Pet Industry News Current Issue Exclusives Classified Ads Marketplaces Industry People & Profiles Pet Industry Resource Center
11:54 AM   September 30, 2014
Click Here to Subscribe
Subscriber Services
Subscriber Services
Click Here for Complete Breed & Species Profiles
Bookmark and Share

PIJAC Speaks Out Against California's Prop. 37

Posted: Oct. 31, 2012, 1:50 p.m. EDT


UPDATE: California voters rejected Proposition 37 on Nov. 6.

The Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council this week asked pet owners to oppose California's Proposition 37, a ballot initiative that would require the labeling of many genetically engineered foods, including some in the pet sector.


Prop. 37, which California voters will decide Nov. 6, would prohibit the marketing of genetically engineered foods as “natural” and would mandate the labeling of food made from plants or animals whose genetic material was changed.

California Right to Know, a sponsor of the proposition, stated that the initiative gives consumers "the right to know what is in the food we eat and feed to our families."

 Proposition 37
Retailers would be primarily responsible for ensuring that their food products are correctly labeled under Prop. 37, according to California's Legislative Analyst.
Washington, D.C.-based PIJAC cautioned that the proposition was broadly written and that retailers would have to "document why that product is exempt from labeling.”

"Processed foods, such as foods that have been canned, smoked, pressed, cooked, frozen, dehydrated, fermented or milled, could no longer be labeled as natural," PIJAC reported.

"This ballot initiative would have serious ramifications for those who produce and sell pet food," PIJAC added. "Not only does the proposal mandate far-reaching labeling requirements, it allows lawsuits by private parties to enforce the provisions, authorizing courts to award all costs incurred in investigating and prosecuting the action."

Other opponents pointed out that the initiative treats similar products differently.

"It requires special labels on soy milk, but exempts cow’s milk and dairy products," according to an official statement on a state website. "Fruit juice requires a label, but alcohol is exempt. Pet foods containing meat require labels, but meats for human consumption are exempt."

The Los Angeles Times reported Tuesday that Prop. 37 has lost support among likely voters. A poll by the California Business Roundtable and the Pepperdine University School of Public Policy showed 39 percent in favor of the measure and 51 percent opposed, with 10 percent undecided.
<HOME>



 Give us your opinion on
PIJAC Speaks Out Against California's Prop. 37

Submit a Comment

Industry Professional Site: Comments from non-industry professionals will be removed.

Reader Comments
Yes I'm sure pet food manufacturers would want customers to vote No on 37, because labeling would require them to disclose the fact that they are padding their pet foods with lots of low cost GMO fillers. Pet food, but not meat, would require a label under Prop 37 because pet food, unlike meat, contains GMO grain fillers. At this time there are no genetically engineered (transgenic) cows, so meat and dairy do not require labeling, but would in the future if the cow itself is transgenic.
It isn't that the requirements of Prop 37 are confusing or contain illogical loopholes: you have either not taken the time to read and understand Prop 37 or you are delibrately trying to confuse your customers
about it so you can keep sustituting invisilbe (hidden) lower cost GMO fillers. You very clearly have a financial stake in keeping GMO's invisible.
Alaria, Temecula, CA
Posted: 11/1/2012 9:41:34 AM
View Current Comments

Dog Bible
Buy Now
House-training Your Dog
Buy Now
ABCs of Positive Training
Buy Now
Copyright ©  PPN, LLC. All rights reserved.
PRIVACY POLICY/OUR CALIFORNIA PRIVACY RIGHTS. Our Privacy Policy has changed.