VOTE...and watch your vote count on LBREPORT.com's LIVE Election Night Coverage June 3.

SB 1381 (authored by Sen. Noreen Evans (D., No. Cal coast north of SF) required 21 votes for passage and failed on a 19-17 vote on May 28, was granted reconsideration, and failed by a 19-16 margin (two votes short of passage) on May 29. (On the second vote, Sen. Lou Correa (D, Santa Ana) switched from a "no" to "no vote recorded.")

MEASURE:	SB 1381
AUTHOR:	Evans
TOPIC:	Food labeling: genetically engineered food.
DATE:	05/29/2014
LOCATION:	SEN. FLOOR
MOTION:	Senate 3rd Reading SB1381 Evans
	(AYES  19. NOES  16.)  (FAIL)

	AYES
	****

Beall	Corbett	De León	DeSaulnier
Evans	Hancock	Hueso	Jackson
Lara	Leno	Lieu	Liu
Mitchell	Monning	Padilla	Pavley
Steinberg	Torres	Wolk

	NOES
	****

Anderson	Berryhill	Block	Cannella
Fuller	Gaines	Galgiani	Hernandez
Hill	Huff	Knight	Morrell
Nielsen	Vidak	Walters	Wyland

	NO VOTE RECORDED
	****************

Calderon	Correa	Roth	Wright
Yee

Three Dem Senators weren't present as they were on paid leaves awaiting sentencing on felony convictions (Wright) or awaiting trial on alleged felonies (Yee and Calderon.)

SB 1381, which never reached the Assembly, would have prescribed labeling requirements for a raw agricultural commodity that is genetically engineered and packaged foods, as it defined, containing some products of genetic engineering. The bill would impose these labeling requirements on manufacturers and retailers, as it defined, of the commodities and foods.

To view the full text of the bill, click here.

Below is a list of supporters and opponents from a state Senate legislative analysis:

SUPPORT:   (Verified  5/23/14)
Alliance for Natural Health
Bayliss Botanicals
Biosafety Alliance
Black Women for Wellness
Breast Cancer Action
California Certified Organic Farmers
California Farmers' Markets Association
California Institute for Rural Studies
California Nurses Association
CalPIRG
Californians for Pesticide Reform
California State Grange
Center for Environmental Health
Center for Food Safety
Children of Vietnam Veterans Health Alliance
Clean Water Action
Committee for a Better Shafter
Communities for a New California
Community Alliance with Family Farmers
Consumers Union
County of Mendocino
Culver City Democratic Club
Delano Guardians
Ecological Farming Association
Environment California
Environmental Working Group
Food & Agriculture Caucus of the Democratic Party
Food & Water Watch
Food Democracy Now!
Food Empowerment Project
Friends of the Earth
Global Community Monitor
Good Earth Organic & Natural Foods
Green America
Greenfield Walking Group
Harmony Art
Hooked Health and Wellness Club
Keena's Kitchen
LabelGMOs.org
La Rocca Vineyards
Moms Advocating Sustainability
Organic Consumers Association
Pesticide Action Network
Pesticide Watch
Physicians for Social Responsibility (Sacramento and San
Francisco chapters)
Planned Parenthood of California
Planting Justice
Rancho de los Proyectos
Rural Communities Resource Center
Sacramento Community Grange #843
Santa Monica City Councilmember Kevin McKeown
Sierra Club California
Silo's
Slow Food California
Sustainable Carmel Valley
Unitarian Universalist Church of Monterey Peninsula
United for Change in Tooleville
United Native Americans Inc.
Wild Farm Alliance

OPPOSITION:    (Verified  5/23/14)

Agricultural Council of California
Almond Hullers and Processors Association
BAYBIO
BIOCOM
Biotechnology Industry Organization
Butte County Farm Bureau
California Alfalfa & Forage Association
California Bean Shippers Association
California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse
California Chamber of Commerce
California Citrus Mutual
California Cotton Ginners Association
California Cotton Growers Association
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Grain & Feed Association
California Grocers Association
California Healthcare Institute
California League of Food Processors
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
California Retailers Association
California Seed Association
California State Floral Association
California Taxpayers Association
California Warehouse Association
California Women for Agriculture
Chamber of Commerce of the Santa Barbara Region
Chambers of Commerce of Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties
Consumer Healthcare Products Association
Farmworker Justice
Fullerton Chamber of Commerce
Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce
Grocery Manufacturers Association
International Formula Council
Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
Monterey County Farm Bureau
Pacific Egg & Poultry Association
San Joaquin Farm Bureau Federation
Santa Barbara County Farm Bureau
Southwest California Legislative Council
Tulare County Farm Bureau
Valley Industry & Commerce Association
Western Agricultural Processors Association
Western Growers
Western Plant Health Association
Yolo County Farm Bureau

Below are arguments for and against as summarized in the Senate legislative analysis:

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:

This bill is supported by a coalition of organizations, which include the Environmental Working Group, Consumers Union, the California State Grange, the California Nurses Association, the California Farmers' Markets Association, and Eden Foods, among other organizations. Supporters state that Californians should have the choice as to whether to purchase foods that are GE, and this bill permits people to make informed choices by requiring GE foods sold in California to be labeled as such. Supporters state that more than 64 other countries have enacted laws specifically focused on overseeing GE crops and foods, or their labeling, and that polls continue to indicate that the majority of Californians want the labeling of GE foods. Supporters also state that this bill will help provide researchers with the means to track ingestion of GE foods in order to determine if there are adverse health effects. Supporters argue that labeling GE foods is about transparency and empowering people so that consumer can make their own informed choices.

Supporters assert that contrary to the opposition's claim that genetic engineering labeling will cost consumers at the cash register, label changes and updates are a routine part of business for the food industry and don't result in additional costs to shoppers. Supporters point to an economic assessment of Proposition 37 conducted by a professor at Emory University School of Law that found that "prices for many food products will not change as a result of the Right to Know Act." Additionally, supporters state that GE food labeling has not increased food prices in Europe, citing a statement to that effect by the former European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection of the European Parliament.

CALPIRG states in support that genetic engineering-centric agriculture has increased the use of toxic chemicals. According to CALPIRG, most GE foods in the US are designed to withstand herbicides and pesticides, and therefore enable increased use of these toxic chemicals. CALPIRG states that high pesticide exposure is associated with cognitive decline, cancer, and negative birth outcomes. According to CALPIRG, increased pesticide and herbicide use also lead to chemical-resistant weeds and insects, which pushes farmers to both increase the dosages still further, and return to older, more toxic chemicals to which pests are not yet resistant.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:

This bill is opposed by a number of organizations, including the Agricultural Council of California, BAYBIO, BIOCOM, California Citrus Mutual, the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Farm Bureau Federation, the California Grocers Association, the California Retailers Association, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, and the California Healthcare Institute. Opponents state that this bill mandates a California-only labeling scheme that will increase food costs for California families and raise liability and compliance costs for farmers, grocers and food manufacturers. According to opponents, it will confuse consumers with a label that lacks context and scientific basis and stigmatize food ingredients that are safe and healthy. Opponents state that economic studies of Proposition 37 concluded that genetic engineering labeling mandates will cost the average California family up to $400 per year in higher grocery bills, and that this will disproportionately impact low and fixed income populations. Opponents argue that as food costs increase, the allocated dollars for programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program will not purchase as much nutritional food as before and will hurt California's most vulnerable populations.