Source: http://www.classactiondefensestrategy.com/2012/10/articles/false-advertising/proposition-37-permits-natural-labeling-for-non-gmo-processed-food/
Timestamp: 2017-09-20 10:50:15
Document Index: 445508336

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 110808', '§ 110809', '§ 110809', '§ 110809', '§ 110808', '§ 8']

Proposition 37 Permits "Natural" Labeling for Non-GMO Processed Food | Class Action Defense Strategy Blog
By Neil Popovic and Robert Uram on October 8, 2012 Posted in False Advertising
Proposition 37, the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act (“Prop 37”), if approved by the voters on November 6, 2012, will provide that food offered for retail sale in California produced with genetic engineering (“GMO food”) is misbranded unless clearly labeled to say it is genetically engineered. Prop 37 also provides that GMO “processed food” may not on its label, store signage, advertising or promotional materials state or imply that the food is “natural” or words of similar import.
The Findings and Declarations in Proposition 37 state that “California consumers have the right to know whether foods they purchase were produced using genetic engineering,” and that “The labeling, advertising and marketing of genetically engineered foods using terms such as ‘natural,’ ‘naturally made,’ ‘naturally grown,’ or ‘all natural’ is misleading to California consumers.”
Section 110809, Disclosure With Respect to Genetic Engineering of Food, provides that “any food offered for retail sale in California is misbranded if it is or may have been entirely or partially produced with genetic engineering and that fact is not disclosed.” Subdivision (c) of § 110808 defines “genetically engineered”; and subdivision (d) defines “processed food.”
In addition to any disclosure required by Section 110809, if a food meets any of the definitions in subdivision (c) or (d) of Section 110808 . . . the food may not in California, on its label, accompanying signage in a retail establishment, or in any advertising or promotional materials, state or imply that the food is “natural,” “naturally made,” “naturally grown,” “all natural,” or any words of similar import that would have any tendency to mislead any consumer.
The title of § 110809.1 highlights the fact that it applies to “Misbranding of Genetically Engineered Foods as ‘Natural.'” The introductory phrase, “In addition to any disclosure required by section 110809,” clarifies that the “natural” labeling restriction in § 110809.1 applies only where disclosure is already required—i.e., for food that “is or may have been entirely or partially produced with genetic engineering.”
Basic rules of statutory interpretation require a law to be construed consistently with its purpose and to avoid absurd results. Construing § 110809.1 to prohibit “natural” labels on non-GMO processed food would violate these rules. Under § 110808(d), “processed food” includes any food subject to “canning, smoking, pressing, cooking, freezing, dehydration, fermentation or milling.” Prohibiting “natural” labels on “processed food” regardless of whether it is genetically engineered would affect foods such as 100 percent fruit juice, pure nut butters, dried fruit, flour, ice cream, and virtually any food that is not raw, freshly harvested and unprocessed. Such a result would confound consumer expectations, and it is not consistent with Prop 37’s purpose of protecting consumers against undisclosed use of genetic engineering.
Background materials for Prop 37 focus on the right to know whether food is genetically engineered, with no expression of intent to regulate “natural” marketing in any other context. In submitting Prop 37 to the Attorney General’s Office for review, the LAO described the measure as “a proposed statutory initiative related to the labeling of genetically engineered (GE) food products,” noting: “the measure prohibits the use of terms such as ‘natural,’ ‘naturally made,’ ‘naturally grown,’ and ‘all natural’ in the labeling and advertising of any food that is genetically engineered.” The official Yes on 37 website states that the prohibition on “natural” marketing does not apply to food that is not genetically engineered.
Article II, § 8(a) of the California Constitution, the “single subject rule,” provides: “An initiative measure embracing more than one subject may not be submitted to the electors or have any effect.” It is settled that courts should construe laws to avoid unconstitutionality. According to the California Supreme Court, “a measure complies with the [single subject] rule if its provisions are either functionally related to one another or are reasonably germane to one another or the objects of the enactment.” The object of Prop 37, as expressed in its title and text, is to require disclosure if food sold in California is genetically engineered. A provision that prohibits “natural” labels on nongenetically engineered food would not be germane to the other provisions of Prop 37 or to its object. A court would avoid such a construction because it would violate the single subject rule, rendering the entire measure unconstitutional.
Archives Select Month September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 April 2017 January 2017 October 2016 September 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 October 2015 August 2015 July 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 June 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 September 2013 June 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 April 2012 March 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 July 2011 May 2011 April 2011 February 2011 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009