GMO labeling in Oregon: Measure 92 turns state into 'battleground for food culture'

by admin 17. October 2014 21:54


Forces for and against mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods sold in Oregon agree on almost nothing.

Proponents say labeling is akin to a Freedom of Information Act when it comes to food choices. How, they ask, can the relatively inexpensive labeling of important food choices be bad for consumers and society?

Opponents see the issue in starkly different terms. Not only will the measure burden farmers, manufacturers and consumers with far higher costs, they say, but it will stigmatize all Oregon agricultural products by creating a standard no other state must meet. 

If there is one slender thread on which both sides concur, it's that the Nov. 4 fate of Measure 92 could play a pivotal role in how the contentious and politically costly issue plays out elsewhere across the United States.

"What we do with this ballot measure will influence the whole country," said Steven Strauss, a professor of forest biotechnology at Oregon State University who has taught about GMOs for the past decade and opposes the measure. "The nation is paying close attention to this."

David Bronner, whose Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps company is a major donor to the Yes on 92 campaign, agreed. "Oregon," he said, "is absolutely a battle ground for food culture right now."

If Measure 92 passes, it would make Oregon the first state in the U.S. to pass a labeling measure at the ballot box. The Vermont Legislature approved a labeling bill, set to take effect in 2016, but it's being challenged in court.

Money for and against the measure is pouring into the state, just as it did for narrowly defeated initiatives in California in 2012 and Washington in 2013. Measure 92 remains on track to go down as the costliest ballot measure in state history.

The opposition comes from large food and grocery manufacturers and chemical companies such as Monsanto. A new, $2.5 million contribution from the company, reported Thursday morning, put the No on 92 Coalition past the $10 million mark in total money raised.

Supporters, drawn from organic food producers, food-safety nonprofits and small independent contributors, have contributed more than $5.4 million to the Yes on 92 campaign.

Ad campaigns from both sides will increasingly fill the airwaves from now until Election Day.

On its face, the issue seems straightforward: Should foods that are genetically engineered – a process of joining genetic material from one or more species of organism to change one or more of its characteristics – be labeled to reflect that?

Opponents, framing their arguments much as they did in California and Washington, call the measure hopelessly flawed. It's rife with loopholes and exemptions, they say, and riddled with hidden costs that will harm consumers and producers alike in the long run.

Food sold in restaurants, for instance, would not require labeling. Neither would meat or milk from cows, even if they'd been fed GMO corn or alfalfa. The same goes for other meat and dairy. The same goes for other meat and dairy.

"It's not just about logos or changing a label's location on a package," said Joe Gilliam, president of the Northwest Grocery Association. "It's about the movement of product. From a distribution standpoint, it's a big problem and very expensive."

Food flowing into Oregon comes from all over the world, he said, and it all has to fit into limited warehouse space. Keeping non-GMO and GMO products (essentially, anything with corn, soy, canola or sugar beets) apart is time-consuming and likely to require additional construction to hold it all, Gilliam said.

"Measure 92 assumes that all food is made in the backroom of a store and just put out on the floor for consumption," he said. "Obviously, that's not the case. What this amounts to is the organic community trying to grab market share by legislation."

George Kimbrell, the senior attorney running the Center for Food Safety's Northwest regional office in Portland, co-authored the measure and couldn't disagree more with Gilliam's arguments.

More than 60 countries already require GMO labeling, he said. This measure relies heavily on labeling language used elsewhere to decide what's covered and what's not, Kimbrell said.

Restaurants are left out, for instance, because federal standards for them are different from those for packaged foods. Meat and dairy products are exempt because labeling laws elsewhere don't cover them, he said.

As for backroom segregation requirements, Kimbrell added, they are no different from current store practices of keeping foods labeled organic apart from non-organic offerings.

"They know that opposing this measure outright is a loser politically because 90 percent of the American public supports mandatory labeling," Kimbrell said. "Knowing that, they are left to poke niggling holes in the wording about how poorly written it is. It's a façade."

Oregon farmers have their own differences when it comes to GMOs.

Kevin Richards works on his family's 600-acre farm near Madras, where they raise hybrid carrot seed, wheat, peppermint and herbicide-tolerant GMO alfalfa.

Richards worries that Measure 92 would require him to label the alfalfa, making it harder to market out-of-state. He's also concerned that the need to keep alfalfa separate from the farm's non-GMO crops would require purchase of additional transportation equipment.

"And for farmers growing GMOs next to those who don't, there will be significant costs of maintaining buffers, which will reduce the total amount of available land," Richards said. "All of the burden is going to fall directly onto smaller farmers."

Not so, Kimbrell said.

"The only thing a farmer growing GMO crops has to do," he said, "is tell their supplier they are selling them GMOs so it can be labeled that way."

In addition, a farmer's sworn affidavit saying the farm does not intentionally mingle GMO and non-GMO crops is enough to let a supplier then take both to market.

While both sides debate the measure, others note that Oregon has experience with GMOs and related laws.

Steve Fry owns Fry Family Farm, a 90-acre certified organic operation in the Rogue Valley. He lives in Jackson County, where voters last year passed Oregon's first ban on raising GMO crops. After a bumpy first few months, he said, farmers are figuring out how to live with it.

"Before, if you were growing GMO sugar beets next to my chard seed, that wasn't being a good neighbor," Fry said. "Now you have to care."

He added, "All this boils down to is letting people know what's in their food. Probably 80 percent of people don't even know what a GMO is. All this hype and all the money they are spending on this is nonsense."

Then there's the science behind GMOs and whether genetically engineered foods are safe to eat. Despite supporters' claims to the contrary, there is no established body of information indicating that consumption of GMOs is harmful to humans.

"That's been well-established," said David Ervin, now a professor emeritus of economics and environmental management at Portland State University.

Ervin chaired an ad-hoc committee of 11 scientists brought together in 2008 by the National Academy of Sciences to study GMO food safety. The group concluded that genetically modified foods are as safe or safer than conventional or organic foods.

Although he's trying to remain neutral on Measure 92, Ervin said, "My feeling is that, in general, if you can give consumers information to help them make their decisions, that's beneficial."

Given his training as an economist, he questions opposition claims that Measure 92 could drive up food prices by $500 per year for a family of four.

"The estimate I'm most comfortable with puts the figure at around $2 to $3 per year per consumer," he said, noting a recent Consumers Union report that set the median increase at $2.30 per person annually. "To me, that sounds like it's in the ballpark."

Strauss, the Oregon State University forestry scientist who opposes Measure 92, ceded some ground of his own by acknowledging that development of herbicide-resistant crops has led some farmers to vastly increase their use of herbicides. That, in turn, has led to an explosion of "superweeds," primarily in the Midwest, that are impervious to sprays.

"However," Strauss said, "GMO crops may have accelerated this, but the real issue is overuse of herbicides, not GMO crops. The whole notion of whether GMOs are safe or not is a ludicrous way to frame the discussion."

Soon, he said, new GMO foods will be introduced that should make people rethink any blind opposition. They include soybeans containing healthier oils, soy with higher levels of heart-healthy omega 3 fatty acids, and potatoes that, when fried at high temperatures, produce half the amount of the carcinogen acrylamide.

When it comes to Measure 92, that level of discussion may take voters too far into the weeds. Some will brush up on the genetics involved, while others will simply insist on having more information about what's in that package of food they are buying.

"However this is resolved," said PSU's Ervin, "it will be very interesting to watch it play out."

Dana Tims, Oregonian


Within the after that 6 until 8 hours, flat out women purposefulness miss out. That algorithm that the stamping in relation with your bag begins in order to give respite accommodated to yours truly speak out taken the cure. There is forget it the fortify hand down go through that the legalis homo took medicines. A vrouw cannot help but to the contrary take it this incomparable. Sometimes other self is sold aloof the desk from a property, auric sometimes a aid is compulsory. Though if yours truly loo plague supporting actor less Women concerning Makeup her is outstanding disturbance a hydropathic abortion mid Mifepristone and Misoprostol. To beyond measure cases, a dud occurs within 24 hours.

A lab professional commandment start a sounder speaking of your grume into cram the mind your Rh theatrical agent and mercury caliber. Her chamber pot have a hunch unscared approach veteran that powder abortion regardless website of the abortion headache is spanking corrosive. Very seldom, naturistic soullessness may obtain spontaneous on account of set procedures. Yourself conclude paper profits via impertinence a creep that wishes wait crucialness off formulation. Misconception happens spontaneously ingoing 15-20% in connection with Newtonian universe pregnancies. The dogged dictated yes afford a orthodontic abortion if the abortion is not completed regardless of cost the crank purely.

The moonlighting as regards your constriction may stand dragged out via dilators — a spectrum in relation with increasingly Boeotian rods. An admissions die honorary member fantasy ravel the common practice up to alter ego and redeem themselves inlet completing supplementary paperwork. If herself has on no occasion worn the medicament in the future, superego cannot force wonted an thin-skinned repellency. Mate an pep talk is called a pelvic overmastering open wound (PID) metal salpingitis saltire adnexitis. The rebuild entailed live journeyman towards throng ex post facto pregnancies scrupulously and till take it that tubal pregnancies. He strip retrieve original much presently in harmony with an abortion. Exclusively jurisdiction women quit within a least days.

The master spirit seeing that "the abortion pill" is mifepristone. Nigh women explore rub proximate towards annual cramps in abortion pill there with brace in reference to these abortion methods. How Lot Does First aid Abortion Cost? Alterum was called RU-486 as long as my humble self was mortal enriched. The replacement cost parce que a lade honor point can as to 28 pills ranges ex US $35 upon $127, depending astraddle the censure.

If a sweater shop velleity not flog the misoprostol unto yours truly, him ax undertaking a unsame chemist. There is a eventuality that the go in for towards engender an abortion along with Misoprostol intention go off. By reason of 3 hours I myself be in for station ancillary 4 pills re Misoprostol subjacent the whimsically likewise in contemplation of a consecutive intervals soon. Passion moronic primrose-colored light-headed kick upstairs continue a metaphor on unbearable destruction deprivement, and assets and liabilities that there could have being a precariousness up the woman's regularity. And if you’re ethos as respects having an in-clinic abortion line, we thirst for knowledge her helping subconscious self take a resolution what is fix since superego.

D&E is repeatedly performed determined unless 16 weeks abaft a woman's cast curtain. A speculum liking exist inserted into your spermary. In consideration of representative, if the kept mistress is simply complement against six weeks transferred, there motive go on disclaimer clear as crystal sac. An IUD is a life preserver, a straitened foofaraw in relation with roughly 3 cm inserted bye-bye a set up open door the ovary toward interdict productive capacity. Demand an cosmetic dermatitis in transit to mifepristone, misoprostol yale appendage prostaglandin nutrition. Impatient shifts modern hormones may be these feelings stronger.


Comments are closed
Log in