“Our work is not done yet,” Obama told a cheering crowd of nearly 20,000 in chilly Madison, Wis., imploring his audience to give him another four years.

Romney projected optimism as he neared the end of his six-year quest for the presidency. “If you believe we can do better. If you believe America should be on a better course. If you’re tired of being tired … then I ask you to vote for real change,” he said in a Virginia suburb of the nation’s capital. With many of the late polls in key states tilting slightly against him, he decided to campaign on Election Day in Ohio and Pennsylvania, where he and Republicans made a big, late push.

The presidency aside, there are 33 Senate seats on the ballot Tuesday, and according to one Republican official, a growing sense of resignation among his party’s rank and file that Democrats will hold their majority.

The situation was reversed in the House, where Democrats made no claims they were on the verge of victory in pursuit of the 25 seats they need to gain control.

National opinion polls in the presidential race made the popular vote a virtual tie.

In state-by-state surveys, it appeared Obama held small advantages in Nevada, Ohio, Iowa and Wisconsin — enough to deliver a second term if they endured, but not so significant that they could withstand an Election Day surge by Romney supporters. Both men appealed to an ever smaller universe of undecided voters.

More than 30 million absentee or early ballots have been cast, including in excess of 3 million in Florida. The state also had a legal controversy, in the form of a Democratic lawsuit seeking an extension of time for pre-Election Day voting.

There were other concerns, logistical rather than legal.

Officials in one part of New Jersey delivered voting equipment to emergency shelters so voters displaced by Superstorm Sandy last week could cast ballots. New York City made arrangements for shuttle buses to provide transportation for some in hard-hit areas unable to reach their polling places.

Judging from the long early voting lines in some places and the comments made in others, the voters were more than ready to have their say.

“I watch the news all the time, and I am ready for it to be over,” said Jennifer Walker, 38, of Columbus, Ohio, who said she took time off from work to attend the president’s speech during the day in a show of support. “I feel like he is getting better with the economy. I don’t think it’s hopeless. It takes time.”

But Bryan Dobes, 21, a University of Iowa student from suburban Chicago, voted for Romney on Monday and said unemployment and spending have been too high under Obama. “He promised a lot of hope and change, and I’m not seeing it,” he said of the president.

“No retreat, no surrender,” sang rock icon Bruce Springsteen, warming up Obama’s crowd on a frosty morning outside the State Capitol in Madison, Wis. The Boss then boarded Air Force One for his first flight. “Pretty cool,” he judged it.

Romney had Kid Rock and the Marshall Tucker Band in the wings for his late appearances in Ohio and New Hampshire.

“This is it,” the challenger said in a last-minute emailed request for campaign donations.

“I will lead us out of this economic crisis by implementing pro-growth policies that will create 12 million new jobs. With your help, I will deliver real change and a real recovery. America will be strong again.”

In his longest campaign day, Romney raced from Florida to a pair of speeches in Virginia to Ohio and then an election eve rally in New Hampshire.

Obama selected Wisconsin, Ohio and Iowa for his final campaign day, an itinerary that reflected his campaign’s decision to try and erect a Midwestern firewall against Romney’s challenge.

Vice President Joe Biden and Republican running mate Paul Ryan of Wisconsin went through their final campaign paces, as well.

In Sterling, Va., not far from Washington, the vice president accused Republicans of running away from their record, but added, “a leopard can’t change his spots.”

Ryan started out in Reno, Nev., where he said the president has come up short in his promises to change Washington and repair the economy.

“This may be the best that Barack Obama can offer, but this is not the best America can,” he said, before flying off to Colorado and Ohio. Then it was home to Wisconsin, where he is on the ballot for re-election to Congress in case Republicans were unsuccessful in the presidential campaign.

Conscientious to the end, supporters kept knocking on doors in search of a possibly decisive vote.

In Enfield, N.H., Obama volunteer Sarah Ayres recalled driving up a deserted dirt road, unsure if she would find the house she was looking for. She turned down a long driveway, she said, got out of her car, and was met by a friendly, white goat.

“There were no people home, but the goat was there, so I don’t know if I should count that as a contact,” she joked.

Republican City Councilman Carl DeMaio (left) and Democratic Congressman Bob Filner (right) are facing off in the San Diego mayor's race. (Images: DeMaio and Filner campaigns)

On a sunny day this fall, Republican city councilman Carl DeMaio and San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders walked through a local, bayside park to a podium surrounded by a barrage of news cameras and reporters.

It was a good day for DeMaio. The mayor, a fellow Republican, was endorsing him — despite the two being long time political foes.

“Only one candidate has demonstrated the detailed knowledge of our city that will be required from his first day on the job.” Sanders intoned. “Only one candidate has the focus and the energy that will sustain him through difficult times. That candidate is Carl DeMaio.”

Sanders’ endorsement was followed a few days later by the announcement that Democratic philanthropist Irwin Jacobs was also supporting DeMaio.

But it hasn’t been a bad season for Democratic Congressman Bob Filner either. He’s consistently led in the mayoral polls. Still, as the election draws closer, the outcome is becoming harder to predict. Different polls yield different results. In mid-October one poll gave Filner a seven point lead, while another put DeMaio ten points ahead.

The politically charged atmosphere around the mayor’s race is unusual for San Diego. Carl Luna, professor of political science at San Diego Mesa College, says that’s because San Diego voters are used to having two moderate Republicans facing off — not a race between two people from opposite ends of the political spectrum. Luna says the way the power players in the city are lining up reminds him of a popular book turned movie.

“It’s kind of like that movie, Hunger Games, where you get the city center and the districts,” Luna says. “You’ve got a downtown, more business, pro-Republican element. That group went strongly for Carl DeMaio. The labor unions are all going for Bob Filner.”

To political observers the divide isn’t surprising. Despite attempts to move to the middle, both candidates are seen as being firmly within the bounds of their political parties. Filner is viewed as a classic Democrat who often touts Civil Rights era arrest and two-month stint in jail for taking part in a Freedom Ride.

At a debate hosted by the San Diego Police Officers Association and the local taxpayers association, Filner scoffed at DeMaio’s suggestion that he turn down his pension if elected.

“Every working person deserves a pension. Every working person deserves that security that 30 years of work … are going to give that person,” Filner said. “So, I ain’t gonna turn it down. I earned that!”

DeMaio, in turn, has staked his reputation on being a fiscal conservative. He champions outsourcing some city services. He led the effort to eliminate pensions for most new city employees in San Diego.

At the debate DeMaio blasted Filner saying that Filner misrepresents how he would spend taxpayer dollars.

“But they would have gone to your special interest masters, the government employee labor union bosses, to continue unsustainable pension payouts rather than restore the services that are important to our working families,” DeMaio said.

But politics is all about getting votes, and there are plenty up for grabs in San Diego. The latest polls show 13 to 18 percent of likely voters are still undecided. In an attempt to capture those voters, Filner and DeMaio have been working to bring out their softer sides. DeMaio made his case at a debate sponsored by KPBS.

“My coalition represents Democrats, Republicans, Independents. From all around our city and all walks of life. We all love San Diego and that is a tie that unites,” DeMaio said.

Filner says he’s made his way up from the local school board to Congress because he can work with people.

“You’re elected because you’re a leader,” Filner said, “because you can bring those people together and get things done. That’s the hallmark of my career.”

Whichever man is elected, he’ll have plenty to tackle right out of the gate. City infrastructure, civic projects and, of course, San Diego’s financial recovery will all be waiting for the new mayor on day one.

After 20 years representing Oakland’s District 5, City Councilmember Ignacio De La Fuente is giving up his position to run for Councilmember At-Large. De La Fuente is hoping to unseat popular incumbent Rebecca Kaplan.

De La Fuente is known for his tough-on-crime attitude. But in Oakland’s Fruitvale neighborhood, bookkeeper Jose Dorado says support for De La Fuente among many merchants is eroding as crime in the neighborhood continues to soar.

“The kinds of efforts that Mr. De La Fuente has put forth to deal with that has not been anywhere near even adequate in our opinion,” said Dorado.

“I absolutely understand their frustration,” De La Fuente said. “The reality—it is true: crime going up, our inability to deal with that, absolutely has increased. That’s the reason why I have tried so hard to give the police the tools to do their job.”

De La Fuente strongly supports gang injunctions and youth curfews. But At-Large Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan criticizes him for voting to cut police staffing to balance the budget.

“If he keeps cutting the police force, it’s not gonna work to just say, well this smaller number of cops should do more other things.”

Kaplan voted against the layoffs and says OPD doesn’t have the resources to enforce curfews.

At issue is whether Americans for Responsible Leadership violated state law by accepting donations earmarked for specific campaign purposes in California. The group instead sent a letter to the FPPC saying they had no contributors who had specified that their funds be used in state campaigns.

But Ann Ravel, FPCC Chair, says that is not the issue. “The standard of trust is not whether or not (money) was earmarked, but if those contributors knew or should have known the money would have come to a campaign in California.” 

The FPPC expects a quick decision by the court. It says the November 6th election is drawing near.

The FPPC is the state agency charged with upholding California’s Political Reform Act which includes reporting requirements about the disclosure of donors supporting or opposing state ballot measures.

San Quentin Prison has housed California's only death row for male inmates since 1937. (Michael Glogowski-Walldorf: Flickr)

The measure is the latest chapter in a seesaw legal and political dispute over capital punishment that stretches back 50 years in California.

But setting aside the main argument of the “Yes on 34″ camp, that the billions of dollars spent on the death penalty could better be used to solve crimes; and “No on 34″ backers, that the death penalty process could be made more efficient and cheaper, there’s another issue that often comes up in the overall debate.

Many supporters of the death penalty say it is the only fair societal consequence for the perpetrators of the most heinous crimes, and that it gives victims’ families a sense of closure. Scott Shafer has been following this question around the death penalty for more than a dozen years, and he frequently addresses the question of closure in his reporting.

Earlier this year, Shafer interviewed Mark Klaas, father of Polly Klaas — the 12-year-old girl who was kidnapped from her Petaluma home and murdered by Richard Allen Davis. Klaas has long been an advocate of the death penalty and opposes Prop. 34. He told Shafer that families say witnessing the execution of the perpetrator of a crime against a family member has helped them.

Mark Klaas: It does make a difference. It’s about carrying out the law. It’s about the final judgment. Those individuals I’ve talked to -– family members who have witnessed executions — are grateful for the experience, sad that it had to come to that, but satisfied that justice has been fulfilled.

Scott Shafer: What do you mean they’re sad it had to come to that?

Mark Klaas: Well the taking of a life is not something that should ever be looked upon lightly. And nobody finds great joy in it, including the families of murder victims. And they know this better than anyone else. But it is the law, and it is a final judgment…

I believe [Davis'] execution would bring closure to my daughter. She is the one that he contemplates as he acts out in his prison cell. It’s not going to change my life one way or the other. But I don’t invest a lot of time or energy in thinking about Richard Allen Davis. He’s dominated my family’s life quite enough as it is. I’m content to see him at least be on death row and know that at some point he may have to face that final judgment.

As warden at San Quentin Prison, home of California’s only death row for men, Jeanne Woodford presided over four executions. She says it’s a “natural reaction,” to want someone who harmed a loved one to die, but says she thinks that closure does not come to pass for families. Shafer explored this question with her in an interview he conducted late last year. Woodford told him:

People wait years for an execution that may or may not happen. People come to the prison thinking that the execution will somehow bring closure to them. I’ve just never had someone who that’s happened to.

In fact, I’ve had reporters tell me that family members told them a month or two after the execution that they regretted having been involved in the process.

Then there’s the story of Gayle Orr, whom Shafer interviewed 10 years ago. In 1980 Orr’s 19-year-old daughter was stabbed and killed near Auburn. Her daughter’s murderer was tried, convicted and sentenced to death. Orr entered what she calls a “period of darkness” during which she felt isolated and consumed with rage.

Eventually she started attending and taking classes at church, where a common topic was forgiveness. A classmate suggested that Orr should forgive her daughter’s murderer, which at first infuriated her  but ultimately prompted her to write a letter of forgiveness to her daughter’s killer.

“And the instant that I put that letter in the mailbox,” she told Shafer in that 2002 interview and confirmed in a phone call last week, “all the anger, all the rage, all the darkness that I’ve been carrying around, all the ugliness I’ve been carrying around in my body for 12 long years, instantly was gone. Just gone. And in its place I was filled with this sense of joy and love. And I was truly in a state of grace, simply from offering forgiveness to another human being.”

It’s now been 20 years since Orr mailed that letter. Since then she has created a foundation in her daughter’s name, dedicated to forgiveness and a peaceful world. Orr changed her name to “Aba Gayle,” which she says means “beloved of the Father,” and she is “totally and absolutely opposed to the death penalty under any circumstances.”

She believes that carrying anger and rage toward another person perpetuates one’s sense of being a victim. “Being a victim is a choice,” she says “and I have chosen not to be a victim any longer. … Not only did I heal myself, I healed my whole family. When you’re filled with rage, you can’t be a wife, you can’t be a mother, so healing that rage does so much benefit, not just to me, but to everyone around me.”

Aba Gayle said she still grieves for her daughter, and while she doesn’t believe her daughter’s murderer should be executed, she believes he should spend his life in prison.

San Quentin Prison has housed California's only death row for male inmates since 1937. (Michael Glogowski-Walldorf: Flickr)

In February of 1960, Gov. Pat Brown had a tough decision to make. His office was being flooded by clemency appeals for death row inmate Carryl Chessman. Convicted of kidnapping, robbery and rape, Chessman maintained his innocence.

“Well I don’t know if I ever had hope,” Chessman said in an interview then. “It’s like a soldier out in the field, the battlefield. I don’t know if he has hope or not; he just keeps slogging forward as much as possible and then waits for the results.”

Letters and calls poured into the governor’s office on Chessman’s behalf. As Pat Brown recalled in a 1986 KQED documentary, the most urgent appeal to stop the execution came from his own family.

“My son asked me to do it and said ‘Dad, this man didn’t kill anybody. I think you should commute it to life imprisonment,’” Brown said.

His son Jerry Brown, who had been studying for the priesthood, apparently made a persuasive case. “I says ‘I’ll do it,’” Brown said. “And I did it. And they damn near executed me!”

The governor’s 60-day reprieve didn’t save Chessman, who died in the San Quentin gas chamber two months later. But his case helped ignite international opposition to capital punishment.

In 1972 the California Supreme Court declared the state’s death penalty unconstitutional. For the next 20 years, capital punishment bounced back and forth, with voters restoring it and then the courts striking it down.

The 20-year cycle began in 1977, with Jerry Brown as governor. The state legislature enacted a new death penalty law, overriding his veto. The next year voters went a step further, overwhelmingly passing Proposition 7, expanding California’s capital punishment law. Sacramento attorney Donald Heller wrote the ballot measure.

“California was a western state and a law-and-order state, even though it was a very liberal state,” Heller recalls. “It was part of the culture. It was a culture of hanging ‘em high from the big oak tree.”

But still, there were no executions. The State Supreme Court, led by Jerry Brown’s controversial Chief Justice Rose Bird, overturned more than 60 death sentences.

By 1986 Jerry Brown was out of office after deciding not to seek a third term as governor. His successor, George Deukmejian, supported a well-funded effort to oust Chief Justice Bird and two of her colleagues on the court.

Before the election, Bird said the campaign against her was simply playing off the emotions of crime victims.

“If they find a way to vent that anger and it comes to us, how can I say that that’s wrong?” a philosophical Bird said in an interview at the time. ”I think it’s wrong for the politicians to exploit that.”

But exploit it they did. Chief Justice Bird and her two colleagues lost, and Governor Deukmejian replaced them with three justices who were more conservative.

Still, another six years went by with no executions. The first scheduled to die was Robert Alton Harris, convicted of killing two teenagers in San Diego.

“If I could give my life for one or both of them I would without hesitation,” Harris said in an early-1990′s interview. “But I can’t, and whatever happens in my case, it won’t bring ‘em back.”

In 1992, Harris died in the gas chamber at San Quentin. It was the first execution in more than 25 years. Then two years later, in 1994, the state was stymied again when a federal court declared California’s gas chamber a “cruel and unusual” form of punishment.

The state switched to lethal injections, and carried out 10 executions that way. But in 2006 a federal court declared that procedure unconstitutional as well and issued an injunction stopping further executions. It remains in effect today, and more than 725 people are on death row.

Now, voters will weigh in again. Prop. 34 on the November ballot would eliminate a death penalty the measure’s backers say is broken and can’t be fixed.

One of its supporters is Donald Heller, who wrote the 1978 ballot measure expanding capital punishment.

“What I wrote was non-functional,” Heller says now. “ What I wrote resulted in injustice. And so supporting Prop. 34 was an easy decision.”

Jeanne Woodford oversaw four executions as warden of San Quentin State Prison and is also a leading proponent of Prop. 34. “I tell people (that) at the end of every execution someone on my staff would say ‘did we make the world safer tonight?’ And we all knew the answer was ‘no.’”

Woodford argues that California’s death penalty offers crime victims a false hope of closure.

“Going in and out to court,” Woodford says, “all the appeals, all of the focus on the offender. We remember the offender’s name and very seldom, very seldom do we remember the victim’s name. And that just isn’t right.”

But that doesn’t persuade Kent Scheidegger, who advocates for crime victims. He’s frustrated that time and again in Sacramento, measures to shorten the appeals process never make it out of committee.

“The very same people who are pushing this initiative have fought us tooth and nail on the reforms,” Scheidegger complains. “If the legislature would do its job and pass legislation correctly we could get this done.”

Supporters of Prop. 34 say “just locking ‘em up and throwing away the key” — no chance of parole — would be cheaper and eliminate the chance of executing an innocent person.

But opponents like Kent Scheidegger say sometimes, life in prison is too light a sentence.

“These are cases of serial rape and torture,” he notes. “People torturing and murdering children. And life in prison without parole simply isn’t a sufficient punishment.”

Last year Governor Jerry Brown cancelled plans to build a new death row at San Quentin, saying the state can’t afford it. Brown isn’t taking a public position on Prop. 34. But earlier this year his Corrections Secretary Matthew Cate framed the decision of whether to eliminate the death penalty this way:

“It would be less expensive and less complicated, that’s for sure,” Cate said. “But the real debate hinges on whether those costs and those complexities are worthwhile.”

The campaign to repeal the death penalty has out-raised its opponents by a huge margin. A recent Field Poll found voters evenly divided on the measure.

Listen to Scott Shafer’s story:

Photo: David Paul Morris/Getty Images

“I certainly wouldn’t want to be without a single one of the things … that government provides,” she said, responding to a question recently posted on Facebook by KQED News in conjunction with Perspectives, our listener-essay radio series.

Perspectives is airing first-person accounts in advance of the November election about politics, government and the future of the country. As part of that series we asked our Facebook followers for their thoughts: Why is government important? Is it doing too much or too little?

We received a few comments; the most comprehensive was Chowla’s, who said government has assisted her with her education, protected her right to freedom of religion and speech, and ensured she can get health insurance if she loses her job, among a list. It has set aside parks and open spaces that she enjoys.

“Whoa…this will be a long list if I try to be comprehensive,” she wrote.

We’ll be posting more replies in the future, both for and against the level of government in our lives.

Here’s Chowla’s entire comment as posted on the KQED News Facebook page:

Whoa…this will be a long list if I try to be comprehensive. Government helped me to: be educated, have beautiful open space and wilderness to visit and be inspired by, be safe in my home and community (by providing public safety personnel of many kinds), have my life saved by Fire Dept. paramedics, have roads to drive on to get places, have public transportation to get places, have safe food to eat, have my rights and interests protected and defended at home and abroad, have free speech, have freedom of religion (or no religion), have separation of church and state, have reproductive rights, have the right to a jury trial by my peers and legal representation if I need it (although I hope I never need that, I’m sure glad it’s there), have federal and state court systems to protect my rights, have the right to have a safe, non-hostile work environment, be able to continue my health/dental/vision insurance after a job loss, to have workplace rights (providing some protection against discrimination because of gender, race, age, disability or orientation), be much safer on the roads I drive on because of requirements for vehicles to be safe, for drivers to be licensed and insured & provision of enforcement of traffic laws, know that the water that comes out of my tap is safe to drink, have water coming out of my tap at all (mine comes from Hetch Hetchy), have decent air quality, have an environment that is at least somewhat protected for me and future generations (air, land, waterways, oceans), have embassies and consulates abroad to help out with issues that come up when traveling and living abroad, feel proud of our amazing all-volunteer military every day and to know that there is at least some structure for supporting them after they complete their service (although I wish there were more support for our veterans), have consumer’s rights when I buy products or services–so I can get what I pay for, have the internet (originally ARPANET, then DARPANET), have building codes so I can live in a safe, functional, comfortable home, have rights as a tenant/renter, feel safer knowing that people’s pet cats and dogs have to be licensed and vaccinated against rabies, feel safer when out for walks because dogs are required to be on leashes in most places (but I’m also glad that there are some places designated for dogs to be able to play off-leash), be glad that there are protections on endangered species and hunting restrictions where necessary so future generations can enjoy wildlife (and so I can continue to, as well), not have my sleep disturbed by excessive noise thanks to the existence of noise ordinances.

That’s just a very partial list, off the top of my head in a few minutes: there are definitely WAY more things than these items that government has helped me with. This was a good little exercise! It made me even more aware and grateful that I am getting a LOT for my tax dollars. And I certainly wouldn’t want to be without a single one of the things I listed that government provides.

Another response we received was from East Bay resident Bhaskar Sompalli. In his Perspective, which aired Tuesday, Sompalli said he is alarmed by calls to cut services provided by government.

“Since social programs actually do benefit poor people … eliminating them is tantamount to cruelty,” he said.

Sompalli cites his experience growing up in India to illustrate the importance of government services. Sompalli describes getting food from a government-run rations shop, attending a packed public school, and going to college on a scholarship. Sompalli talks about hot, crowded classrooms and waiting hours in line for food — but he concludes that the services he received from government were vital. You can hear his essay below:

Pak Gwei/Flickr

What role should government play in the lives of Americans? Is it doing something now that it shouldn’t? Have you had an experience with good government or bad government that you’re willing to share?

We want to hear from you for Perspectives, KQED’s listener essay series. In the coming days we’ll be posting these fill-in-the-blank questions on social media:

• Government should stop _____________.
• We need government to _____________.
• I know government is too big because _____________.
• Government really helped me to _____________.

You can answer by sharing your thoughts on Facebook.com/KQED, Tweeting @KQEDnews or posting a comment below. We will be reviewing the answers and reaching out to some of the respondents to ask if they’re interested in being part of a series of election-themed Perspectives later this year.

So post a comment and let us know what you think!

Genetically-engineered lettuce can sprout in a hot, dry climate.

Proposition 37 could make California the first state in the country to require labels on foods made with genetically-modified ingredients. It’s shaping up to be one of the most contentious — and certainly the most expensive — battles on the state’s November ballot.

On one side are organic food groups that have spent about $3 million in support of the labeling law. On the other are biotech firms like Monsanto and food giants including Pepsi, Sara Lee, and General Mills, which have contributed upwards of $28 million to try and keep GMO labels off food packages.

If Proposition 37 passes, you’ll see a change in nearly every part of the grocery store.

Take the cereal aisle, where Stacy Malkan with the “Yes on 37” campaign recently picked up a box of granola and pointed to the ingredients panel.

“Many of these products have corn syrup, cornstarch, sugar beets, and soy products that are genetically engineered,” she said.

In the United States, up to 90 percent of those foods are grown from seeds that have been genetically modified. Scientists made changes in the plants’ DNA to make the crop resist pests or stay fresh longer, to name two examples.

Malkan thinks that’s something consumers should know about.

Would labels inform people? Or scare them?

“It’s not a warning sticker,” she says. “[It’s not] a skull and crossbones or anything. It’s literally just a few words added to existing labels, just indicating [the food was] partially produced with genetic engineering.

But to the “No On 37″ camp, there is nothing benign about a label.

Take, for instance, Kent Bradford, a professor of plant science at the University of California, Davis and director of its Seed Biotechnology Center.

Bradford’s team works with — among other plants — lettuce.

California supplies 80 percent of the nation’s lettuce. But growers here, he says, increasingly find themselves at odds with a fact of nature.

Lettuce, he says, evolved for a Mediterranean climate. Its seeds lay dormant when it’s hot and germinate when it rains.

But it’s getting hotter here in California — and farmers want to be able to grow lettuce year-round, not just when it rains. So Bradford’s team is developing a new kind of lettuce seed.

He points to several strands of straggly, stringy lettuce. At this overgrown stage, it’s not appetizing-looking produce. But Bradford says these plants could help farmers adapt to a changing climate.

“What we’ve identified here is if we turn off this one gene, it eliminates that mechanism of inability to germinate at high temperature,” he says.

GM isn’t an ingredient, it’s a technology

Part of what bothers Bradford about Proposition 37 is that genetic modification isn’t an ingredient, like saturated fat. It’s a technology, one capable of creating countless variations on nature, some of them potentially very useful.

“You wouldn’t want to label a screwdriver as dangerous just because someone might poke it through their hand or something,” he explained.

Bradford fears that if Prop 37 passes, consumers will regard those GMO label as a scarlet letter, a signal that the entire technology is flawed and dangerous.

“Why would they be putting this on the label if it weren’t something I should be concerned about,” he imagined consumers asking themselves.

Indeed, that’s the question many consumers have about genetically modified foods: Are they safe?

Is GM safe? Grappling with a scarcity of science

Unfortunately, the body of peer-reviewed research on GM foods is tiny, consisting of a handful of small studies done on mice. Some of these studies suggest possible links to immune-system impairment and other problems. Compared to the amount of research done on, for instance, BPA, it’s a drop in the bucket.

Both the American Medical Association and the FDA say that genetically-modified foods are safe to eat and do not need to be labeled.

But Prop. 37 advocates and critics of GM foods say the fact that the science is nascent only underscores the need for greater regulation and labeling.

They say the process of genetic engineering can be imprecise and that plant scientists may not always know the full, long-term implications of the crops they develop.

“The jury is still out on the health effects,” says Yes on 37′s Stacy Malkan. “And in many ways, the evidence hasn’t even been presented.”

Such concerns are widespread in Europe, where GM labeling is mandatory. But that’s also increasingly the case in California, where a recent poll found 65 percent of voters planning to support Prop. 37.

Here in the states, at least, it wasn’t always this way.

We’ve been here before: The lesson of the Flavr Savr tomato

Belinda Martineau was a plant scientist at the Davis-based biotech firm Calgene in the late 1980s and early 90s. She was part of the team that helped invent the Flavr Savr tomato, the world’s first commercially-available genetically modified whole food.

Martineau says she and others at Calgene weren’t sure how the Flavr Savr was going to go over with the public.

“Jurassic Park came out while we were readying the tomato for the marketplace,” she recalls. “We were worried about it. We were worried about the public’s perception.”

So Calgene made a choice: total transparency. The Flavr Savr wasn’t just labeled, it came with a brochure shaped like a tomato.

“It actually explained the genetic engineering technology in lay terms that people could understand … And it had a 1-800 number, in case people wanted to learn more.”

No laws required that Calgene label the tomato. Martineau says the company wanted to label the Flavr Savr because they were proud of it.

“We wanted to be transparent”

“We believed in what we were doing. We thought if we were careful about it and transparent that we could convince the public that they should be as enthusiastic about it as we were.”

And shoppers were enthusiastic. In Davis, where Martineau lives, Flavr Savrs flew off the shelves.

“They had a policy at the local IGA that you could only purchase two Flavr Savor tomatoes per person, per day,” says Martineau. “How they kept track of that, I don’t know.”

What ultimately killed the Flavr Savr wasn’t the public’s fear of genetic engineering. It was the technology itself. Flavr Savrs didn’t taste better than regular tomatoes and they were too difficult to transport.

For Martineau, there’s a lesson here. Not labeling, she says, makes the industry look like it has something to hide. She believes labeling is an opportunity.

“This is one of the best ways the industry can turn public opinion around, is to be honest, to be transparent. And to come out and be proud of their products.”

If Proposition 37 passes on November 6, the question is whether the public will see those labels the same way Martineau does.

More:

Food Corporations Spending Big to Defeat Prop 37