In California, citizens will vote next month on a new proposed legislation called Proposition 37, to decide whether genetically modified (GM) food should or should not be labelled. If California, the largest state in the United States, switches over to labelling, it could pose a challenge for the food industry in the country where GM comprises 80 per cent of the output. It would imply that companies would have to manufacture two types of the same product. It might also mean losses for GM products, besides a surge in prices.
Labelling is already prevalent in Europe, and a few countries like Japan and New Zealand.
The vote is significant because it will give people the right to choose between GM and non-GM food.
The other significance, for India, is that it underlines a practice of legislation that activists like Anna Hazare and Arvind Kejriwal have been asking for. People would be actually casting their votes for or against a proposition and making their own law. Such proposals for GM labelling have been killed, for instance, in Oregon in the US, since it fell short of citizen votes — something unthinkable in India where the elected representatives, especially the ones in the ruling party’s Cabinet, are considered the repositories of national wisdom capable of deciding for the whole country.
The other facet about the California voting is the funding involved in the campaigns. For instance, it seems to be open knowledge from the account of various newspaper reports such as Deutsche Welle that top companies in the field of GM foods from the US and outside have together raised $37 million for the campaign against the proposition, with Monsanto alone giving the biggest chunk of $7 million. Companies have argued that they were not against labelling, but against the move seeming to discriminate against biotechnology. In Europe where labelling exists, companies like Bayer point out that a threshold limit is kept for GM and non-GM, thus giving ample space for all.
The campaign supporting the proposition has managed to raise only $4 million. If the vote goes in favour of the proposition for GM labelling, which is unlikely given the advertisement blitz unleashed by the pro-GM camps, California would become the first state in the US to have GM labels on a mandatory basis.
Will an Indian state ever go for voting for or against issues like having a nuclear power plant or locating 71 thermal plants in one state? What would the farmers in Vidarbha or Chhattisgarh have said, had they been asked to vote for or against locating 71 thermal plants in their region? Would people of Tamil Nadu have voted against a nuclear plant in Kudankulam?
Activists Prashant Bhushan and Arundhati Roy have suggested that even a territorial issue like Kashmir should be left to a public vote. It is often argued that even Tamil Nadu is not equipped to decide for Kudankulam and Chhattisgarh for Raigarh or Janjgir-Champa, which have MoUs (Memoranda of Understanding) for 25 and 33 thermal plants, respectively, with implications on their farm land, water resources and fresh air. Should a specific region have the right to decide? The opposite argument is that majority opinion may not be the right one and that money power can slant opinions.
The ongoing anti-corruption movement, which has morphed into a political party, has kept decentralisation and local decision-making at the centre of its vision. Party leader Kejriwal has been saying his interest is not in power, but in restructuring the way the country is run and decisions are made. This is something that promises a new beginning, despite the huge risks involved.
