for the sake of our future on this planet. It is our Right!
published this page in Facts 2012-09-10 17:26:10 -0700