No on Prop. 37: IN CASE YOU MISSED IT - U-T San Diego writes second No on 37
editorial, calls it a "scam" because of enforcement provisions allowing
Chico Enterprise Record and Investor's Business Daily also go No on 37. In
total, 40 newspapers from throughout the state -- NO on 37.
SACRAMENTO, Calif., Oct. 24, 2012
SACRAMENTO, Calif., Oct. 24, 2012 /PRNewswire/ --The U-T San Diego today
editorialized a second time against Prop. 37, calling it a "scam" and saying
it "keeps looking worse." The editorial warned voters about the potential for
shakedown lawsuits allowed by the measure.
Also in recent editorials, Investor's Business Daily and the Chico
Enterprise-Record urged their readers to vote NO on Proposition 37. That makes
40 daily newspapers urging NO.
Read all No on Prop. 37 editorials here.
Read the U-T San Diego, Chico Enterprise-Record and Investor's Business Daily
U-T San Diego, Prop. 37 Keeps Looking Worse, 10/24/2012
o"Trial lawyers drafted it in a way that allows shakedown lawsuits
targeting anyone in food sales without even having to establish that any
o"What a scam."
Chico Enterprise-Record, Editorial: Proposition 37 unneeded, unfair,
o"California is the highest-producing agricultural state in the nation. We
shouldn't slap unnecessary regulations on a successful industry."
o"If Proposition 37 and its confusing language are adopted…individuals can
sue for violations, and you can bet that attorneys will turn these
lawsuits into a profit center…"
o"…good for lawyers but bad for farmers."
o"Farmers don't need more regulations and unnecessary labels."
o"…vote no on 37."
Investor's Business Daily, Prop 37 Will Cost Californians At The Grocery
o"Voters need to stop this foolishness."
o"…backers… promise it "won't cost you a dime," but that's simply not
o"Prop. 37 supporters argue that the labeling is a health issue. It's not."
o"We're not aware of a single credible study that says GMO foods are less
safe than non-GMO foods."
o"… very bad regulation."
Newspapers Endorsing No on Prop. 37:
oLos Angeles Times
oSan Francisco Chronicle
oLA Daily News
oSan Jose Mercury News
oU-T San Diego
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
oSanta Cruz Sentinel
oRedding Record Searchlight
oWoodland Daily Democrat
oInvestor's Business Daily
oVentura County Star
oCarmel Pine Cone
oEast County Times
oWest County Times
oSan Ramon Valley Times
oTri Valley Times
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 remade with higher cost ingredients. Prop. 37 is not
a simple labeling measure. It will increase grocery bills for California
families by up to $400 a year, add more government bureaucracy and taxpayer
costs, will create a new way for trial lawyers to file shakedown lawsuits, and
includes loopholes and exemptions which make no sense. All of this 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
Contact: Kathy Fairbanks, 1-800-331-0850, email@example.com
Press spacebar to pause and continue. Press esc to stop.