... [T]here is no rationale for singling out genetic engineering, of all the agricultural practices listed above, as the only one for which labeling should be required. So far, there is little if any evidence that changing a plant's or animal's genes through bioengineering, rather than through selective breeding, is dangerous to the people who consume it. In fact, some foods have been engineered specifically to remove allergens from the original version.
San Francisco Chronicle:
Perhaps the main problem with Prop. 37 is that it invites citizen lawsuits as a primary means of enforcing the labeling law.
Californians have seen what can happen when attorneys seize on a voter-approved disclosure law as a tool for "shakedown lawsuits." Prop. 65, the 1986 initiative requiring disclosure of toxic chemicals, has been the subject of 16,000 legal actions - some legitimate, some designed to force business to settle quickly to avoid litigation costs.
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.
The general rule in California politics is that when everyone agrees, you should reach for your wallet. Not so this time. It's refreshing to see elite opinion make the right stand for once -- against bureaucrats, trial lawyers, and nanny statists up to no good.
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/09/16/4822220/prop-37-is-a-sour-plan-for-food.html#storylink=cpy