Prop 37 rally at L.A. City Hall (Flickr / cheeseslave)

The proposition would require foods made with genetically modified plant or animal materials to be clearly labeled by the summer of 2014 and would no longer allow them to be marketed as “organic.”

To proponents, Prop 37 is a simple measure about consumers’ “Right to Know” what goes into the food they choose to eat. 

Genetically modified foods entered the market only 20 years ago and no long-term studies on their effects have been conducted. This concerns many individuals who feel like they themselves are becoming experiments by consuming untested “Frankenfoods.”

Supporters are desperately trying to battle against big food companies like Monsanto, DuPont, Bayer, Pepsi, Coca-Cola and Nestlé who have been spending an estimated $1 million per day to kill the measure. Many feel that these corporations hold an unfair amount of control on the foods we eat and are silencing the voice of the consumers and limiting their options.

On the other hand, opponents claim that the proposition is deceptive, sloppily written and fundamentally flawed. 

There are a number of exemptions written into the proposition that opponents feel create an unfair advantage for special interest groups. For example, soymilk and dog food meat would need to be labeled but meat for human consumption and milk from cows would not. 

They also argue that it is not fiscally sound and could raise the average family’s grocery bill by $400 per year. They say most of the responsibility for managing labels would fall on retailers, not manufacturers, and that the paperwork necessary to confirm the GMO status of products could harm small mom-and-pop shops. 

The American Medical Association has said, “There is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods,” and many other health organizations have asserted the safety of GMOs. 

Almost every major Californian newspaper opposes the poorly written proposition and worries it will cause false alarm by creating a negative stigma on the technology. 

Big food organizations fear that the more knowledge people have about their food, the more wary they will be about what they choose to buy. The revelation that hamburger patties were made of "pink slime" fueled an intense public outcry that harmed the meat industry and forced manufacturers to go to great lengths to defend their product. The fear is that a similar public reaction could happen as a result of Prop 37. 

Over 40 countries around the world, including those in the European Union, Japan, Russia and China, already require labeling for genetically engineered materials. Some have even placed complete bans on them, but so far GMOs have not made it into Americans' political dialogue.

California would be the first American state to enact a policy like Proposition 37. Its failure or success could ultimately affect the future of the nation’s food industry by inspiring a similar requirement on a federal level. 

The proposition’s success could be seen as proof of the existence of a true national food movement. Michael Pollan wrote that it would demonstrate the movement’s ability of changing the existing industry instead of just creating an alternative one. 

Regardless of whether the proposition is passed, the amount of national attention Prop. 37 has received and the debates it has sparked indicate a changing relationship between consumers and their food. People are closely paying attention to what they are eating and a large amount of people no longer blindly trust what big companies manufacture.

Reach Elysia Rodriguez here.