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

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

  • ...the initiative to require labeling of those ingredients is sloppily written.
  • ...a paperwork mandate that could make it hard for mom-and-pop groceries to stay in business.
  • ...lawsuits brought by members of the public who suspect grocers of selling unlabeled food, a messy and potentially expensive way to bring about compliance.
  • ...there is no rationale for singling out genetic engineering.

Victorville Daily Press, Proposition 37 is unnecessary, 10/4/12

  • If Prop. 37 passes, lawsuits will abound.
  • ...what it will really do is raise the price of food.
  • The 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.
  • Prop. 37 is unnecessary. no.

Santa Rosa Press Democrat, PD Editorial: No on 37: Label this one over-regulation, 10/2/12

  • "In short, the state doesn't need it, families can't afford it, and the science simply doesn't warrant it."
  • "It's intent seems to be to scare people, pure and simple..."
  • "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."
  • "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

  • "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."
  • "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

  • "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."
  • "...Prop. 37 is not the answer. Vote no."

Newspapers Endorsing No on Prop. 37:

  • Los Angeles Times
  • San Francisco Chronicle
  • Sacramento Bee
  • LA Daily News
  • U-T San Diego
  • Oakland Tribune
  • Contra Costa Times
  • Orange County Register
  • Santa Rosa Press Democrat
  • Riverside Press Enterprise
  • Long Beach Press Telegram
  • Torrance Daily Breeze
  • San Gabriel Valley Tribune
  • Pasadena Star News
  • Whittier Daily News
  • San Bernardino Sun
  • Inland Valley Daily Bulletin
  • Fresno Bee
  • Merced Sun-Star
  • Modesto Bee
  • Redding Record Searchlight
  • Woodland Daily Democrat
  • Bakersfield Californian
  • Ventura County Star
  • Carmel Pine Cone
  • East County Times
  • West County Times
  • San Ramon Valley Times
  • Tri Valley Times
  • Fremont Argus
  • Hayward Daily Review
  • Palm Springs Desert Sun
  • Victorville 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 - 1-800-331-0850 -

SOURCE No on Prop. 37