I can't say it any better than this commenter on the NYT website:
I am in favor of GMO labeling (strongly). But I'm also a lawyer, and I actually read the bill, and it was deeply flawed.
It contained what I considered to be a poison pill: a provision allowing any person to sue for claimed violations of the law without having to prove any damages, or even that they had ever used the product. That provision was an invitation for trial lawyers to file frivolous lawsuits against food companies for claimed violations of the (vague) labeling provisions, possibly driving many small manufacturers out of business.
Also, because the definitions of what had to be labeled were poorly defined, the law would have led to years of expensive court battles over what should have been labeled, and how.
In short: good idea, but the bill was poorly written. And I know from experience that poorly written legislation leads to bad policy and years of expensive legislation trying to sort out what the legislation means (especially in this lawyer-happy state). Write a better bill, and I'd vote for it. But I'm glad this one didn't pass.
Mark Gabel
San Francisco