Proposition 37 trailing in early returns - San Jose Mercury News

According to the San Jose Mercury, a high-profile measure to require new labels on food was trailing in early returns Tuesday.
It says Proposition 37 would require labeling of genetically modified foods. If it passes, California would become the first state to require a "genetically modified" label on a host of food products, from breakfast cereals to tofu. Dairy, meat, alcohol and restaurant meals would be exempt....
@ Proposition 37 trailing in early returns - San Jose Mercury News:
In other news Barack, Obama returned to the White House, numbers guru Nate Silver is a household name, and statistics courses at colleges have been inundated by a rush of new students.

Best Tweet of the night (2 hours before the mainstream networks decision)
Sean J Taylor ‏@seanjtaylor, Retweeted by gmopundit:

Link to official count

Final: No 53.1%

Wait, there's more:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Wednesday, Nov. 7, 2012

Corporate Millions, Deceptive Ads Only Narrowly Shut Down Prop 37; Movement for GE Food Labeling Stronger Than Ever
Statement from Food & Water Watch Pacific Region Director Kristin Lynch

SAN FRANCISCO—"In the face of unrelenting deceptive advertising funded by giant chemical and processed food corporations to the tune of nearly $50 million, California's Proposition 37 calling for a simple label on genetically engineered food narrowly lost with 47 percent of the vote. While support for GE food labels has never been stronger, the incessant drumbeat of misleading and outright false industry advertising was barely able to defeat this popular measure. While disappointed in the result, we believe that this movement to label GE foods is stronger than ever and we will continue to build a robust national grassroots campaign to push for mandatory labeling across the country.

"Pesticide companies led by Monsanto and DuPont, and processed food corporations led by Pepsi and Kraft spent an unprecedented amount of money to confuse and deceive Californians into voting against their right to know what's in their food. But we should not be surprised – honesty and transparency are clearly not the priority of corporations that spend millions keeping consumers in the dark about whether or not their food has been genetically altered in a laboratory. However, one bought election does not change the fact that more than 90 percent of Americans want to join the more than 60 other countries around the world in knowing whether or not their food has been genetically engineered with a simple label. As we've done with other initiatives like nutrition and country-of-origin labels, we will continue to stand up to these corporate forces until consumers have the basic right to choose from themselves whether or not to buy and eat GE foods."

"Prop 37 may not have passed, but it brought together and galvanized people from across California, the country and the world who believe deeply that people have the right to know whether their food has been genetically engineered, and this momentum will only grow. We are already organizing in over a dozen states and in the coming year will be ramping up our campaign across the country to let consumers decide and make GE labeling the law."

Food & Water Watch works to ensure the food, water and fish we consume is safe, accessible and sustainable. So we can all enjoy and trust in what we eat and drink, we help people take charge of where their food comes from, keep clean, affordable, public tap water flowing freely to our homes, protect the environmental quality of oceans, force government to do its job protecting citizens, and educate about the importance of keeping shared resources under public control.

Contact: Anna Ghosh,  415-293-9905, aghosh@fwwatch.org
ENDS
Comment from a NO advocate on the ground in rural California:

"The ironic fact is that if the supporters of 37 had not overreached and included the lawsuit method of enforcement, had not included lots of exemptions for foods that would have caused them pushback, and had not made drafting errors with respect to their restrictions on the use of “natural”, it would have been a very tough job to counter the simple “right to know” claim. Nearly all of the 40+ newspaper editorials that came out No did so because of those features in the proposition, not because they fundamentally opposed labeling, which many of them would otherwise have supported. "