narrow defeat for Measure to label genetically engineered foods
Measure 92, requiring the labeling of genetically modified foods, went down to narrow defeat after setting a state record for spending in a ballot measure. The defeat, while whisker-thin, makes three straight West Coast losses in as many years for initiatives that would have required special labels for foods containing genetically modified ingredients.
The Oregonian reported that with the federal government showing no signs of stepping in to establish national GMO labeling standards, supporters say they are prepared to continue their state-by-state slug fest, with Oregon a likely venue.
The Oregonian reported that with the federal government showing no signs of stepping in to establish national GMO labeling standards, supporters say they are prepared to continue their state-by-state slug fest, with Oregon a likely venue.
The Right to Know
The requirement to label foods containing Genetically Modified Organisms in Measure 92, the Oregon Right to Know initiative, was designed to promote and protect economic development while enabling shoppers to make informed purchasing decisions, proponents say. Click for more arguments in favor of Measure 92.
They challenged the argument that the measure would have raised costs for consumers and hurt farmers. Most major food producers already label their products with Genetically Modified ingredients if they sell outside the United States. Now, 64 countries require the labeling of genetically modified foods, including all of the nations in the European Union, Japan, Australia, Brazil, Russia, and China.
Opponents cite increased costs
Those opposing Measure 92 argue that it would have created "create a complex and misleading Oregon-only food labeling system that no other state requires." They said the proposal was poorly written and contained labeling requirements and exemptions that "would hurt thousands of family farmers and small businesses, provide inaccurate and unreliable information for Oregon consumers about the foods we buy, and increase food prices for Oregon families, especially hurting those who can least afford it." Read more from opponents of Measure 92.
outside money floods measure 92 campaign
Money, mostly from outside Oregon, made the Right to Know campaign the No. 5 in ballot measure spending nationally this year and No. 1 in state history. Opponents raised
$20.5 million to defeat the measure, The Oregonian reported.
Opponents included Monsanto Co., which gave more than $4 million, and PepsiCo Inc., at $1.4 million. Supporters included Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps, which donated more than $1.2 million, and the Center for Food Safety Action Fund with $1.2 million.
$20.5 million to defeat the measure, The Oregonian reported.
Opponents included Monsanto Co., which gave more than $4 million, and PepsiCo Inc., at $1.4 million. Supporters included Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps, which donated more than $1.2 million, and the Center for Food Safety Action Fund with $1.2 million.
why chemical companies oppose gmo labeling
The use of pesticides to treat GMO crops is growing, despite claims that genetic engineering helps reduce poisons in farming, writes Ramon J. Seidler, former senior scientist at the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. "Chemical companies ... have inserted themselves squarely into the seed crop production component of the world’s food supplies," he argued in the article, co-authored with David Bronner, CEO of Dr. Bronner's soaps. Bronner is a major backer of Measure 92. "These corporations have a clear conflict of interest when it comes to reducing the numbers and concentrations of chemicals on crops, because any such reduction has an immediate impact on their financial bottom line." Read the full article online.
GMOs in context of world hunger
Some proponents say that genetically engineered foods are needed to feed the hungry of the world. Michael Specter, writing recently in The New Yorker, tries to untangle the arguments on all sides. "Genetically modified crops will not solve the problem of the hundreds of millions of people who go to bed hungry every night," he wrote. Feeding the hungry would be easier "if the world’s foods contained an adequate supply of vitamins" if governments were less corrupt, if transportation and water distribution were improved. He does not reject GMOs as part of the solution. "No single crop or approach to farming can possibly feed the world," he concluded. "To prevent billions of people from living in hunger, we will need to use every one of them."
GMOs, the environment and Global Warming
Genetically modified agriculture can be harmful to the environment and accelerate climate change, Portland-based Portfolio 21 of Portland found in a recent report. Highlights are below:
Environmental Risk: Genetically modified agriculture reinforces many of the most damaging aspects of monoculture and mechanization, including biodiversity loss, agro-chemical use, and accelerated soil exhaustion. On top of that, the foreign genetic material can spread beyond its intended area through cross-pollination and interbreeding, as well potentially migrate across species.
Social Risk: The population changes accompanying the marketing and adoption of GMOs show disturbing patterns, especially in developing countries. Small farmers often become trapped by seed licensing fees and other rising input costs. Furthermore, the switch to crops that then get exported for processing can exacerbate local food supply and quality issues.
Governance/Regulatory Risk: The intellectual property system allowing for corporate patents on organisms opens the door for a range of ethically problematic business practices. Also, agricultural biotech companies have repeatedly used their undue influence on regulators to gain product approval, circumvent regulations, and suppress dissenting independent studies.
Environmental Risk: Genetically modified agriculture reinforces many of the most damaging aspects of monoculture and mechanization, including biodiversity loss, agro-chemical use, and accelerated soil exhaustion. On top of that, the foreign genetic material can spread beyond its intended area through cross-pollination and interbreeding, as well potentially migrate across species.
Social Risk: The population changes accompanying the marketing and adoption of GMOs show disturbing patterns, especially in developing countries. Small farmers often become trapped by seed licensing fees and other rising input costs. Furthermore, the switch to crops that then get exported for processing can exacerbate local food supply and quality issues.
Governance/Regulatory Risk: The intellectual property system allowing for corporate patents on organisms opens the door for a range of ethically problematic business practices. Also, agricultural biotech companies have repeatedly used their undue influence on regulators to gain product approval, circumvent regulations, and suppress dissenting independent studies.