NO on California Proposition 37 Launches Statewide Radio Ads
The California Proposition 37 media campaign has begun.
From the press release:
The No on 37 campaign today launched its first statewide radio ad which highlights the many flaws and costs of Prop 37. In particular, the radio spot points out that Prop 37 was written by trial lawyers for the benefit of trial lawyers, and that it would add more government bureaucracy and red tape that will increase costs to taxpayers and consumers.
“Proposition 37 is not a simple measure, despite what proponents claim,” said Jamie Johansson, an Oroville farmer who grows olives to make olive oil. Mr. Johansson also is second vice president of the California Farm Bureau Federation.. “It’s a deceptive, special-interest measure that will have far-reaching negative consequences on consumers, taxpayers, farmers, grocers, small businesses and every Californian.”
The Sacramento Bee identified similar problems when it urged a NO vote on Prop. 37 on Sunday, saying, Prop. 37 is “… an overreach, is ambiguous, and would open the way for countless lawsuits against retailers who sell food that might lack the proper labeling.”
“Prop. 37 is about the right to sue,” said Ronald K. Fong, president, California Grocers Association. “And when it is time to sue, grocery retailers will be at the head of the line to get hit with a lawsuit. Lawyers need no proof, no damages prior to filing the lawsuit. H ow is that good policy? Consumers don’t benefit from shakedown lawsuits, the only group Prop. 37 benefits is trial lawyers.”The radio ad, beginning Monday, will air statewide.
Here is the ad:
[youtube]http://youtu.be/0prG2KdP6uY[/youtube]
The latest polls I saw had Proposition 37 passing by a wide margin, but are California voters apt to vote yes when these ads run?
I am positive in the next few weeks, as early and absentee voting starts in California, the No on Proposition 37 folks will also go on television.
Stay tuned…..
2 Comments
Fond of Complex Analysis
You know what was clear to be from this advertisement was that the proposition calls for new labeling procedures, but the food manufacturers won’t even utter aloud what it is Prop 37 is trying to get them to label. That is how you know you are holding a toxic asset, when even the name or description of the item in question can drive people away. And didn’t the article you linked in your previous post describe how this proposition was better-worded than previous examples in terms of legal fees related to claims of improper labeling? Seems like this is a campaign designed to take the focus off the central issue of the proposition. I hope there’s at least something more witty or insightful around the bend, or else the “no” crowd would’ve been better off spending that thirty million dollars on direct bribes targeting individual voters.
Craig Slater
Prop 37 is not at all deceptive!
YES on 37 is strongly supported by this economic study released Aug. 12 by the eminent jurist Joanna Shepherd Bailey, Ph.D., a tenured professor at Emory University School of Law. She states : “Consumers will likely see no increases in prices as a result of the relabeling required. “The study highlights that labeling costs would be “trivial”, administrative costs “negligible”, and litigation costs “minor”.
Pro-GMO Propaganda in California Dismantled by New Cost Study | The Alliance for Natural Health USA
http://www.anh-usa.org/pro-gmo-propaganda-in-california-dismantled-by-new-cost-study/
http://www.anh-usa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/GE-Food-Act-Costs-Assessment.pdf
ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT:
PROPOSED CALIFORNIA RIGHT TO KNOW GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD ACT (PROP 37)
LIKELY TO CAUSE NO CHANGE IN FOOD PRICES, MINOR LITIGATION COSTS, AND NEGLIGIBLE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS