Prop. 37 would require labeling on all genetically modified foods.
The pro-Prop. 37 camp, which has a strong base in Santa Cruz, has some new ammunition in support of their cause, even as polls show them cruising to victory in their effort to mandate labeling of genetically modified food.
A newly released study claims to have found a connection between certain genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, and serious health problems in rodents. More specifically, the controversial report links Monsanto’s trademark herbicide RoundUp—as well as the company’s corn and the soy and corn products—with tumors, liver problems and kidney damage in rats.
Gilles-Eric Seralini, the French scientist who conducted the study, says the findings make a clear case for labeling of GMOs, the driving force behind Prop 37, which hits California ballots in November. GMO labeling is already mandated in several countries, including Japan and all the members of the European Union.
But such labeling isn’t required anywhere in the United States. “This is in my idea a very severe problem,” Seralini said in an international press conference with reporters last week.
There are some details yet to be established: Seralini's team has not said how much the rats were given to eat, or what their growth rates were. Seralini said they have still have much more data, some of which will be published in subsequent reports. “We cannot put it all in one paper,” he said.
Prop 37 opponents have already begun questioning the report and point to hundreds of studies which arrived at contrary conclusions. In an email, No on 37 spokesperson Kathy Fairbanks said the study “appears to be deeply flawed,” adding that people would know by now if there were any serious health risks.
“If this study had any merit, and GE has been eaten by humans worldwide for 25+ years,” Fairbanks said, “then why aren’t millions of people dead already?”
Prop 37 supporter Thomas Whitman, a leader of Right to Know Santa Cruz, wasn’t surprised by the study’s findings. He says people should demand the right to find out what’s in their food no matter what.
“If you had a chance to know—even if there were a chance something were wrong—you’d want to know,” he says.
