Proposition 37 is the initiative which is presented as the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act by the representatives of the Organic Consumers Association in California. Proposition 37 requires labeling genetically engineered foods.
It is developed to become the regulatory law the main purpose of which is to control the process of labeling genetically engineered foods which are sold within different markets and to prohibit the sale of genetically engineered products as natural ones.
Those raw foods, fruits and vegetables which are genetically engineered are required to be labeled as “Genetically Engineered” in order to provide consumers with the knowledge about the possible risk for their health (Cross).
Proposition 37 is associated with Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and Food Safety Law. The Proposition was enacted by the representatives and activists of the Organic Consumers Association, but it is still not adopted.
Proposition 37 is expected to be supported in California in November, 2012 (Lifsher).
The main objectives of Proposition 37 which is associated with US Food Safety Law reflect such social values as the public’s health, and it is worked out to prevent the possibilities to do harm to the public’s health with providing the genetically engineered foods which can be noxious for human organisms.
Moreover, the fact of concealing the information about genetically engineered foods can be discussed as the violation of the people’s rights and their values and beliefs.
The discussion of Proposition 37 by the public is based on the obvious gap between the “law on the books” and the “law in action” because Food Safety Law which is associated with the Proposition was worked out without references to such problem as the distribution of the genetically engineered foods, and the development of the regulatory law in relation to the problem is a challengeable process.
Thus, the opponents of the Proposition accentuate such weak points of the act as numerous exemptions for different products the concentration on which can lead to the violation of the people’s rights “in action”. As a result, the non-labeled products can appear to be genetically engineered and harmful for people (Lifsher).
The aspects of Proposition 37 can be discussed from the point of Emile Durkheim who accentuated the connection of legal questions, social and moral principles. Thus, law can regulate not only the life of the community but also its morality.
From this point, it is immoral to ignore Proposition 37 and let genetically modified products be used without the people’s knowledge of the fact.
The Proposition and its consequences for the legal and economic spheres can be also analyzed from the perspective of Karl Marx’s legal economism when the realization of the law can influence the country’s economy negatively.
According to Max Weber, the attempts to adopt Proposition 37 can be examined from the point of substantive justice when decisions in relation to the Proposition can be made under the impact of the other non-legal factors (advertising, opponents’ proclamations).
Thus, the other significant factors which can influence the adoption of the act are the economic environment and positions of the farmers and producers according to the initiative.
The situation is complicated with references to the possible economically negative results of the Proposition’s adoption because the production of genetically engineered foods is associated with the definite economic gains and advantages for producers.
Works Cited
Cross, Rebecca. Proposition 37: California’s Newest Challenge For Food Product Companies. 2012. Web.
Lifsher, Marc. Support for Proposition 37 is Slipping, Poll Finds. 2012. Web.