As a nutritionist and dietitian for 30 years, I understand how important it is for food labels to be accurate and reliable so that consumers can make informed decisions about the foods they buy. That’s why I strongly oppose Ballot Measure 92.
This measure is a deeply flawed food labeling proposal that would require many food products sold in Oregon to carry misleading labels that would provide inaccurate and unreliable information to consumers.
Under Measure 92, many common food products would have to be specially labeled as “genetically engineered” even if they are not and even if they do not contain any GMO (genetically modified organism) content. Yet thousands of other products would be exempt from these labels even though they are produced with GMOs.
In fact, under Measure 92’s arbitrary system of labeling requirements and exemptions, approximately two-thirds of foods that Oregonians purchase on a daily basis would be exempt from labeling — even when they contain or are made with GMO ingredients.
For example, under Measure 92, meat, eggs and dairy products from animals fed genetically engineered grain and injected with genetically engineered medications would be exempt from labeling. This conflicts with the existing national label standards for “non-GMO” labels, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture-approved “non-GMO” label for meat.
And, this measure would not provide consumers with information about which ingredients in a product may be “genetically engineered” or how much of the product contains GMO ingredients, if any.
The bottom line is that Measure 92 would not give consumers a reliable way to know which foods contain GMOs and which do not. Further, this measure conflicts with existing nationwide labeling standards that already do provide consumers with this information. Our current national labeling standards for “organic” and certified “non-GMO” foods provide consistent and reliable information for consumers who wish to choose foods made without GMOs. There are tens of thousands of such products available, and both of these labels are based on consistent, national standards that do not offer the exemptions and loopholes that are found in Measure 92.
In August, the state-sanctioned independent Citizens Initiative Review panel studied Measure 92 and recommended a “no” vote, concluding: “Existing food labels already give consumers a more reliable way to choose foods without GE (genetically engineered) ingredients if that is what they prefer, including ‘organic’ and ‘non-GMO’ labels. Measure 92 conflicts with these national labeling standards.”
Finally, this measure’s inaccurate and unreliable Oregon-only labeling system would be costly, because it would mandate a whole separate food labeling system in Oregon that would conflict with existing nationwide labeling regulations and would only exist in our state.
Food producers and farmers both within Oregon and throughout the country would have to segregate, specially handle and repackage or re-label their products just for our state — unless they are remade with higher priced, specially handled ingredients. This would introduce costs throughout the food supply chain that would make it more costly to sell food products in Oregon, ultimately driving up food costs for Oregon families, and especially hurting low-income and fixed-income families.
The Legislative Revenue Office told the state’s Financial Estimate Committee in August that Measure 92 is “expected to increase overall food prices within the state.”
We’ll also pay more as Oregon taxpayers. Measure 92 would create two new state bureaucracies to enforce and implement its costly regulations. Oregon Department of Administrative Services reported that estimated costs for inspection-based programs to enforce the measure would be more than $14 million every budget cycle. And Measure 92 doesn’t provide any funding source or set any limit on how much these new bureaucracies would cost taxpayers.
Yet for all its costs, Measure 92 completely fails to deliver what proponents have promised. Its labels don’t provide consumers with accurate or reliable information with which to make informed choices about the foods we buy.
For these reasons, the independent Citizens Initiative Review panel recommended a “no” vote on Measure 92. As a nutritionist and registered dietitian, so do I. Please join me in voting “no.”
Ruth Carey of Tualatin is a registered dietician/nutritionist.
Read the Complete Article »