IN CASE YOU MISSED IT U-T San Diego writes second No on 37 editorial, calls it a “scam” because of enforcement provisions allowing shakedown lawsuits.
Chico Enterprise Record and Investor’s Business Daily also go No on 37. In total, 40 newspapers from throughout the state — NO on 37.
with small commissionsSacramento— The U-T San Diego today editorialized a second time against Prop. 37, calling it a “scam” and saying it “keeps looking worse.” The editorial warned voters about the potential for shakedown lawsuits allowed by the measure.
Also in recent editorials, Investor’s Business Daily and the Chico Enterprise-Record urged their readers to vote NO on Proposition 37. That makes 40 daily newspapers urging NO.
Read all No on Prop. 37 editorials here.
Read the U-T San Diego, Chico Enterprise-Record and Investor’s Business Daily editorials.
U-T San Diego, Prop. 37 Keeps Looking Worse, 10/24/2012
- “Trial lawyers drafted it in a way that allows shakedown lawsuits targeting anyone in food sales without even having to establish that any damage occurred…”
- “What a scam.”
Chico Enterprise-Record, Editorial: Proposition 37 unneeded, unfair, 10/23/2012
- “California is the highest-producing agricultural state in the nation. We shouldn’t slap unnecessary regulations on a successful industry.”
- “If Proposition 37 and its confusing language are adopted…individuals can sue for violations, and you can bet that attorneys will turn these lawsuits into a profit center…”
- “…good for lawyers but bad for farmers.”
- “Farmers don’t need more regulations and unnecessary labels.”
- “…vote no on 37.”
Investor’s Business Daily, Prop 37 Will Cost Californians At The Grocery Store, 10/19/2012
- “Voters need to stop this foolishness.”
- “…backers… promise it “won’t cost you a dime,” but that’s simply not true.”
- “Prop. 37 supporters argue that the labeling is a health issue. It’s not.”
- “We’re not aware of a single credible study that says GMO foods are less safe than non-GMO foods.”
- “… very bad regulation.”
- “… very bad regulation.”
Newspapers Endorsing No on Prop. 37:
- Los Angeles Times
- La Opinión
- San Francisco Chronicle
- Sacramento Bee
- LA Daily News
- San Jose Mercury News
- U-T San Diego
- Oakland Tribune
- Contra Costa Times
- Orange County Register
- Santa Rosa Press Democrat
- Riverside Press Enterprise
- Long Beach Press Telegram
- Torrance Daily Breeze
- San Gabriel Valley Tribune
- Pasadena Star News
- Whittier Daily News
- San Bernardino Sun
- Inland Valley Daily Bulletin
- Fresno Bee
- Santa Cruz Sentinel
- Merced Sun-Star
- Modesto Bee
- Redding Record Searchlight
- Woodland Daily Democrat
- Bakersfield Californian
- Chico Enterprise-Record
- Investor’s Business Daily
- Ventura County Star
- Carmel Pine Cone
- East County Times
- West County Times
- San Ramon Valley Times
- Tri Valley Times
- Fremont Argus
- Hayward Daily Review
- Palm Springs Desert Sun
- Victorville Daily Press
About Prop. 37
Proposition 37 would ban the sale of tens of thousands of perfectly-safe, common grocery products only in California unless they are specially repackaged, relabeled or remade with higher cost ingredients. Prop. 37 is not a simple labeling measure. It will increase grocery bills for California families by up to $400 a year, add more government bureaucracy and taxpayer costs, will create a new way for trial lawyers to file shakedown lawsuits, and includes loopholes and exemptions which make no sense. All of this without providing any health or safety benefits. That’s why Prop. 37 is opposed by a broad coalition of family farmers, scientists, doctors, business, labor, taxpayers and consumers.