California Rejects Labeling Of Genetically Modified Food; Supporters Vow To Fight On 
 
 What a difference $46 million in TV ad spending can make. 
 
 At least that was the consensus in the wee hours of the morning at the Yes on Proposition 37 party, held at a performance art space in San Francisco's Mission District, even before the final votes were tallied. 
 
 Enlarge this image toggle caption cheeseslave/Flickr.com cheeseslave/Flickr.com 
 
 Outspent many times over, "we couldn't get up on the air," organizer Stacy Malkan told The Salt when it appeared the measure was going down. "You need a certain saturation to have an impact." 
 
 All eyes in the food world have been on California's hotly contested genetically modified (GMO) food labeling proposal, which was defeated this morning by a significant margin — 53 percent of the state's voters opposed and 47 percent in favor. 
 
 It would have required that most foods containing genetically modified ingredients carry a "Made with GMO" label on the box. Given the prevalence of genetically engineered corn and soy in processed foods, those labels would have been nearly ubiquitous in the middle aisles of the grocery store. And, given the size of California's market, and manufacturers' opposition to distribute two versions of packaging, the California law could have morphed into de facto national policy as well. 
 
 The news was well-received in the No camp, which had argued that the proposal would be expensive and confusing. "We said from the beginning that people should take a close look at 37, that it's not as simple as it seems from the surface," Kathy Fairbanks with the No on 37 campaign, which didn't hold a public party, told us last night when it appeared the measure would be defeated. "The more voters learned about 37, the more they realized they didn't like it." 
 
 But supporters were unbowed. In fact, they say, even though Proposition 37 lost, a grass-roots movement came together with a clear purpose (unlike the Occupy movement, Grist snarks) to focus on what's on our plates. "Don't mourn, #organize!" is a popular Twitter update from supporters today. 
 
 "Californians and all Americans deserve the right to know what's in their food," said Jean Halloran, director of food policy initiatives for Consumers Union, in a statement released this morning. "Unfortunately, Proposition 37 was defeated by a wildly deceptive smear campaign financed by Monsanto, DuPont and other industry opponents of the public's right to know," she said. 
 
 So about that campaign. The No on 37 camp, which opposed GMO labeling, raised $45.9 million, thanks in large part to biotech giant Monsanto, along with a familiar roster of big-supermarket brands: Kraft, Heinz, Sara Lee, Pepsico, etc. The main message? Your groceries will cost more. 
 
 Meanwhile, Yes on 37 brought in $9.4 million from a far crunchier lineup, including tiny-print soap makers Dr. Bronner's, Whole Foods and the Illinois-based nutritional supplement maker Joseph Mercola. Oh, and Hollywood: Gwyneth Paltrow single-handedly raised $80,000 for the Yes camp after endorsing the campaign on her Facebook page. Danny DeVito and Dave Matthews pitched in for a TV ad. And, said Malkan, "Sting's people were calling us last night, asking what they could do to help." 
 
 But it was too little, too late, she added. Despite an initially hefty lead by the pro-labeling folks, Proposition 37 support took a dive soon after the No on 37 ads hit the airwaves. Within two weeks, support for 37 dropped 9 percentage points, according to one poll from Pepperdine University and the California Business Roundtable. 
 
 The No camp also got a boost from a series of high-profile endorsements, including one from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the country's largest science organization. 
 
 Proposition 37 and other labeling propositions "are not driven by evidence that GM foods are actually danger­ous," wrote the AAAS board of directors. "Indeed, the science is quite clear: Crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe." 
 
 As we reported earlier this summer, some legal experts raised concerns about how the proposal was written and suggested that it would add confusion — not clarity — to food labels. And, several of the state's big newspapers — the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle and San Jose Mercury News — all came out against the labeling proposal for similar reasons. 
 
 Other states have proposed similar labeling measures. ||||| Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, left, speaks alongside Gov. Peter Shumlin, center, and Sen. Patrick Leahy at a rally Friday, July 1, 2016 in Montpelier, Vt., held to commemorate the implementation of the nation’s first state law to require the labeling of foods made with genetically modified ingredients. (Wilson Ring/Associated Press) 
 
 MONTPELIER, Vt. — Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders joined other Vermont leaders Friday to celebrate the state’s newly implemented law requiring labels on genetically modified food and blast proposed federal legislation that could pre-empt the state requirement. 
 
 Vermont became the first state Friday to require the labeling of food containing GMOs, or genetically modified organisms. 
 
 “Vermont had the courage to say ... ‘If it’s the right thing to do, what are we waiting for,’” Democratic Gov. Peter Shumlin said to cheers from a rally audience of about 150 people on the Statehouse steps. 
 
 Vermont Sen. Sanders sharply criticized the compromise bill in Congress that called for less stringent regulations, and said the bill has several shortcomings. The Senate is expected to vote on the bill next week. 
 
 The federal legislation would allow an electronic code on a package to stand in for a label, requiring a smartphone and internet connection for a consumer to know whether the product contained genetically modified ingredients, Sanders said. Many products, including corn products, beet sugar and soy oils that are in many processed foods, could be exempt from the requirement, he added. 
 
 “Perhaps most shockingly and what exposes the partial nature of this legislation, this bill imposes no penalties whatsoever for violating the labeling requirement, making the legislation essentially meaningless,” Sanders said. 
 
 Vermont’s law imposes a penalty of $1,000 per day per genetically modified product that is not labeled as required. 
 
 At the Hunger Mountain Co-op in Montpelier, which specializes in natural foods and local products, general manager Kari Bradley said it was frustrating that a state law the cooperative has supported since its inception in the legislature might be erased from the books by federal action. 
 
 He said food co-ops elsewhere in the country cheered them on but their states didn’t have the political climate to pass a labeling law. The federal bill is “not a solution that’s in the spirit of the Vermont law,” he said. 
 
 Food producers argue the science doesn’t find significant difference between foods that are genetically modified and those that are not. But they also say they don’t want to end up with a patchwork of multiple state regulatory schemes. 
 
 Industry groups including the Grocery Manufacturers Association have sued to block the Vermont law, arguing that the labeling requirement amounts to compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment. The litigation is pending in federal court. 
 
 Meanwhile, food companies and retailers said they have taken steps to be in compliance as of July 1, the start date of the state law that passed in 2014. 
 
 At Mehuron’s Supermarket in Waitsfield, manager Bruce Hyde Jr. said he and his team were ready while noting that stores like his have to rely on national food companies to apply labels to products with genetically modified ingredients. 
 
 Campbell Soup Co. has printed and shipped product labeled to comply with Vermont’s law, company spokesman Thomas Hushen said, and the company remains “committed to label on-package” throughout the country. 
 
 Coca-Cola spokesman Ben Sheidler said the company was making a “good-faith effort” to comply with the law but some lower-volume products and packages “could be temporarily unavailable in Vermont.” 
 
 Eric Blom, a spokesman for Maine-based regional chain Hannaford Supermarkets, said the chain has new labels for any store-brand products it carries that contain genetically modified ingredients and those labels will be going to Vermont and throughout Hannaford’s distribution system. 
 
 Grocery Manufacturers Association spokesman Roger Lowe said the group hopes Congress acts quickly on the legislation. He said, “Since the state of Vermont has given companies 30 days to correct any alleged GMO labeling violations, the immediate impact, if any, on companies in July should be limited.” 
 
 Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
– Californians voted yesterday in a pair of hot-button referendums, passing a law mandating that porn stars wear condoms while striking down another that would require the food industry to label genetically modified foods. The former means that adult performers in LA County not only have to wrap up, reports the LA Times, but producers will also have to get a public health permit, like tattoo parlors, something AIDS activists say is a major step forward. That bill passed with a 59% majority. The bill that would require foods containing genetically modified ingredients to bear a label reading "Made with GMO" was struck down by a 53% to 47% margin, reports NPR. Opponents said the labels would be expensive and confusing to consumers, not to mention ubiquitous in grocery stores, since many items include GMO corn and soy products. The so-called Frankenfood bill's popularity dropped off a cliff after Monsanto waged a $46 million ad war against it; supporters of the bill vow to continue fighting for the labels.