Search Results for ‘"prop 37"’

Prop 37 and GMOs, cont’d

The California proposition [earlier here, here, and here] is now running into a wave of disapproving editorials in California newspapers, including the Sacramento Bee. Tyler Cowen administers a well deserved rebuke to tendentious NYT food-policy columnist Mark Bittman [Marginal Revolution and followup] Also check out the analysis by Jonathan Adler [“How Not to Label Biotech Foods,” New Atlantis] and Baylen Linnekin [“California’s GMO Labeling Law Isn’t the Answer,” Reason] And in California Political Review, John Hrabe notes my Daily Caller piece in the course of observations about the ambition of some Californians to play regulator to the world. (& Matt Bogard)

Somewhat relatedly, it is now clear that Vitamin-A-laden golden rice could fight child blindness arising from nutritional deficiency in the underdeveloped world; alas, it’s being held back by Greenpeace anti-GMO efforts [Margaret Wente/Toronto Globe and Mail; Art Caplan, NBC]

California’s Prop 37: Prop 65 in organic garb

After the quarter-century disgrace that is Proposition 65 litigation — run by and for lawyers’ interests, with no discernible benefit to the health of the citizenry — you’d think California voters would have learned a thing or two. But unless poll numbers reverse themselves, they’re on the way to approving this fall’s Proposition 37, ostensibly aimed at requiring labeling of genetically modified food, whose main sponsor just happens to be a Prop 65 lawyer. I explain in a new piece at Daily Caller. More coverage: Western Farm Press; Hank Campbell, Science 2.0; Ronald Bailey, Reason (& Red State).

More: defenders of Prop 37 point to this analysis (PDF) by economist James Cooper, arguing that 37 is drafted more narrowly than 65 in ways that would avert some of the potential for abusive litigation. And from Hans Bader: would the measure be open to challenge as unconstitutional, or as federally preempted?

Environmental roundup

Notes on the election

  • Thank you, California voters, for ignoring the advice of Michael Pollan and Mark Bittman and turning down Prop 37, the badly (or deliberately-badly, depending on your level of cynicism) drafted initiative on labeling of genetically modified foods.
  • Any time a political wave comes crashing in, as it did last night, you lose some outstanding candidates along with the rest. Of Republicans defeated last night, I am particularly saddened by the loss of Nan Hayworth in Westchester and by that of Richard Tisei in Massachusetts, who would have greatly improved the character of representation for the North Shore compared with the present incumbent.
  • Ten Commandments judge Roy Moore, with backing from the plaintiff’s bar, won narrow approval from Alabama voters. Three Florida high court justices with a record of tendentious rulings easily won retention, backed by a wave of money from lawyers who practice before their court. On the brighter side, top-notch Michigan Supreme Court Justice Steve Markman survived another Democratic/union attempt to oust him. So there’s that.
  • Longtime subject of Overlawyered reportage Judy Cates won the judgeship in the downstate Illinois area across from St. Louis for which the term “problem jurisdiction” might have been invented.
  • Readers bored or bothered by the same-sex marriage issue should keep scrolling: four states had it on the ballot, I was deeply involved in the campaign in my home state of Maryland, and we appear to have won in all four states.
  • Readers bored or bothered by libertarian stances should keep right on scrolling because I am also very happy about Colorado’s and Washington’s removal of criminal penalties for marijuana use and California’s modification of its draconian “Three Strikes” law;
  • One of the most curious features of the presidential contest was the way both sides by seeming consent appeared to set aside the issue of Supreme Court appointments, which never even came up at the debates. Perhaps this silence is good for the institutional interests of the Court, whose public image could use some recuperation after years of Democratic attacks over decisions like Citizens United. But it strikes me as factually inaccurate, because the differences in likely court appointments remain one of the starkest and potentially most significant differences between the candidates, and would have made one of the more compelling themes for the Romney candidacy.
  • Go Wolverines: “Michigan voters soundly defeated a measure that would have given public-sector unions a potent tool to challenge any law — past, present or future — limiting their benefits and powers.” [Shikha Dalmia, Bloomberg]
  • More post-election thoughts from Ken at Popehat.

Election roundup

Environment roundup

  • Climate prof Michael Mann sues critics including National Review, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Mark Steyn, and Rand Simberg [Ken at Popehat, Scientific American, Ted Frank (noting Ars Technica’s fair-weather disapproval of SLAPP suits), Adler and more]
  • California polls show once-massive support for Prop 37 ebbing away; is there any major newspaper in the state that likes the measure? [L.A. Times, San Jose Mercury News, San Diego U-T; earlier here, here, etc.] Views of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on the general question of genetic modification labeling [statement, PDF] Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution refutes predictably lame views of Mark Bittman and Michael Pollan (stance tactfully assessed as “mood affiliation”) and discusses the impact on pesticide use with Greg Conko; more from WLF. At least Prop 37 has Michelle Lerach, hmmm [No on 37]
  • “So the two technologies most reliably and stridently opposed by the environmental movement—genetic modification and fracking—have been the two technologies that most reliably cut carbon emissions.” [Matt Ridley, WSJ]
  • “Texas v. EPA Litigation Scorecard” [Josiah Neeley, Texas Public Policy Foundation, PDF]
  • High-visibility public chemophobe Nicholas Kristof turns his garish and buzzing searchlight on formaldehyde [Angela Logomasini, CEI]
  • Per its terms, new ordinance in Yellow Springs, Ohio, “recognizes the legally enforceable Rights of Nature to exist and flourish. Residents of the village shall possess legal standing to enforce those rights on behalf of natural communities and ecosystems.” [Wesley Smith, NRO]
  • How EPA regulates without rulemaking: sue-and-settle, guidance documents, emergency powers [Ryan Young and Wayne Crews, CEI]

About that “GMO food causes rat tumors” report

Don’t miss multiple posts by BoingBoing’s Maggie Koerth-Baker on the shoddy science behind a recent alarmist report. It’s all the more noteworthy because one of her BB colleagues was at first taken in by the report, requiring an awkward rowback that developed into a crusade of its own against bad activist science. Earlier on Prop 37 and the California political angle here, etc.

Food roundup

  • Prop 37: Oakland Tribune thumbs down [editorial] “Natural” language a flashpoint [Glenn Lammi, WLF] Earlier here, here;
  • “Danish government may scrap its ‘fat tax’ after only one year because it simply doesn’t work” [Mark J. Perry, AEIdeas]
  • “Mouse in Mountain Dew saga comes to an end” [Madison County Record, earlier]
  • Food safety and local producers: “FDA Rules Won’t Work, Will Harm Small Farmers” [Ryan Young, CEI] “How Farmers’ Markets Dodged a Regulatory Bullet in Pennsylvania” [Baylen Linnekin, Reason]
  • “On the roads, on the cheese board… many Europeans now have more freedom than Americans.” [Mark Steyn]
  • Mayor Bloomberg extends his healthy-beverage solicitude to the youngest consumers [Steve Chapman]
  • In France, raw milk in vending machines [Mark Perry] FDA ban on interstate shipment of raw milk dates back to lawsuit by Public Citizen’s Sidney Wolfe [Linnekin]