Energy drinks and shots
Fancy Food Show
Dietary Guidelines 2015
Entrepreneurs to watch
FOOD VISION USA
Healthy & Natural
The Trump administration
Food labeling and marketing
The obesity problem
The GM debate
Health & Wellness
Carbohydrates and fibers (sugar, starches)
Cereals and bakery preparations
Chocolate and confectionery ingredients
Cultures, enzymes, yeast
Emulsifiers, stabilizers, hydrocolloids
Fats & oils
Flavors and colors
Food safety and labeling
Fruit, vegetable, nut ingredients
Health and nutritional ingredients
Meat, fish and savory ingredients
Preservatives and acidulants
Sweeteners (intense, bulk, polyols)
Videos & Audio
Shows & Conferences
Food Jobs - USA
Food Jobs - Europe
Food Jobs - UK
Contrary to the assertions of Mr Nedelman and others, serious legal analysis of Prop 37 on GMO labelling shows clearly that it will not cause ‘bounty hunter’ lawsuits.
Dr. James C. Cooper, a former Federal Trade Commission official and an adjunct professor of law at George Mason School of Law, compared Prop 37 with a prior piece of Californian legislation on toxic chemicals, Prop 65, which did trigger frivolous lawsuits. Dr Cooper found that the Label GMO initiative contains “important differences [which] substantially reduce the potential for Label GMO to foster the type of abusive private litigation associated with Proposition 65.”
Dr Cooper’s main findings were:
1) Label GMO provides seven years in which producers can gradually reduce the GMO exposure of their products from no more than 5% to zero.
2) So long as food or supplement producers have a sworn statement from their supplier stating that, to the supplier’s best belief, there are no GMO elements in their ingredients, the producer is immune from suit.
3) The producer is also immune from liability if the food is certified organic and certified GMO-free by an independent organization. No doubt it will make sense for food producers to help create an independent certifier.
4) Once a violation has been identified, the producer has 30 days in which to correct it, in which case there is no liability.
5) There is no “bounty” for plaintiffs who initiate lawsuits.
Read more here: http://www.anh-usa.org/label-gmo-proves-progmo-camp-wrong/
Posted by Adam Smith, Alliance for Natural Health International07 August 2012 | 12h12
Please fill in the box below to tell us why you feel the post breaks our rules. When you are finished, click on "Send" so that it can be reviewed by a moderator.
We will not publish your email on the site
Back to: Food industry raises millions to oppose Prop 37 on GMO labeling
Access all events listing
Our events, Shows & Conferences...
Subscribe to our FREE newsletterSUBSCRIBE
Industrial Baking & Snacks
Beverage Technology & Markets
Confectionery & Biscuit Processing
Dairy Processing & Markets
Food & Beverage Development - Europe
Food Safety & Quality Control
Supplements, Health & Nutrition - Europe
Supplements, Health & Nutrition - North America
Inside food & drink manufacturing
Food & Beverage Development and Technology - Asia Pacific
Global Meat Trading and Processing
Supplements, Health & Nutrition - Asia Pacific
About us |
Editorial Calendar |
Site map |
All sites |
Recommend this Site |
Contact the Editor |
Terms & Conditions |