�ٺ���Ƶ

The following �ٺ���Ƶ experts can talk about propositions 37 and 34 and 35 on the Nov. 6 California ballot, as well as about the initiative process in general.

The initiative process

Law professor Floyd Feeney can talk about issues related to election law and initiatives currently pending on the ballot. He is co-author of two books on initiatives, “Lawmaking by Initiative: Issues, Options and Comparisons” (1998) and “Improving the California Initiative Process: Options for Change” (1992). In 2000-01, he served as legal adviser to the Speaker’s Commission on the California Initiative Process. He also teaches election law. Contact: Floyd Feeney, School of Law, (530) 752-2893, fffeeney@ucdavis.edu.

Proposition 37: Economic and industry impacts

Colin Carter, a professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics who specializes in commodity markets and international trade, suggests that Proposition 37, if approved by California voters, will result in the virtual disappearance of voluntarily certified nongenetically modified processed food products, a gain in market share for organic foods, higher food prices and the appearance of food labels that do not accurately reflect the relative GM content of foods. “Retailers like Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s, both of which sell foods that are nonorganic but voluntarily labeled as GM-free, will likely eliminate those products,” Carter said. “Food processors and retailers will not risk marketing foods as GM-free when they probably carry very small trace amounts of GM crops.” He predicts that only certified organic farms could risk not labeling their products as possibly containing GM crops. He also predicts that food processors may revert to using less healthful oils like palm oil to replace soybean or canola oil, much of which is produced from GM crops. Contact: Colin Carter, Agricultural and Resource Economics, (530) 752-6054, colin@primal.ucdavis.edu.

Proposition 37: Science of plant modification

Martina Newell-McGloughlin, executive director of Strategic Initiatives at �ٺ���Ƶ, says that Proposition 37 is capricious in that it singles out just one of many techniques used by researchers and plant breeders to modify food crops. She notes that the proposed legislation does not address the use of other plant-modification techniques such as irradiation, which is used to create crops such as durum wheat and Asian pears. Newell-McGloughlin, an internationally recognized authority on biotechnology and its societal implications, has testified against Proposition 37 before the American Medical Association. She is co-director of a National Institutes of Health Training Grant in Biomolecular Technology and has served on panels for the United Nations, World Bank and World Trade Organization. She is the co-author with Edward Re of the 2007 book “The Evolution of Biotechnology: From Natufians to Nanotechnology.” Contact: Martina Newell-McGloughlin, Office of Research, (530) 754-7679, mmmcgloughlin@ucdavis.edu.

Proposition 37: Opens new doors to innovation in the food industry

Andrew Hargadon, the Charles J. Soderquist chair in entrepreneurship and faculty director of the Child Family Institute for Innovation and Entrepreneurship at �ٺ���Ƶ, says that initiatives like Proposition 37 are essential to reducing information asymmetries in food markets. Hargadon, an author and internationally recognized authority on innovation and entrepreneurship, argues that such asymmetries can discourage innovation. He recently addressed Proposition 37 in his blog on Sacramento’s Capital Public Radio (KXJZ) in a post titled “” Hargadon is the author of the 2003 book "How Breakthroughs Happen: The Surprising Truth about How Companies Innovate" (Harvard Business School Press). Contact: Andrew Hargadon, Child Family Institute for Innovation and Entrepreneurship, (530) 231-0724, ahargadon@gmail.com.

Proposition 37: Likely litigation challenges

Richard Frank, professor of environmental practice and director of the California Environmental Law and Policy Center at the �ٺ���Ƶ School of Law, says California’s ballot initiative that proposes to require labeling of genetically engineered foods raises important legal and policy issues that could take years to resolve through the courts and other means. The center has written, “,” examining provisions in the initiative. While not taking a position on the initiative, the report noted that the initiative’s language will likely face litigation challenges over such issues as whether Proposition 37’s labeling requirements and advertising restrictions constitute a violation of the First Amendment. Contact Richard Frank, School of Law, (530) 752-7422,  (916) 217-1292. rmfrank@ucdavis.edu.

Proposition 34: Repeal of the death penalty

John W. Poulos, law professor emeritus, has taught and written about the death penalty for many years. While a professor, he also represented indigent defendants on California's death row. As an attorney, he represented clients in death penalty cases. Contact: John W. Poulos, School of Law, (530) 752-2881, .

Law professor Floyd Feeney (whose biography and contact information can be found in this list under “initiative process”) can also speak about the death penalty.

Proposition 35: Raising the punishment for sex trafficking

David Kyle, associate professor of sociology and faculty director of the UC Global Health Institute, can address human smuggling in relation to Proposition 35. If passed, this initiative would further expand the definition of "human trafficking" to cover the creation and sale of child pornography. If Prop 35 passes, the state will raise the punishment for sex trafficking of a minor with force or fraud to as high as a life sentence.  Kyle is co-editor of , 2nd Ed. (2011, Johns Hopkins University Press). Contact: David Kyle, Sociology, (530) 220-3576, djkyle@ucdavis.edu