Erin Springer
Special to the Mustang Daily
Cal Poly agricultural communicators celebrated when Proposition 37, aimed at labeling genetically engineered products, was defeated at the beginning of this month. However, department members are in support of drafting a better proposition that still provides information for consumers.
Most of the agricultural industry did not want the bill to pass, Cal Poly agricultural communications professor Scott Vernon said. This was later reflected in the vote: some 52 percent of voters said no on the proposition, while only 47 percent said yes.
“The bill was not right,” Vernon said. “It had some flaws, but it started some conversations we’re going to continue to have for a long time.”
Consumers do have the right to know what is in their food, Vernon said. However, Proposition 37 was written poorly, he said.
The flaws in Proposition 37 outweighed the benefits, said Megan Silcott, director of the Brock Center for Agricultural Communications. Soy milk was one particular problem, she said.
“Most people that are fond of organic purchases drink soy milk,” she said. “It is a common trend.”
However, approximately 90 percent of soybeans are genetically engineered, Silcott said. Ironically, soy milk would have been exempt from Proposition 37 and would not have needed to be labeled. Therefore, even if the proposition passed, many consumers of organic products would still not know that soy milk is genetically engineered.
“Just having conversations like that can help people understand that the bill was written very poorly,” Silcott said.
Agricultural communicators stress the importance of voters reading bills thoroughly and educating themselves before voting, Silcott said. It has become a lot easier for people to rely on social media and propaganda to get their information. However, voters must look into each proposition beyond what is given to them, she said.
“As a communicator, I really stress that there is research and background to be gathered,” Silcott said. “You have to do your homework.”
The best ways to educate voters is to hand them the bill, Vernon said. Giving them the facts to analyze is the best way they can make a decision, he said.
“That’s part of agriculture’s bigger challenge,” Vernon said. “They often try to defend themselves on facts and get beat on emotion. In this case, they were pretty good at showing people the facts.”
Students in agricultural communication classes learn to present the facts to the public, and leave their opinions out, Silcott said. In Proposition 37’s case, students held a few presentations on campus that showed only the facts in order to educate other students, she said.
The Ag Circle magazine and Brock Center helped spread the facts on Proposition 37 through social media, said Amanda Meneses, editor of the magazine and agricultural communications student.
“We try to put some things on Facebook, but we never said our own opinions,” Meneses said. “When the Mustang Daily came out with an article, we shared it on our Facebook, and one of our writers wrote a personal blog and we shared that. But we never said what we were in favor of, just ‘Check out the information on this blog.’”
San Luis Obispo County ended up voting no on Proposition 37 — about 53 percent to 47 percent, according to KCET election results.
Many farms in San Luis Obispo County are already organic and would not have been affected, Silcott said. However, had it passed, the requirement for new labeling would have hurt some local businesses, such as the Pismo-Oceano Vegetable Exchange, which grows few organic products, she said.
Apart from local businesses, the prevalence of genetically modified food would have made it difficult for companies all over California to adjust to new labeling, Silcott said.
“The scary part, to me, is I don’t think consumers realized how many companies it would have affected,” Silcott said. “It’s everything: Kraft foods, Johnson & Johnson, Campbell’s soup, pastas. It would have affected a great majority of our businesses, large and small.”
Propositions directed toward agriculture make agricultural communication students realize the importance of their job, Meneses said. The proposition shows that agriculture lacks strong communication and needs to improve in making the industry easier to understand.
“It makes our job a lot more serious and a lot more pressing,” Meneses said. “We need to be communicating with consumers. You have organizations like PETA and the Humane Society who are such strong communicators and agriculture needs to be at that forefront as well.”
The agriculture industry needs to work to make itself easier to understand, Vernon said. The proposition was a good exercise for the industry, he said. Now, instead of defending itself, the industry can start to take steps that will help consumers have a better understanding of their food.
The food should be labeled, but consumers should also know that facts, Meneses said.
“I don’t have a shadow in my mind that what I’m eating is safe and that’s because I’m educated,“ Meneses said. “I think that if consumers were educated they would feel the same way I do.”
The agriculture industry knows the issue will come back, Silcott said. However, if they want information, consumers should approach the issue differently, she said. For example, next time they could target a specific food group, such as fruit, and try to expand it later.
“With most legislation, once you start the ball rolling and get something written it’s more accepted to expand later,” Silcott said. “I would have done almost some sort of phase in.”
Taking the idea online is another option, Vernon said. A website with the same information would be more cost efficient for producers while still giving consumers what they want to know about their food.
Consumers will come at it from a different angle, but the issue will not go away, Vernon said. People will continue to demand more information about their food, he said. It becomes agriculture’s responsibility to assess what they could do better and how they could give people the information.
“Ultimately, the yes’s and no’s have to come together and find an area of agreement that works for everyone,” Vernon said.
Erin Springer contributed to this article.