SECTION 1.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:(a) California consumers have the right to know, through labeling, whether the foods they purchase were produced with genetic engineering, so they can make informed purchasing decisions.
(b) Polls consistently show that the vast majority of the members of the public, more than 90 percent, want to know, for health, economic, environmental, religious, and ethical reasons, if the food they purchase was produced with genetic engineering.
(c) Without mandatory
disclosure, consumers of foods produced through genetic engineering may unknowingly violate their dietary and religious beliefs.
(d) There is currently no federal or California requirement that genetically engineered (GE) foods be labeled. In contrast, 64 countries, including three of California’s leading trading partners, Japan, China, and the European Union member states, as well as South Korea, Australia, Russia, and Malaysia, already have laws mandating that foods produced through genetic engineering be labeled.
(e) The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not require safety studies of GE foods. Instead, any consultations are voluntary and GE food developers may decide what information to provide to the FDA.
(f) Genetic engineering of plants and animals can cause unintended consequences. It has been demonstrated that manipulating genes through genetic engineering and inserting them into organisms is an imprecise process. The results are not always predictable or controllable.
(g) United States government scientists have stated that the artificial insertion of genetic material into plants via genetic engineering can increase the levels of known toxicants or allergens in foods and create new toxicants or allergens with consequent health concerns.
(h) Mandatory identification of foods produced with genetic engineering can provide a method for detecting, at a large epidemiological scale, the potential health effects of consuming those foods.
(i) Numerous foreign markets with restrictions on foods produced through genetic engineering have restricted imports of United States crops due to concerns about genetic engineering. Some foreign markets are choosing to purchase agricultural products from countries other than the United States because GE crops are not identified in the United States, which makes it impossible for buyers to determine what does or does not meet their national labeling laws or restrictions and thus renders United States products less desirable.
(j) Agricultural exports in California in 2011 generated $16.8 billion in revenue, representing 39 percent of total production. Mandatory identification of foods produced with genetic engineering can be a critical method of preserving the economic value
of exports or domestically sensitive markets with restrictions on, or prohibitions against, genetic engineering. Preserving the identity, quality, and reliability of California’s agricultural products and exports is critical to the state’s economic well-being.
(k) The cultivation of GE crops can have serious effects on the environment. For example, in the year 2012, 93 percent of all soy grown in the United States was genetically engineered to be herbicide resistant. In fact, the vast majority of GE crops are designed to withstand herbicides and they, therefore, promote indiscriminate herbicide use. As a result, GE crops have caused 527 million pounds of additional herbicides to be applied to the nation’s farmland. These toxic herbicides damage the vitality and quality of our soil, contaminate our drinking water, and pose health risks to
consumers and farmworkers. Further, because of the consequent massive increase in herbicide use, herbicide-resistant weeds have developed and flourished, infesting farm fields and roadsides, complicating weed control for farmers, and causing farmers to resort to more and increasingly toxic herbicides.
(l) The FDA is currently proposing approval of the first GE salmon for human consumption. Wild Pacific salmon are a critical natural and cultural resource of California and are under increasing environmental stress. More than 106 major salmon runs in northern California and the Pacific Northwest are extinct and another 214 runs of wild salmon are at risk of extinction. An escaped GE fish could pose additional environmental risk to California’s already stressed wild salmon populations and coastal ecosystems by, among other things, imposing
new competitive pressures on these populations for food and space, interfering with effective breeding and reproduction, and spreading disease. The west coast salmon fishing industry, including both commercial and recreational components, has lost an estimated 72,000 jobs during the last 20 years. In the face of market confusion, seafood consumers may avoid purchasing salmon altogether to avoid genetically engineered salmon which would further negatively impact California’s wild salmon fishermen.
(m) The people of California should have the choice to avoid purchasing foods produced in ways that can lead to that environmental harm.
(n) Labeling of foods produced through genetic engineering as provided in this act can be implemented without substantial burden to either
food producers or the government.