By Tom Scott, Executive Director 3 Comments ADA, Consumer Protection, PIL Influence, Proposition 65
The Law of Unintended Consequences: More Lawsuits
Every once in a while, California’s voters think they are doing the right thing, but the results do not turn out to be what was intended. This will be the case if they pass the food labeling ballot initiative. Supporters of this initiative recently submitted enough signatures to place it on the ballot this fall.
The trial lawyer who wrote this little gem would like it to be called the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act. This is likely what will appear on the ballot this fall and on the surface, it would appear to be right in California’s wheelhouse.
However, if an initiative is written by a trial lawyer you might want to take a closer look. I certainly understand that people want to know whether the food they buy contains genetically engineered ingredients, but there are two things about this initiative that make me wonder whether this is about knowing what is in your food or actually just a method of creating more ways for trial lawyers to sue.
First, if this initiative was about informing consumers about ingredients, why does it exempt milk, cheese, eggs, beef, pork, chicken, alcohol and food sold in restaurants? It seems strange that the author claims to want to prompt a serious discussion about food yet some of the products people are most concerned about are exempted.
Second, buried deep in the initiative under the “enforcement” section is one of the oldest trial lawyer tricks of the trade: a private right of action, which allows any person to file a lawsuit alleging a violation of this initiative. No government agency will enforce this initiative; it will be a group of lawyers. And what is even more stunning is that, in the words of the initiative, the individual who sues, “shall not be required to allege facts necessary to show, or tending to show, lack of adequate remedy at law, or to show, or tending to show, irreparable damage or loss, or to show, or tending to show, unique or special individual injury or damage.”
What does that exactly mean? It means lawyers can sue anyone selling food without showing that they even violated the law. Under the guise of informing consumers about their food, lawyers wrote this initiative to create a new way to sue small businesses, small family farmers and small grocers. Plaintiffs’ attorneys will use this law to file lawsuits and force these small businesses into quick settlements.
We have seen this already with predatory lawsuits alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. We wanted more access and instead we have gotten more lawsuits. We saw this with Proposition 65. We wanted clean drinking water and instead we have gotten a bunch of trial lawyers shaking down small businesses for quick settlements.
The last thing California needs right now is more lawsuits. Our state is reeling from one of the worst economic periods in its history. Court funding has been slashed. This initiative means one thing: more lawsuits.
This is just another vehicle for greedy trial lawyers. You have a right to know…
The answer to your question about restaurants is simple…a citizen initiated proposition can only address one issue. Initiatives are must withstand the inevitable law suits that will be filed by the corporations who are opposed to it so anything that might bring up a challenge has to be left out. Since restaurants function totally differently than a grocery store…taking the products that a consumer would purchase from a store and creating new products with them, and because restaurants are regulated by a whole different set of laws than grocery stores, it could be challenged as a secondary issue. It was important to keep it simple…it can always be extended to cover other things later. It was important to get a nice solid start and to allow consumers to have all of the products where they shop labeled.
The small business owners and small farmers are some of the initiatives biggest supporters. This is NOT set up to go after them at all. They do not grow or produce GMO products. GMO foods are products primarily of the industrial agriculture/food producers of this country. They are the ones paying o fight this bill. Small farmers are among our supporters. Your claim is ridiculous. The law was set up like this to keep the cost to taxpayers at a minimum. It was designed so that no new regulatory agencies were set up to keep the government out of regulating it. It was left in the hands of the consumers and non-profit oversight organizations to monitor compliance. Big business must be regulated and the public must have a transparent market or there is no free market. An uninformed consumer cannot fairly use his money to speak in the marketplace. This type of oversight and regulation gives power to the people and keeps government small while providing a free and transparent marketplace.
It does not make sense that Prop. 37 purports to protect consumers yet excludes restaurants from it’s provisions.
The initiative can’t simply be “extended” later: as an initiative is an all or nothing vote, and modifying it in any way would take another vote of the people.
CALA has personally heard from several famers that they fear the lawsuits that this proposition will allow.
CALA agrees that consumers should know what is in the food they eat, but Prop. 37 is not a good way to achieve that.
[...] of you already know that CALA (Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse) opposes Prop 37 because it is a lawsuit magnet . There’s more reasons to dislike this proposition than just lawsuits, though. A new study shows [...]