Proponents of mandatory labeling have tried to sell their skewed notion of consumer choice to voters in California and Washington in recent years without success. Undeterred, they’re serving up a warmed-over version to Oregonians in the form of Measure 92, which voters who truly value transparency and consumer choice will reject. …
Protecting less-informed consumers from misleading labels would alone justify a “no” vote on Measure 92. But mandatory labeling almost certainly will raises food costs as well, which will have a disproportionate effect upon those with the least money to spend. …
Oregonians may or may not like genetically engineered food products and the big companies that provide them, but such antipathy is a lousy reason to approve a measure that will mislead many consumers and place a disproportionate financial burden on those least able to carry it.
– The Oregonian, 8/30/2014
THIS ONE looks easy, right? …
And yet, after much debate, we’re coming down just on the “no” side of this issue. …
The essential problem is dishonesty. Measure 92’s proponents argue it’s all about helping consumers make an informed choice. They insisted in our interview they have no problem with GMOs, and no other motives, ulterior or not, besides the spread of information.
But this campaign—like identical efforts that narrowly failed in California and Washington recently—is quite clearly a bid to get food companies to abandon GMOs, a backdoor attempt at altering our agricultural landscape.
– The Portland Mercury, 10/20/2014
We recommend Oregonians follow residents in California and Washington and vote down a ballot measure that would require the labeling of food containing genetically modified crops.
…[A]s written, Measure 92 doesn’t really tell consumers much of anything about what’s in the food, only that it contains an ingredient that was genetically modified. Which ingredient, and what modification, aren’t part of the labeling. …
The most dangerous assumption that can be drawn from the label is that things that contain GMOs are bad for you, while things that don’t contain GMOs are somehow more wholesome. …
…[V]oluntary, nationwide labeling alternatives already available to producers who want to cater to customers who want to avoid genetically modified crops.
If all of this really matters to Oregonians as much as supporters of Measure 92 say, the real vote on labeling could then be made with the pocket book.
– Capital Press, 9/11/2014
…[L]abeling of GMO and non-GMO foods should be a voluntary endeavor undertaken by enterprising food companies. It should not be a state mandate. And since that’s what Measure 92 would do, we recommend voting against it in November.
… [U]ntil facts are presented that show our state government has a stake in the matter, we’d prefer this be left to the private sector.
– The East Oregonian, 9/3/2014 (reprinted in The Daily Astorian, 9/11/2014)
The worry about what we eat has arrived on the ballot in Measure 92. It would require labeling of genetically engineered food. We urge you to vote no. …
… [T]his measure gives consumers inaccurate, incomplete information.
If Measure 92 passes, animals that have been fed with genetically engineered feed or grain will not be labeled genetically engineered.
If Measure 92 passes, some food products will be exempt from labeling even if they contain genetically modified organisms.
Is that really helping consumers? …
There’s no need to layer on an Oregon-only requirement on farmers and food producers across the country.
And then there’s the science. It makes no scientific sense to require the labeling proposed by the measure. The scientific consensus is that there is no greater health risk posed by genetically engineered foods. None. Zilch.
This is not a measure Oregonians should support.
– The Bend Bulletin, 9/20/2014
[Measure 92] would not solve a lot of problems. It would place a disproportionate burden on the poor. The bill would make Oregon have a whole separate system of food labeling from the nation, yet at the same time exempt most food and beverage products sold in Oregon, even those containing GMOs. Consumers would not be getting reliable information, and food companies would have to repackage and relabel their foods, just for Oregon. Their extra costs would, no doubt, be passed along to consumers. …
Measure 92 would mislead many consumers and place a disproportionate burden on those least able to pay the additional costs. For that reason, it is a good idea to vote no on 92.
– The La Grande Observer, 10/3/2014
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.
– The Corvallis Gazette-Times, 10/13/2014
[Measure 92 is] certainly the most complicated measure on the ballot, and is perhaps the most complicated in years. Supporters build their case on the appealing belief that they should be able to find out what they’re eating. We doubt they would get that, though, from the proposed labeling system that exempts dairy and meat products as well as food sold in restaurants. …
Given the facts that genetically engineered products are already widely sold and that information is available through labels that declare products “non-GMO” or “organic,” we wonder if it wouldn’t be simpler, and perhaps even safer, for consumers to assume that products not so labeled have genetically engineered material in them and avoid them, rather than making it a matter of law that would [create] enforcement and regulatory costs.
Our recommendation: No.
– The Klamath Falls Herald and News, 10/19/2014
…[W]hen we examine what we think is best for Oregon and its families, we conclude that the wisest course is to reject Measure 92 in the Nov. 4 election. Science is firmly on the side of continued use of genetically modified foods … we see no reason to slap what could be perceived as a warning label on otherwise safe substances.
… [A]s written, Measure 92 would drive further divisions between the state’s agricultural communities and their urban neighbors. We recognize that some farmers support the labeling initiative, but a majority — including the 8,000-member Oregon Farm Bureau — believe it will complicate their lives and drive up their costs as they are forced to document their practices, segregate their crops and take other steps to ensure their products are labeled correctly.
…[W]hen it comes to a technical matter such as food labeling and GMOs, any measure drafted by passionate advocates is going to have unintended consequences. We recommend a “no” vote on Measure 92.
– The Portland Tribune, 10/28/2014
GMO labeling: NO …
…[I]f 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.
– The Willamette Week, 10/22/2014
The Chronicle voted by a 4-3 margin to oppose Measure 92, which requires labelling of GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) foods in Oregon. …
We did not want the playing field to be uneven for Oregon farmers who could face greater regulation and costs than their peers. …
The Oregon Farm Bureau, with 7,500 members, warns that the labelling system under M92 is flawed and exempts two-thirds of the foods sold in the state, including school cafeteria lunches, meat, milk and eggs from GMO-fed animals. …
The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that every American farmer now feeds about 150 people around the globe.
We, as a nation, need to enact rules that are applied fairly and don’t make it more difficult for our family farmers to stay in business.
It is unfair to hold Oregon’s food products to a standard that no other state must meet.
– The Dalles Chronicle, 10/22/2014
There is one overwhelming reason to oppose Ballot Measure 92, which would make Oregonians the first voters to require labels on some genetically engineered foods.
That reason: Product labeling is a national and global issue, and that is where the requirements should be established. It is unrealistic to impose a patchwork of state-by-state requirements on food manufacturers. …
The more rational, honest argument is that this is an area where national, even global, decisions make sense. State-by-state regulations do not, which is why Measure 92 is a bad idea for Oregon.
– The Salem Statesman Journal, 10/28/2014
