California's Prop. 37 Brings GMOs To Forefront For Restaurant Operators

A growing number of restaurant operators are taking interest in a proposition to be decided by California voters on Tuesday that would require the labeling of some genetically modified foods.

Proposition 37, the Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Modified Food Act, is designed to give consumers more information about foods and products that contain genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. A high percentage of corn, soybeans and sugar beets used in processed foods in the U.S. are genetically modified.

The measure would apply to labels on supermarket foods, primarily, and restaurants would not be required to disclose the presence of GMO ingredients on menus. However, restaurant operators say the proposal has raised awareness of GMOs among consumers, and now it's an issue they must also address.

Some operators say labeling would help them know what ingredients are genetically engineered — though they're not necessarily going to avoid them when purchasing products for their restaurants.

"The jury's still out on GMOs," said Mary Sue Milliken, co-owner of the multi-unit Border Grill based in Los Angeles. "They may be the next best thing that will save the world and feed the hungry. I don't think we know one way or the other. But it's important to know what you're buying."

Prop. 37 is officially opposed by the California Restaurant Association, based on a vote by the group's political action committee board. "We think it's poor policy, not based on sound science," said Matt Sutton, CRA's vice president of government affairs.

Opponents of Prop. 37 — which include large food companies producing consumer and foodservice goods — argue that the labeling requirement is deceptive and would mislead consumers about the safety of biotechnology, which has been in use for two decades. In addition, opponents say that approval of the measure would result in higher grocery bills, as well as open up farmers and other businesses to lawsuits, and increase the state's bureaucracy and red tape.

Supporters of Prop. 37, on the other hand, disagree on all counts. The long-term safety of GMO use has not been adequately studied, they contend, and labeling will allow consumers to decide for themselves whether to buy, or avoid, such foods.

A growing foodservice issue

Prop. 37 has already had an impact on the foodservice industry nationwide — even before the vote. Denver-based Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc., with 1,300 units, for example, is moving away from genetically modified ingredients. In reporting third-quarter results last month, Chipotle officials said the company is expanding the use of GMO-free sunflower oil and testing a GMO-free rice bran oil to eventually replace the conventionally produced soybean oil used currently.

Steve Ells, the company's co-chief executive, said, "With California's Prop. 37 on the ballot, the subject of GMOs is becoming a bigger part of the conversation about food-related issues. And we're pleased to be ahead of the curve looking for non-GMO options to replace the ingredients we use that are genetically modified."

Next page

Continued from page 1

Other operators say they would like to move away from GMO products but question how they can do that without more disclosure. Erik Oberholtzer, for example, co-founder of the eight-unit chain Tender Greens in Los Angeles, said his customers are increasingly asking about the presence of GMOs on his restaurant menus. After doing some research, however, Oberholtzer said he realized that wasn't an easy question to answer.

"No one can say conclusively that corn or soy isn't genetically modified," he said. "But with Prop. 37, all that's being asked for is transparency."

Though he supports Prop. 37, Oberholtzer said he understands the arguments in favor of GMO use. In a world with population explosion, massive drought and the loss of farmland to suburban sprawl, generating higher crop yield could be a solution. And GMO use might also prevent the overuse of pesticides and herbicides that could end up in waterways, further harming the environment.

"There is a place for GMOs," he said. "Just probably not on the menu at Tender Greens."

Recently, Prop. 37 won the support of more than 300 chefs and restaurateurs, who signed a petition endorsed by Alice Waters of Chez Panisse. Among them: Mario Batali, Jacques Pepin, Charles Phan, Dan Barber and Floyd Cardoz.

"As chefs," the petition read, "we are on the frontlines of feeding America, and we have an enormous stake in ensuring transparency in our food system. It is our duty to nourish our guests, both in body and soul. However, we can't prepare the best food we know how when information about the ingredients we purchase is hidden from us with labels that are missing basic facts."

The petition notes that 50 countries already require GMO labeling, including all of Europe, Japan, India and China.

If Prop. 37 is approved, California would become the first state to require labels on products using GMO ingredients. At least 18 states, including California, reportedly have attempted similar legislation in the past, but have failed.

Milliken said she isn't certain whether Border Grill will move away from GMO ingredients if Prop. 37 is passed. "I treat my restaurants like I do my family. What do I want my kids eating? If there is a choice, I'd probably go for the more natural option," she said. "But I still think it's important to look at more of the science."

Others said they look forward to a day when they could get more information on the subject without "spin."

"We just want the information to be transparent and uncluttered," Oberholtzer said. "Then we can make a decision about what we want to do for our business."

Contact Lisa Jennings at lisa.jennings@penton.com.
Follow her on Twitter: @livetodineout