34 daily newspapers from California urge voters to vote NO on Prop 37

Farmer Gene

In recent editorials, California’s major daily newspapers are urging voters to reject Proposition 37 on the November ballot.  Read all No on Prop. 37 editorials here.

No on 37The San Jose Mercury News says Prop 37 has best of intent, but bad drafting.

  • “Proposition 37 should never have been placed on the ballot this fall.”
  •  “…there are real problems with this particular law.”
  • “A badly drafted law with good intentions is still a bad law.”
  • “Voters should reject Prop. 37.” 

The Los Angeles Times says No on Proposition 37

  • “The initiative to require labeling of those ingredients is sloppily written.”
  • “…a paperwork mandate that could make it hard for mom-and-pop groceries to stay in business.”
  • “…lawsuits brought by members of the public who suspect grocers of selling unlabeled food, a messy and potentially expensive way to bring about compliance.”
  • “there is no rationale for singling out genetic engineering.”

The San Francisco Chronicle says GE lables mean higher costs

  • “Prop 37 is fraught with vague and problematic provisions that could make it costly for consumers and a legal nightmare for those who grow, process or sell food.”
  •  “The peril of a voter-passed initiative is that if negative consequences emerge, the law can be repealed only by the voters.”
  • “Perhaps the main problem with Prop 37 is that it invites citizen lawsuits as a primary means of enforcing the labeling law.”
  • “Californians will be voting on the language of the law, not merely the concept. Vote no on Prop. 37.”

The Sacramento Bee says Prop 37 is a sour plan for food labeling

  • “The federal government, or the food industry, should develop standards, not individual states”
  • “Proposition 37 is a classic example of an initiative that shouldn’t be on the ballot. It is an overreach, is ambiguous, and would open the way for countless lawsuits against retailers who sell food that might lack the proper labeling.”
  • “California does not need another open-ended cause of action.”
  • “Even voters who worry about genetically modified food should reject Proposition 37.”

The Fresno Bee says Prop 37 is wrong approach to food labeling

  • “Proposition 37 [is] an ill-conceived initiative on the Nov. 6 ballot.”
  • “Prop 37 is an overreach, and would encourage countless lawsuits against retailers.”
  •  “It contains wording that could prohibit ‘natural’ labels on any food that has been processed or milled. Proponents say that wasn’t their intent. But that’s no guarantee against lawsuits.” 

The Santa Cruz Sentinel says flawed measure could prove costly and add to litigation burden.

  • “Clearly, this provision would create even more lawsuits.  And who would this benefit?  Lawyers.”
  • “This sloppily written measure is not the answer.”
  • “Prop. 37 could add to food costs for consumers, hurt small businesses and create yet another avenue for costly litigation.”
  •  “Vote no on Proposition 37.”

Newspapers Endorsing No on Prop. 37:

  • Los Angeles Times
  • San Francisco Chronicle
  • Sacramento Bee
  • LA Daily News
  • San Jose Mercury News
  • U-T San Diego
  • Oakland Tribune
  • Contra Costa Times
  • Orange County Register
  • Santa Rosa Press Democrat
  • Riverside Press Enterprise
  • Long Beach Press Telegram
  • Torrance Daily Breeze
  • San Gabriel Valley Tribune
  • Pasadena Star News
  • Whittier Daily News
  • San Bernardino Sun
  • Inland Valley Daily Bulletin
  • Fresno Bee
  • Santa Cruz Sentinel
  • Merced Sun-Star
  • Modesto Bee
  • Redding Record Searchlight
  • Woodland Daily Democrat
  • Bakersfield Californian
  • Ventura County Star
  • Carmel Pine Cone
  • East County Times
  • West County Times
  • San Ramon Valley Times
  • Tri Valley Times
  • Fremont Argus
  • Hayward Daily Review
  • Palm Springs Desert Sun
  • Victorville Daily Press

About Prop 37:
Proposition 37 would ban the sale of tens of thousands of perfectly-safe, common grocery products only in California unless they are specially repackaged, relabeled or made with higher cost ingredients. Prop 37 is a deceptive, deeply flawed food labeling scheme that would add more government bureaucracy and taxpayer costs, create new frivolous lawsuits, and increase food costs by billions — without providing any health or safety benefits. That’s why Prop 37 is opposed by a broad coalition of family farmers, scientists, doctors, business, labor, taxpayers and consumers.

Farmer Gene  |  Email This Post  |  Printer Friendly
Tags: , , , , , ,

2 Responses to 34 daily newspapers from California urge voters to vote NO on Prop 37

  1. Timothy Conner says:

    This is a good effort by the industries that feed Americans. The problem is that there is too much to overcome. The California Decomatric Party has endorsed the “Yes on Prop 37″, and it “looks” to the lay person very much as big business versus the people. For Prop 37 to fail, we need all hands on deck in one on one discussions. Outside of that it may be a matter that goes on or through legal challenges for some time as those with jurisdication re-establish federal responsibility for labeling in opposition to state or voter driven mandates.

  2. Huib de Vriend says:

    It’s not newspapers that say what their opinion is, it’s people. Who are those people?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>