The campaign over Oregon’s Measure 92, which would require the labeling of raw and packaged goods produced by “genetic engineering,” has lived up to its early billing as potentially one of the costliest ballot measures in state history. …
This big-bucks marketing blitz comes as no surprise: The Oregon campaign comes on the heels of a similar battle in Washington state, a campaign that also attracted millions of dollars. Voters in Washington rejected the measure by a narrow margin. Our recommendation is that Oregon voters follow that example.
The measure would require that genetically engineered raw or packaged food include labels to that effect. It defines “genetically engineered” food as food produced from organisms with genetic material changed through in vitro nucleic acid techniques and certain cell-fusing techniques. It exempts traditional plant-breeding techniques such as hybridization.
If voters approve the measure, it would take effect in January 2016. At that time, supporters of the measure have said, as consumers stroll through their favorite grocery store, most of the items on the shelves will bear a GMO label. …
Here’s why it’s unnecessary: Manufacturers of GMO-free products increasingly are taking advantage of the growing market for those foods by making sure their labels say so, in much the same way that products that have been gluten-free since the beginning of time now brag about that on their labels. In other words, the market is making it easier for consumers who want to avoid GMOs to do so – and that trend likely will only gather speed, along with the whole local-food movement.
There is something unfair about Measure 92 as well, and U.S. Rep. Kurt Schrader of Oregon has put his finger on the reason why: These types of mandatory labels always carry the implication that there’s something wrong with the product. Look no further than the labels that have been slapped on cigarettes for a vivid example. …
But the scientific consensus about GMO foods is that they do not pose a health risk. A committee of faculty members at Oregon State University’s College of Agricultural Sciences reinforced that consensus in a white paper issued this spring. While emphasizing that the committee was taking no position on Measure 92, it reached this conclusion: “The available scientific evidence suggests that the biotechnology currently used in genetically engineered organisms does not present food safety issues that differ from traditional agricultural or breeding practices. Furthermore, there is no verifiable scientific evidence that consumption of a GE organism has resulted in adverse health effects.”
Oregon voters should reject this unnecessary and unfair ballot measure.
