For related articles and more information, please visit OCA’s Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page and our Oregon News page.

PORTLAND, Ore. – In a TV ad paid for by advocates of labeling genetically modified foods in Oregon, voters are told 64 countries have such requirements and labels didn’t lead to an increase in their food costs.

Opponents of GMO labeling have released an ad that says the opposite: Labels would be costly for food producers and consumers and would not show which ingredients in a product are modified.

With a decision on the Nov. 4 ballot measure just five weeks away, the two opposing camps combined have reported contributions of nearly $3 million and expenditures of more than $2 million, including advertising. It’s a sign of what’s still to come.

This is round three in the GMO labeling match in recent years. Similar measures in California and in Washington state failed narrowly after millions of dollars were spent, mostly by labeling opponents.

If adopted, the initiative by Oregon GMO Right to Know would require manufacturers, retailers and suppliers to label raw and packaged foods produced entirely or partially by genetic engineering. The measure would not apply to animal feed or food served in restaurants. It would be effective January 2016.

The Unites States does not require labeling of genetically engineered foods. Three states – Vermont, Maine and Connecticut – have passed labeling laws, although they don’t take effect immediately. A similar measure also recently qualified for the ballot in Colorado.

Labeling supporters say there aren’t enough studies on the impacts of GMOs, so consumers have a right to know if they are eating them. Gov. John Kitzhaber, who is running for re-election, recently came out in support of the measure, as did Consumers Union, the advocacy arm of Consumer Reports.

Critics say mandatory labels would mislead consumers into thinking that engineered ingredients are unsafe, which scientists have not proven. As in previous cases, the anti-labeling campaign is chiefly financed by out-of-state food corporations and biotech companies that grow engineered crops; endorsers include large state farming groups.

Though it’s not reflected in the early filings, opponents are expected to raise a lot more money than proponents.

The anti-labeling campaign in Oregon has thus far reported just over $1 million in cash and in-kind contributions and has reported spending about half a million, according to filings with the Oregon Secretary of State’s office.

The pro-labeling campaign shows $1.9 million in contributions and expenditures of $1.6 million.

These donations and expenditures are from a month ago because the campaigns have 30 days to make reports.