No on Prop. 37: IN CASE YOU MISSED IT - Los Angeles Times, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, San Bernardino Sun, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and Victorville Daily Press Urge No on Prop. 37 33 daily newspapers oppose Prop. 37. PR Newswire SACRAMENTO, Calif., Oct. 4, 2012 SACRAMENTO, Calif., Oct. 4, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- In recent editorials, five more California newspapers urged voters to reject Proposition 37 on the November ballot. The overwhelming majority of daily newspapers from across California have opposed Prop. 37. Read all No on Prop. 37 editorials here. Read the complete editorials in the Los Angeles Times, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, San Bernardino Sun, Victorville Daily Press, and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. Los Angeles Times, No on Proposition 37, 10/4/12 o...the initiative to require labeling of those ingredients is sloppily written. o...a paperwork mandate that could make it hard for mom-and-pop groceries to stay in business. o...lawsuits brought by members of the public who suspect grocers of selling unlabeled food, a messy and potentially expensive way to bring about compliance. o...there is no rationale for singling out genetic engineering. Victorville Daily Press, Proposition 37 is unnecessary, 10/4/12 oIf Prop. 37 passes, lawsuits will abound. o...what it will really do is raise the price of food. oThe American Medical Association and the World Health Organization have said that "genetically modified organism" foods have been grown, harvested and consumed all over the world in vast quantities, with no discernible ill effects on the health of said consumers. oProp. 37 is unnecessary. ..vote no. Santa Rosa Press Democrat, PD Editorial: No on 37: Label this one over-regulation, 10/2/12 o"In short, the state doesn't need it, families can't afford it, and the science simply doesn't warrant it." o"It's intent seems to be to scare people, pure and simple..." o"The danger here is that GE "warning" labels eventually will become so ubiquitous as to be meaningless. It will become like Proposition 65, California's toxic labeling law, passed in 1986, where the only people it really benefits are lawyers and litigants." o"Proposition 37, as written, creates more problems than solutions. We encourage a no vote." San Bernardino Sun, No on Prop. 37: More information is good, but rampant litigation isn't, 10/1/12 o"The most concerning aspect of Prop. 37 is its method of "enforcement." It allows every member of the public to become an enforcer, dropping lawsuits if they only suspect noncompliance but have no evidence." o"We urge a "no" vote." Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, No on Prop. 37: More information is good, but rampant litigation isn't, 10/1/12 o"It has language similar to that of the anti-toxic chemical initiative Proposition 65 and Americans with Disabilities Act which encourages lawsuit abuse of small business." o"...Prop. 37 is not the answer. Vote no." Newspapers Endorsing No on Prop. 37: oLos Angeles Times oSan Francisco Chronicle oSacramento Bee oLA Daily News oU-T San Diego oOakland Tribune oContra Costa Times oOrange County Register oSanta Rosa Press Democrat oRiverside Press Enterprise oLong Beach Press Telegram oTorrance Daily Breeze oSan Gabriel Valley Tribune oPasadena Star News oWhittier Daily News oSan Bernardino Sun oInland Valley Daily Bulletin oFresno Bee oMerced Sun-Star oModesto Bee oRedding Record Searchlight oWoodland Daily Democrat oBakersfield Californian oVentura County Star oCarmel Pine Cone oEast County Times oWest County Times oSan Ramon Valley Times oTri Valley Times oFremont Argus oHayward Daily Review oPalm Springs Desert Sun oVictorville Daily Press About Prop. 37 Proposition 37 would ban the sale of tens of thousands of perfectly-safe, common grocery products only in California unless they are specially repackaged, relabeled or made with higher cost ingredients. Prop 37 is a deceptive, deeply flawed food labeling scheme that would add more government bureaucracy and taxpayer costs, create new frivolous lawsuits, and increase food costs by billions — without providing any health or safety benefits. That's why Prop 37 is opposed by a broad coalition of family farmers, scientists, doctors, business, labor, taxpayers and consumers. Paid for by No on 37: Coalition Against the Deceptive Food Labeling Scheme, sponsored by Farmers, Food Producers, and Grocers. Major funding by Monsanto Company, E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) and more than 40 food company members. For a full list of donors visit www.NoProp37.com/donors.- 1-800-331-0850 - www.NoProp37.com SOURCE No on Prop. 37 Website: http://www.noprop37.com Contact: Kathy Fairbanks, 1-800-331-0850, firstname.lastname@example.org
No on Prop. 37: IN CASE YOU MISSED IT - Los Angeles Times, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, San Bernardino Sun, Inland Valley Daily
Press spacebar to pause and continue. Press esc to stop.