Measure 92
GMO labeling: NO
Twelve years ago, Oregon voters were posed the same question as the one in Measure 92: Should food sold in Oregon that contains genetically modified organisms carry a label that tells the consumer as much?
Back then, Oregon voters killed the measure by more than a 2-to-1 margin.
WW agreed with the outcome. Our reasoning, in our endorsement issue for the 2002 general election, was based on what we saw as a poorly written measure.
Monsanto and other foes spent an obscene amount money in 2002 to kill the Oregon measure. Opponents are doing so again: The fight over Measure 92 is already the most expensive in state history.
Food-safety advocates have gained more momentum in their fight against GMOs. In Southern Oregon this spring, voters in otherwise conservative Josephine and Jackson counties approved measures banning GMO crops.
Around the world, 64 countries require some form of GMO labeling. And that works, to some degree, because those countries have internally consistent rules on what constitutes GMO food and how labels should be presented.
This measure is much better written than the 2002 version. But if any advocate of this measure could point to a single meaningful health threat posed by GMOs, we wouldn’t be demanding labeling, we’d be calling for bans.
But they can’t. The labels called for under Measure 92 for raw foods (say, a bunch of bananas) would simply say which ones are genetically engineered. But the labels for processed foods (like a can of soup) wouldn’t tell what part of the product has GMOs, or how much. None of the labels would say what it would mean for you. We worry that all labeling would do is confuse and frighten people.
Want to send a message and play it safe by avoiding GMOs? Buy foods labeled organic under existing, voluntary labeling programs.
