Proposition 37 is a Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food Initiative on the November ballot.
The measure requires labeling of food sold to consumers made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways and prohibits marketing such food, or other processed food, as natural.
According to the No On Prop 37 Campaign, they claim it is deceptive and flawed. In a recent commercial the group says it would increase costs which would be passed on to producers and consumers.
In this week's fact check we found that the No On 37 camp got their figures from a study they paid for. An independent study by a non-profit group, Alliance for Natural Health didn't reach the same conclusion.
Dr. Joanna Shepherd-Bailey, a Professor at Emory University School of Law, concluded there would be "little or no change in consumer food prices as a result of these relabeling expenses."
The No On 37 Camp has also said the measure would "cost California taxpayers 'millions' for more bureaucracy and red tape."
But that statement flies in the face of estimates by the Nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office which pegs government costs at "a few hundred thousand to $1 million a year."
Two different studies resulting in two different results, with one set of facts.
For more information on the No On Prop 37 or yes On Prop 37 visit their websites.
- Updated Evacuations ordered due to fire burning in Hawkinsville and Yreka
- Updated Soaring costs of EpiPens have victims of allergies worried
- Updated Orlando hospitals won't bill survivors of Pulse nightclub shooting
- Updated 12 killed in Kabul university attack
- Heroin laced with elephant tranquilizer hits the streets