(ROBYN BECK/AFP/Getty Images)

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.

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 andSan Jose Mercury News — all came out against the labeling proposal for similar reasons.

Other states have proposed similar labeling measures.

If you want to sport this sticker, you'll have to decipher the state ballot and then vote. (EVA HAMBACH/AFP/Getty Images)

by Lisa Aliferis and Jon Brooks

It’s getting down to the wire — just seven days to make up your mind on a plethora of issues and races … and then ya gotta vote.

Lucky you: We’re here to help.

Our reports about Props. 30 and 38 (education and taxes); the nine-item Prop. 31 (governance) and Prop. 37 (labeling GMO foods) are attracting a lot of attention online. So either we’ve really figured out this SEO thing, or you’re genuinely interested in those initiatives in particular.

Thus, we’re compiling the best-of-the-best of our coverage on these props so that you don’t have to stand in the voting booth pondering whether numerological concerns aren’t going to be the one determining factor after all in how you vote on these things, complex as they are, yet sold, packaged and soundbited by opponents and proponents alike direct to your Id.

So read up!

-Proposition 30 and Proposition 38 both promise to fund schools, but in different ways.

• Explaining the Difference Between Props 30 and 38
• Gov’s Prop. 30 Tax Hike: More for Schools … or More Money Misspent?
• Video: This Week in Northern California recently devoted its full program to the dueling propositions

-Proposition 31 will do nine (yes, 9) different things, attempting to overhaul state governance. God knows California governance needs overhaul, but is Prop. 31 the right approach?

• Making Sense of the Very, Very Complicated Prop. 31
• Supporter and Opponent Explain Prop. 31′s ‘Community Strategic Action Plans’

-Proposition 37 requires the labeling of genetically modified ingredients in foods.

• California’s Prop. 37: Are GMO Labels a Scarlet Letter?
• Fact-Checking the Arguments on Prop. 37

Through the studio glass: Michael Krasny hosts KQED's daily call-in show "Forum."

Here at KQED, we take elections pretty seriously. It’s a time when our mission of educating the public comes to a head — the messages coming from the campaigns are unrelenting and taken as a whole can present a confusing picture. So helping you cast an informed vote is our aim.

That was the philosophy behind our state proposition guide. Some people, however, prefer listening to reading. For those folks we present a complete archive of Forum’s 2012 state proposition shows. Some are an hour long, some are half an hour, but all present views from both sides and include community input we received via calls, emails, Facebook and Twitter. So sit back, turn up your speakers, and take a listen…

Prop. 30: Gov. Brown’s Tax Increase for Education, Public Safety

Prop. 31: Revises the State Budget Process

Prop. 32: Campaign Finance Reform or an Attack on Unions?

Prop. 33: Changes to Auto Insurance

Prop. 34: The Death Penalty in California

Prop. 35: Ban on Human Trafficking and Sex Slavery

Prop. 36: Should Three Strikes Be Changed?

Prop. 37: The Fight Over GMO Labeling

Prop. 38: Molly Munger’s Tax Initiative for Education

Prop 39: How We Tax Multi-State Businesses

Please note: Forum did not produce a show on Proposition 40. You can find more information on that here.

Here’s an ad in favor of Prop. 37:

And here’s a commercial from the “No on 37″ campaign:

Edited transcript from Scott Shafer’s conversation with John Myers:

SCOTT SHAFER: So, John Myers, how is the pro-Proposition 37 campaign working?

JOHN MYERS: The early campaign polling was very much in favor of Prop. 37, somewhere in the magnitude of 60 + percent of those polled said they would vote for the measure. But the polling has come down some, at least in part from the massive onslaught of ads — from the opposition side, from the “No on 37″ side — they have knocked down some of that support. But again, the bottom line that Californians seem to think about is: “I want to know what a genetically modified food is when I go to the grocery store.” Of course it’s a little bit more complicated than that, which is part of the discussion.

SCOTT SHAFER: And as you mentioned, the “No” side has outraised proponents on Prop. 37 by something like seven to one. Where’s the money coming from on each side?

JOHN MYERS: On the “Yes” side, the money clearly was coming from organic food producers, natural food producers, they’re the ones who helped get it on the ballot. They’re the ones running the campaign. They don’t have a tremendous amount of money, but they have made their presence known. The “No on 37″ side, I like to call “big food,” and you can look at every large food manufacturer in the United States and you probably can see their money in the “No” campaign. You’re seeing a lot of their ads both on television and on the internet.

SCOTT SHAFER: And they have raised at least $34 million. What are the basic messages of their campaign?

JOHN MYERS: Their message is simply that Prop. 37 is more complicated than it really seems. They call it the “deceptive food labeling act.” What Prop. 37 essentially says is you’ve got to label these foods that are genetically engineered but you also have to label foods that have genetically engineered components.

SCOTT SHAFER: Let’s move to Proposition 32. It would prohibit political contributions from unions or corporations — but specifically unions which use payroll deductions from their members.

Here’s a “Yes on 32″ ad:

SCOTT SHAFER: The central provision there is it’s an even-handed measure — cuts the power of unions and corporations equally. How accurate is that?

JOHN MYERS: The language of Prop. 32 absolutely says it treats corporations and unions the same. The reality is that unions only get their money in California — for California politics, from one place — from these deductions from paychecks of their members. Corporations play politics, and they give political money many other ways.

This is a measure that would impact unions substantially more in the political arena than it would corporations. We’ve fought a similar fight here twice before in California, in 1998 and 2005. Both had ballot measures that would have limited this paycheck deduction process that unions use. In those measures, it would have said unions would have to get permission from their members. This measure, Prop. 32, says, “It doesn’t matter. You can’t do it.” Only voluntary contributions, no more of these automatic deductions from paychecks to use the money for politics. And that is a big, big fight for unions, and that’s why unions have spent so much against it.

SCOTT SHAFER: $40 million and counting. And there was some controversy this week about an $11 million contribution to the “Yes on 32″ campaign, can you sort that out for us?

JOHN MYERS: We’re still trying to sort out where that money came from. The $11 million came from an Arizona-based Political Action Committee, and why it raised red flags is that this PAC – as near as we can tell from all our research — has never played in California before — which has led the unions and the “No on 32″ people and perhaps some campaign finance watchers to conclude that perhaps there is a back door here around campaign rules.

There are some wiggle areas in California campaign finance laws that allow donors to remain hidden as long as they only play one time in these big donations. There’s a belief that it comes from conservative groups. There are a lot of conservative groups that want to see 32 passed because they think it would negate the power of unions in California.

Here’s a “No on 32″ commercial:

SCOTT SHAFER: It is funded, as they suggest in that ad, by big corporations and Super PACs. Is that right?

JOHN MYERS: The “Yes on 32″ campaign, it’s hard to see any big corporation money in it right now. The vast majority of the money has come from these Political Action Committees from outside California that we’ve had trouble tracking the donors. It definitely affects one side of the playing field more. I think it is suspect, though, for the “No on 32″ Campaign to say it’s going to impact the middle class. There’s another ad that says it will give corporations power to raise your taxes and things like that. Let’s get back to reality. In California, the only way to raise taxes in the state legislature is a two-thirds super-majority vote that requires Republicans and Republicans have never wanted to vote for tax increases. But it would shift the political power in the state.

One other thing – Prop 32 includes this language that says corporations and unions can no longer give contributions to candidate committees. And what that effectively would do, if you had money for unions, would push all that money to these outside expenditure groups, these are like Super PACs on the national level, that we’ve had in California for awhile where they can spend money in unlimited amounts. It would re-route the money and that is a fair point that the “No on 32″ campaign has been making.

Learn More:

Prop. 32 Ban on Political Donations Heavily Weighted Against Labor

Prop. 37: Are GMO Labels a Scarlet Letter? 

Most of the corn in the U.S. is grown from genetically engineered seeds. (fishhawk: Flickr)

One California proposition that is getting nationwide attention is Proposition 37. It requires labeling on raw or processed food that’s made from certain genetically engineered materials. It also prohibits calling any foods “natural” on the packaging — if those foods are made with genetically modified organisms (GMO). Supporters say consumers have a right to this information. Opponents say the measure is misleading and full of loopholes.

The California Report’s Scott Shafer talked with science reporter Amy Standen on Thursday about Prop. 37. Here’s an edited transcript of their discussion:

SCOTT SHAFER: Let’s begin with a background question. How are genetically modified foods used right now; how prevalent are they?

AMY STANDEN: Very prevalent. In fact, pretty much everything you’ll find in the middle of the supermarket — everything from sodas to crackers to cereals to cookies — almost all of those foods contain genetically modified ingredients. That’s because most of the corn, soy and a lot of the rice grown in the U.S. is grown from genetically modified seeds.

SHAFER: And what does that mean? How are they engineered and why?

STANDEN: Most of them have been genetically engineered to make them more resistant to pathogens of one sort or another — or to make them work well with certain kinds of herbicides that are already on the market.

SHAFER: So if Prop. 37 passes, would these labels be required on a lot of what we buy?

STANDEN: A lot of things, and that’s the main argument that you hear from the “No on 37″ camp — which is that unless manufacturers start buying from farmers who aren’t using these seeds, they are going to have start labeling pretty much everything that’s out there.

SHAFER: And so what’s the main argument on behalf of Prop. 37? Is it a right-to-know issue?

STANDEN: Yes, that’s the line you hear over and over again. The “Yes on 37″ side says GMO labeling is mandatory in Europe. It has been since 2003, and a lot of people in that camp are not convinced that genetically modified food is safe to eat or that there’s been enough research on it. They also say that the FDA doesn’t regulate this technology enough.

SHAFER: There have been a lot of ads on both sides on television. Here’s one “Yes on 37″ ad:

Clearly in that advertisement, for “Yes on 37,” there’s a sort of fear of the unknown. Is there a basis for that?

STANDEN: It is very hard to say as a blanket statement whether or not these products are safe or not. Of course it’s worth noting that we Americans have been eating massive amounts of these products for decades. The scientific studies that we’ve seen done on these products tend to be on mice, they’re very short term, they’re very small, there’s been very little there that’s been conclusive. It’s hard to extrapolate human health implications from a mouse study

SHAFER: So one of the “Yes on 37″ ads links genetically modified foods to tumors. Is that one of those studies you’re talking about?

STANDEN: That’s one of those studies, and actually that highlights a big problem with this argument in general, which is, it’s very hard to find science that didn’t come from a side of this camp with a vested interest in a certain outcome. In that case, it was a well-known advocate or activist against genetically modified products. I mean, the point that people should keep in mind here is that genetic engineering isn’t an ingredient. It’s not like saturated fat or MSG. It’s a technology.

SHAFER: Well, if you look at the campaign financing for this ballot measure, opponents of Prop. 37 have vastly outraised proponents like nine-to-one, and some very well-known food companies like Kraft and Heinz have given big bucks, along with biotech and chemical companies like Dow, Monsanto and DuPont. So what’s at stake for them?

STANDEN: Their fear is that this is going to create a bias in the marketplace, and that they’ll be scrambling for new suppliers, and it’ll disrupt the market.

SHAFER: Of course what happens here in California could go east.

STANDEN: California is such a big market, but it’s just not worth it for manufacturers to produce two lines of products. So, very likely if you see the labeling here and Prop. 37 passes, this will become a national standard.

SHAFER: There have been several ads for No on 37, such as this one:

SHAFER: One other part of this that opponents are complaining about is that it would allow consumers to sue companies that don’t fully comply with these regulations, which of course would be a boon for lawyers.

STANDEN: Yes, and that’s a common complaint because under Proposition 37, plaintiffs don’t have to prove damages, and that makes a lot of sense if you think about it. I mean, really how would you prove that you have been damaged by a box of unlabeled GMO Triscuits, right? On the other hand, the opponents of this proposition really fear that we would see these lawsuits clogging up the courts, and you would see small grocery store owners spending a lot of time and money defending themselves.

Listen to Scott Shafer’s interview with Amy Standen

GMO soybeans. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

On election day, voters will decide on the so-called “Right to Know” Proposition 37. The measure would require labeling of genetically altered raw or processed foods known as genetically modified organisms or GMOs. Prop. 37 would make California the first state in the country to require labels on a host of food products found in grocery stores.

KQED’S Forum last week hosted a debate about Proposition 37 that has drawn a lot of interest online. So we’ve transcribed the first half of the show, which included a debate between two scientists, one for and one against the measure. Listen to the show here, or read the transcript after the audio player.

Edited transcript:

Host Michael Krasny: Stacy Malkan is a spokesperson for Yes on 37. She is co-founder of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and author of “Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry.” Greg Palla is the executive vice president and general manager of the San Joaquin Valley Quality Cotton Growers Association. He’s  member of a farming family that’s been in operation now for a century, in business here in California. Generally, we make a practice of beginning with the “pro” side. Why do we need this, Stacy Malkan?

Yes on 37′s Stacy Malkin: What we are seeing here in California is a true people’s movement for our right to know what’s in the food we are eating and feeding our families. We had almost a million people sign petitions in the state to get Proposition 37 on the ballot — thousands of volunteers across the state, many of them moms and grandmothers, people who are not typically out on the streets petitioning for political issues, but saying, “We have a right to know what’s in our food. We are eating this food. We get to decide.” And that’s why we have the largest health, consumer, environmental and labor groups on our side saying, “Yes on 37.” This is truly about the people of California versus the largest pesticide and junk food companies in the world that don’t want us to know about the genetic engineering of our food system.

Michael Krasny: Yet, all those foods that are on the grocery shelves — perhaps 80 percent in California and across the country — are genetically modified or have genetic modification. The FDA has approved of many of most of them.

Stacy Malkin: The FDA hasn’t required any safety studies. The FDA policy was written by a former Monsanto lawyer. It’s out of step with world scientific opinion, the World Health Organization, United Nations, the American Medical Association. They are saying we should have mandatory health studies of genetically engineered foods, and that hasn’t happened.

We do see concerns in the science — a recent study just out last week showing very concerning health affects in animals that were fed a lifetime diet of genetically engineered–

Michael Krasny: This is the French study?

Stacy Malkin: Yes. The Séralini study.

Michael Krasny: It’s been pretty much refuted though, in terms of the means that you use—

Stacy Malkin: It’s controversial. There are questions about that study, but there are some very important things about it. First of all, the researchers reported finding very serious health effects in a peer-reviewed study in a well-respected journal.

The second and most shocking thing is that this the first long-term health study — animal study — on genetically engineered foods that have been in the American diet for more than 15 years. So where’s the science?

And Monsanto is out there saying there’s hundreds of studies showing safety, but here’s what’s not being reported about the Séralini study, what reporters are missing, and that is that industry science are running around saying, questioning the design–the study design of the Séralini study–but Monsanto uses the same exact study design. Similar size studies, same type of rats. So which is it? Can the science tell us about the health effects or not? There’s a giant question mark over the safety of genetically engineered foods. And all we’re saying here in California is let’s give the people who are eating and buying the food the right to know and to choose for ourselves.

Michael Krasny: Labeling, from your perspective, is the only way to track the effects of genetically modified products. Greg Palla? Is that the way you see it?

Prop 37 Opponent Greg Palla: No, that’s not the way I see it at all. I think this particular measure is more than just about labeling. It’s about an establishment of an entire system of regulatory excess and bureaucracy, which really doesn’t have any effect directly on the content of the food that we buy. Consumers already realize that biotech crops have been around for almost two decades now, in a safe fashion. No known ill-health effects have been reported. The food supply is safe. The system by which we can deliver those crops to the marketplace is much more sound for the environment than what we used to have, what we replaced it with.

Farmers are concerned that this measure, if passed, will send signals to consumers that would require food processors to go through some hoops that, ultimately, mean farmers would have to go backwards in their environmental–

Michael Krasny: It’s going to be a lot more expensive for farmers and presumably for consumers.

Greg Palla: Unquestionably. Yes.

Michael Krasny: A lot of criticism has come down on the unbalances. Restaurants don’t have to abide by genetically modified labeling — or take-out food, or dairy milk as opposed to soy milk. In other words, there are a lot of exemptions in the proposition.

Greg Palla: Yes. That’s correct. About two-thirds of the foods are exempted. Not exactly sure what the purpose of that would be. But as a farmer, when we’re introducing a crop, we don’t know what the ultimate destination of the crop will be. We don’t know if it’s going to end up in a restaurant or sold in a snack food. And I don’t think farmers are opposed to having consumers learn all about the benefits of biotech crops and their importance in our food system, but we’re very fearful of having to go backwards and lose all the environmental benefits that have been accrued as a result of including genetically engineered crops in our farming systems.

Michael Krasny: I know that farmers — not withstanding the organic farmers — are strongly opposed to labeling. But there’s genetically modified labeling all over the world. What harm can labeling do?

Greg Palla: First of all, this measure affects only California and not the other 49 states. So within the U.S. we would have an entirely different set of rules that would govern food in California. There would be complexity, and that is an issue. A consumer travels across the country, they wouldn’t have the same system. This may spur other states to establish their own labeling systems, which could be altogether different from California’s labeling laws. So all that confusion — that’s something that’s not positive for the consumer. I’d rather see consumers learn more about biotech or genetically engineered systems and recognize the benefits to health and to the environment.

Michael Krasny: Two scientists join us now. They are:

Belinda Martineau. She is a scientist at U.C. Davis who helped commercialize the world’s first genetically engineered food — the Calgene tomato, known as the Flavr Savr — and a supporter of Prop. 37.

… and Bob Goldberg, professor in the Department of Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology at UCLA and author of one of the ballot arguments opposed to Prop. 37. (Full disclosure that Professor Goldberg is a childhood friend of mine.)

Michael Krasny: Dr. Martineau, you were quoted recently as saying, “If the labeling referendum passes, the food industry will undoubtedly fight the law in courts.” But you also say this is a good way for the industry to turn public opinion around, to be honest, to be transparent. How so?

UC Davis Scientist, Prop 37 Supporter Belinda Martineau: I was involved in bringing the first genetically engineered food to market with Calgene. It was an extremely transparent process. We even talked about the unintended effects we observed in our genetically engineered plants. It was all made public.

The tomato was labeled at the marketplace. There were stickers. I still have one here at home that says “grown from genetically modified seeds.” There were also point-of-purchase brochures shaped like a tomato that had a 1-800 number so consumers could call and get more information.

So my perspective is that industry got off on a great foot. We were educating the public. We were completely transparent about it, and we were well-received by the public. Here in Davis, the tomatoes flew off the shelves. They had to ration tomatoes. You could only buy two Flavr Savr tomatoes per person, per day.

Since that time, I think the industry made a mistake by not being more transparent. Now the public is more wary of the technology, and the lack of transparency has contributed to that wariness on the public’s part.

Michael Krasny: Bob Goldberg, why not do this for the sake of public trust and transparency?

UCLA Scientist, Prop 37 Opponent Bob Goldberg: I was on the science board of Calgene when the Flavr Savrs were put out and I don’t have any disagreement with anything Belinda is saying. I think transparency and consumers’ right to know is absolutely a positive thing.

However — and there is a big “however” — Prop. 37 is not a simple labeling proposition. It’s a Trojan Horse, and the reason it’s a Trojan Horse is it has a threshold requirement that the grocery stores are not going to be able to have anything that has more than .5 percent genetically engineered ingredients or derivatives from genetically engineered crops. That threshold goes to zero percent in a few years.

So it’s not simply about labeling. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with labeling foods, informing consumers and putting on a label that says, “this might be derived from genetically engineered plants.” I think Belinda is absolutely correct about all of that, but this is a little bit different. This is a proposition — and I’ll be frank about this – that is being pursued by individuals that are ideologically opposed to a wonderful technology that has the ability to transform agriculture as we know it.

Michael Krasny: There are some who say that this technology is poorly managed, what about that argument?

Bob Goldberg: The National Academy of Sciences came out a few years ago with a report with the safety of genetically engineered crops. The report was important because it said genetic engineering is just a technique. And modern genetic engineering — which was invented in the San Francisco area 40 years ago — is really no different from conventional breeding. It’s just more precise and safer.

So, the report said to not focus on the technique, whether it’s conventional or modern genetic engineering — because all crops were genetically engineered in one form or another. The report said we should focus on the outcome and look on a case-by-case basis of whether the foods that are made either conventionally or by genetic engineering are safe by doing proper testing.

By that point of view, there’s not one conventional food on the market that’s ever been tested in any way. On the other hand, the genetically engineered crops that are out there and the foods that are derived from them have been tested for over 15 years and hundreds of studies, and none of them has shown any health effects.

Michael Krasny: Belinda Martineau, do you have any counter arguments?

Belinda Martineau: I agree that these products should be looked at on a case-by-case basis. But that’s not happening in this country right now. The FDA does not require regulation of nearly all these products. And if you haven’t used a plant pest to produce your genetically engineered product, you don’t have to go to the USDA either. If your plant doesn’t contain an insecticide, you don’t have to go to the EPA either. So, the regulatory system is not looking at these products on a case-by-case basis and that’s what needs to be done.

Bob Goldberg: The regulatory system isn’t looking at conventional crops either. So it’s ironic that a genetically engineered crop could go through 15 years of testing, but a conventional crop — that might produce a peanut with a lot more allergens than a normal peanut contains – has absolutely zero regulation. So that was the basis of the National Academy of Science’s report — that we ought to treat these things as techniques and treat each crop on a case-by-case basis and look at the safety of those crops. Genetically engineered crops are the safest that have ever been produced in the history of agriculture. There’s not one conventional crop that’s ever been tested, except by use in people eating the foods and just from an empirical point of view have been shown to be safe.

Michael Krasny: Belinda Martineau, do you agree with that?

Belinda Martineau: No, I don’t. Not all of these products have been looked at for 15 years on a case-by-case basis. And the processes that are used to insert genes into plants right now are highly mutagenic processes. They’re not as safe as traditionally bred crops.

Bob Goldberg: I totally disagree with Belinda, she knows better. She’s used this technique, trying to pass this off as being mutagenic. The fact is that we’re in a genomics revolution. We are discovering genes that have the potential for transforming agriculture in ways that will be very positive. Over the next 50 years, we’re going to have to double the food supply of the world. We’re going to have to produce more food than has ever been produced in the history of mankind, and we need every tool in the toolbox. Modern genetic engineering is very precise and very accurate. The genes that we’re putting in these crops are not mutagens. We know where they’re going; we know what locations in the genomes they’re going into. They’re being tested very precisely, and there’s very little we don’t know about them.

Michael Krasny: Weren’t we domesticating wheat about 10,000 years ago?

Bob Goldberg: It was actually a combination of different wheat species, bringing the DNA from different species together. In fact, all plants have gone through these hybridization processes in order to make the wonderful food that we have today. We spend less than 10 percent of our disposable income on food. The reason for that is over the last 100 years, we’ve been able to increase the yield on crops by about 300-fold, creating a bountiful, inexpensive food supply. But in other parts of the world, that’s not the case. They might spend 50 to 70 percent of their incomes on food. And we need to use every technology — particularly in the developing world in order to bring their agriculture up to the state which we have in our country.

Belinda Martineau: I’m not saying “don’t use the technology.” It’s a very powerful technology, and we may make great progress in agriculture using this technique. But we have to look at it on a case-by-case basis, and that is not happening right now.

We do not know where the gene is going to land in the genome of a plant right now, Bob. You know better than that. We have to look after the plant has been transformed and then see where the gene has landed. We don’t know when we start the process. And it can land in a gene and it can mutate that gene.

Michael Krasny: We started with the pro, we end with the con. Bob Goldberg, what’s your final comment?

Bob Goldberg: It’s a wonderful technology. It’s very safe. Look at the proposition itself and you will see that it is anti-science and anti-agriculture.

Update:

We fact-checked some of the arguments above in a detailed follow-up post.

Learn More:

Are GMO Labels a Scarlet Letter?

And here’s the KQED Guide to California Propositions‘ entry on Prop 37…

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

Proposition 37 would require food labels to indicate genetically modified ingredients. (Judy Baxter: Flickr)

New campaign finance data shows millions of dollars pouring in to fund November ballot battles. In two closely watched issues this election season, the California Teachers Association dumped another $7 million against Proposition 32. It would block unions from using payroll deducted funds for political purposes, among other things.

Food giants ponied up another $3 million to take down Proposition 37, the ballot measure that asks voters to decide if foods with genetically modified ingredients should be labelled. If Prop 37 passes, California would be the first state to require such labels.

In the “no” camp on Prop 37 are people and companies who do not want to label genetically modified foods. They’re spending big — outspending the “yes” camp 10 to one.

Over the last few days companies such as Ocean Spray, Sara Lee, Kraft and Godiva Chocolates have spent big to stop GMO labels from appearing on packages. The “No on 37″ campaign is spreaheaded by biotech giant Monsanto and has raised $28 million so far. “Yes on 37″ which backs labeling is supported by organic food makers among others, it’s raised less than $3 million to date.

For a visual on all campaign spending, visit MapLight. While its numbers are a bit behind the Secretary of State, MapLight has easy-to-read charts.

Finally, KQED’s Amy Standen has a great explainer about Proposition 37 – who’s for it, who’s against it and why.