Earlier this week, I asked if the movement to label foods with GMOs (genetically modified ingredients, died along with the defeat of California’s Proposition 37. It hasn’t died. Supporters of mandatory labeling are regrouping and figuring out what to do next. There’s also a lot of discussion on why the bill was defeated, considering that it seemed sure to pass earlier this fall. Everyone who has something to say about the subject mentions the amount of money spent by opponents, a reported $46 million, as a real issue. Here’s what’s being said.



  • Over on Huffington Post, the founders of Occupy Big Food say the failure of Prop 37 shows that we can’t count on policy to change our food system because the money just isn’t there. They aren’t giving up, though. “We can't outspend Big Food and we can't out campaign them -- but we can outsmart them.”
  • Southern California Public Radio has an interview with Mark Bittman on why he thinks Prop 37 was defeated. You can listen to the interview online, and they also have some of the highlights from the interview printed on the website.
  • The campaign to label GMOs is now being taken to other states. Sacramento Bee reports that proponents of labeling are “looking north to Washington and Oregon and east to Connecticut and Vermont.” Those states may possibly have GMO labeling bills to consider soon.
  • Marion Nestle sees the take-home lesson of the defeat of Prop 37 as one of the power of money. On her Food Politics blog she points out that “Polling results started to shift only after the October 1 start of the “No on 37″ television ad campaign.” $46 million was spent by opponents of the bill to defeat it.

Robin Shreeves ( @rshreeves ) focuses on food from a family perspective from her home base in New Jersey.

Monday morning quarterbacking the defeat of Proposition 37
A little over a month ago, the California bill requiring mandatory labeling of GMOs looked like it was going to pass. How did it end up defeated? Many people se