Approve Mandatory Labeling: The Register-Guard, Eugene, Oregon

Next time you wheel a cart through your local supermarket, try figuring out which foods contain genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. You'll have to guess

October 5, 2014 | Source: The Registar-Guard | by Damian Dovarganes

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

Next time you wheel a cart through your local supermarket, try figuring out which foods contain genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. You’ll have to guess, because no federal or state laws or regulations require food manufacturers to label products that contain engineered ingredients.

Election 2014

It’s an information void that supporters of Measure 92 hope to fill in the Nov. 4 election. 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, and it would go into effect in 2016.

In coming weeks, Oregonians will be blitzed by ads and mailings from opponents of Measure 92. Much of the funding for these ads is coming from out-of-state food and bio-tech industries – the same interests whose massive spending in 2012 helped defeat labeling initiatives in California and Washington.

If Measure 92 seems familiar to Oregonians, it’s for good reason. In 2002, Measure 27, a GMO labeling measure, was overwhelmingly defeated, losing in every county across the state in part because of a lavishly funded campaign sponsored by Monsanto, DuPont and other producers of genetically engineered products. An editorial in The Register-Guard reluctantly opposed the 2002 measure, which it said was well-intentioned but would put Oregon out of synch with the national market for food products. “A similar national standard would be the most efficient and inexpensive way to respond to the concerns that gave rise to Measure 27,” the editorial observed.

There is still no national standard, due in large part to intensive industry lobbying. But now Oregon would hardly be alone in requiring GMO labeling if Measure 92 passes.

Three states – Vermont, Connecticut and Maine – have enacted labeling laws; Vermont’s will be the first to go into effect in 2016 if it survives court challenges. Voters in Colorado will also decide in November whether their state will require GMO labeling. At least 64 countries, including every country in the European Union and India, Japan, China, Brazil and Russia, have adopted GMO labeling laws.

Since 2002, concern about GMO products has gained traction across Oregon. Earlier this year, voters in two rural, conservative counties in Southern Oregon – Josephine and Jackson – approved bans on GMO crops. The votes followed the discovery of a patch of GMO wheat in Eastern Oregon, a development that prompted Japan and South Korea to suspend imports of the crop over GMO concerns, temporarily closing a $700-million market and prompting an understandable backlash among farmers.

Labeling proponents cite environmental concerns stemming from the increased use of herbicides as a result of crops genetically engineered to withstand their application. The increased usage of herbicides such as Roundup has contributed to the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds, and proponents say consumers should be able to choose food products that do not contribute to that growing problem.