Friday Forbes.com published an article written by Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes and me. Here are a couple key paragraphs:
Lower income households across the United States spend a larger portion of their income on food than higher income households. Lower income households also spend most of these dollars for food at home. High income individuals spend more at restaurants and eateries. Similar trends exist for older relative to younger consumers.
And
Proposition 37 calls for mandatory GMO labeling of foods bought at the grocery store and consumed at home, but does not require the same for foods consumed in restaurants, cafeterias, catering, schools, and the like. It also excludes all organic foods from mandatory GMO labeling irrespective of where they are consumed and of their GMO content.
Given these rules and exclusions, younger and more affluent consumers who spend more on organics and on food away from home would be less affected by Proposition 37. Poorer and older consumers could instead be called to foot the bulk of the bill implied by the Proposition while spending a larger portion of their limited income in doing so.
David Zilberman at UC Berkeley put out a blog post the same day covering some of the same themes.