SUBSCRIBE

Breaking News on Food & Beverage Development - North AmericaEU edition | Asian edition

Trends > The GM debate

Processed food clause in Prop 37 would kill off 'natural' category in California, warns NPA

3 commentsBy Elaine WATSON , 07-Sep-2012
Last updated on 12-Sep-2012 at 17:03 GMT

NPA: 'We are concerned the restrictions on natural foods in the proposition language could create a difficult business environment in California and further hinder the ability of our members to sell natural products'
NPA: 'We are concerned the restrictions on natural foods in the proposition language could create a difficult business environment in California and further hinder the ability of our members to sell natural products'

The Natural Products Association (NPA) has come out against California’s Proposition 37 GMO labeling proposal, in part because it would prohibit members from marketing thousands of foods as ‘natural’ - even if they do not contain any genetically engineered ingredients.

Under the proposal, which will become law in July 2014 if Californians vote ‘yes’ this November, a food cannot be labeled as ‘natural’ - regardless of whether it contains GMOs - if it is a ‘processed food’, the definition of which 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”.

This would mean scores of products from salted almonds to apple sauce that have not been genetically engineered would no longer be allowed to call themselves ‘natural’, NPA chief executive John Shaw told NutraIngredients-USA, adding that the “road to hell is paved with good intentions”.

An open door for trial lawyers to sue our members wantonly

Moreover, if passed in November, this statute would provide an “open door for trial lawyers to sue our members wantonly andplace every supplier, manufacturer and retailer of food products at risk of unreasonable and frivolous litigation”, he claimed.

Prop 37 is designed to be enforced either by the state’s regulators or by private plaintiffs, who are not required to show any ‘unique or special individual injury or damages’.

NPA regulatory and scientific affairs vice president Dr Cara Welch said the statute - however well-intentioned - created a Prop 65-type environment whereby opportunistic plantiff’s lawyers lawyers would scan shelves and sue a raft of firms making natural claims without having to prove any injury to their clients.

While private plaintiffs will not be able to retain a share of any civil penalties (as is currently the case under Prop 65), Prop 37 would allow him or her to collect “reasonable attorney’s fees and all reasonable costs incurred in investigating and prosecuting the action as determined by the court”, she said.

Shaw added: “Our members have basically issued a warning to other states trying to develop such statutes why fundamentally flawed enforcement provisions that essentially become bounty hunter provisions for trial lawyers cannot be tolerated."

Natural seal definition still a work in progress

The NPA has yet to decide whether products featuring its ‘natural seal’ for foodstuffs should be allowed to contain genetically engineered ingredients, said Welch.

Given that 94% of all soy, 90%+ of sugar beet and canola and 88% of corn in the US is grown using GM seeds, securing non-GM alternatives is becoming increasingly challenging, she added.

“Huge parts of the meat-free market would have to stop using the word 'natural' on pack.”

Meanwhile, the practical challenges of having to label products sold in California differently to those supplied to other US states should not be underestimated, she said.

In a statement issued last night, the NPA said it supports consumers’ right to know about the foods they purchase and appreciates the transparency Proposition 37 offers regarding genetically engineered foodsbut it “cannot support“ the enforcement provisions or the limited definition of ‘natural’.

Exemptions

At the heart of Prop 37 is a requirement for firms to disclose if a food or dietary supplement sold in California “is genetically engineered” (raw agricultural commodities) or “may have been entirely or partially produced with genetic engineering” (processed foods and supplements).

It excludes alcohol, medical foods, food served in restaurants, GE processing aids and enzymes, and meat from animals fed GE feed, and allows for deliberate addition of GE ingredients at levels of up to 0.5% (although this threshold will fall to zero in 2019).

It also establishes three exemptions:

1 -  For foods certified organic.

2 -  Where manufacturers can obtain sworn statements affirming the absence of GE processing from every supplier of every ingredient they use.

3 - If manufacturers undertake a sampling and testing program under the supervision of a third party ‘independent organization’ to determine that each of their products “has not been knowingly and intentionally produced from or commingled with genetically engineered seed or genetically engineered food”.

Business friendly?

Media director for the California Right To Know campaign Stacy Malkan told this publication last month that the wording of Prop 37 was designed to make it easier for companies to comply, requiring them to prove their intention to avoid GMOs, rather than requiring their products to pass tests proving that GMOs are not present.

However, Kathy Fairbank, spokesperson for No On Prop 37, said the proposition “is the exact opposite of business friendly, because it allows trial lawyers to file lawsuits against anyone on the food chain….Companies can either prove that they are right [that a product does not contain GMOs] or they can settle with the lawyers.”

Click here to find out more about the ‘vote no’ campaign.

Click here to find out more about the ‘vote yes’ campaign.

Click here to read the text of Proposition 37 (The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act).

3 comments (Comments are now closed)

Prop 37 and "natural"

While I am not a fan of Prop 37 I do agree that the use of "natural" is over-used and really means nothing. As I read it Prop 37 would make keep most foods from being called "natural." This would stop the over-use of the word and possibly give it a definition that would be pretty narrow.
I don't think the politicians in California have really counted the potential cost of Prop 37: Who will enforce it and how will they be paid?
While there are good intentions at work here as written Prop 37 looks like ignorance gone to seed or style over substance.

Report abuse

Posted by BLM
12 September 2012 | 18h27

Losing it NPA?

Seems like the NPA is losing it here. It's so obvious that we need GMO labeling in this country. The term Natural has also been misused by so many mainstream companies selling not very healthy and natural products, so it shouldn't be used loosely anyways. A consumer can pretty much figure out what's natural and what is not by looking at the ingredients. Thumbs down NPA

Report abuse

Posted by Andrew Carter
11 September 2012 | 20h05

Natural on labels mean very little

There are no standards or regulations on what natural means on a food or product label. It can mean whatever the company wants it to mean. Many foods labeled as natural contains additives, packaging and processing aids made from corn or other GMOs, even though corn is not even listed on the labels. People allergic to corn have found this out, the 'hard' way. So, I hardly think that labeling GMOs would affect the natural food sector, since there really isn't any legal standards for 'natural' anyway. Companies that don't use any GMOs in their really natural products can proudly proclaim 'NO GMOs' A win-win situation.

Report abuse

Posted by DJ
07 September 2012 | 19h38

Key Industry Events

 

Access all events listing

Our events, Events from partners...