Four little words. That’s what’s at stake in the battle over November’s Measure 92—what appears to be the second-most expensive ballot-measure fight in Oregon history. The words are “produced with genetic engineering.”…. Some of the world’s largest food producers have poured $7.5 million into the campaign to keep these words from appearing on grocery shelves, while health-food companies and activists have donated $5.2 million to make the phrase state law. Combined, the two sides have already spent $9.8 million on TV and radio ads. (That’s not counting outside-the-box messaging: Last week, Ben & Jerry’s changed the name of an ice cream flavor to “Food Fight Fudge Brownie” in support of Measure 92.)
After living in Texas for 10+ years (3722 days..but who was counting?), I’m here to tell you that politics here in Oregon is (by comparison) generally about as entertaining as watching paint peeling off a ceiling. The Lone Star State is, politically speaking, forever a few fries short of a Happy Meal and a comedy gold minw, a 24/7/365 exercise in self-parody. The Beaver State? When logging and forest policy are more often than not your biggest issues, those aren’t ingredients in a recipe designed to create controversy.
Every now and again, we do come up with something that creates…well, at least what passes for controversy in the Beaver State. This election cycle, it’s the battle over Measure 92, a ballot measure which, if passed, would require genetically modified foods (GMOs) to be labeled as such. So far, more than $11 million dollars has been spent statewide in an effort to persuade voters to vote for or against Measure 92. Eleven million dollars later, this Oregonian can say neither side is any closer to making a compelling case. While the millions spent has generated a lot of Sturm und Drang, it certainly hasn’t produced much in the way of enlightenment. What those millions have purchased is a surfeit of fear-mongering, propaganda, and misinformation.
The battle is over four words…and whether consumers should know what’s in their food. If you listen more, you’ll be told it’s about our health, our food prices increasing, and all manner of other nasty horrible effects that will inevitably result from the measures passage or defeat.
Here’s what things would look like if Measure 92 is defeated and the status quo is upheld:
USDA organic: The U.S. Department of Agriculture runs this voluntary organic certification program. One of the conditions for qualifying is that the food and its ingredients can’t contain GMOs. The 2,711 farms and food producers participating in the USDA program can display a seal.
Non-GMO Project verified: The feds aren’t the only ones offering farmers a way to tell customers they don’t use GMOs. A Bellingham, Wash., nonprofit called the Non-GMO Project has certified more than 20,000 products as containing less than 0.9 percent genetically modified ingredients. That’s the same standard the European Union uses for labeling, and the threshold that would require a label under Measure 92.
…and what it could be if Measure 92 passes:
The Measure 92 label: If Oregon voters approve GMO labeling, foods with more than 0.9 percent genetically modified ingredients would receive one of three labels. Raw foods with GMOs would read, “Genetically Engineered.” Packaged foods would read, “Produced with Genetic Engineering” or “Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering.” The producers would not be required to say which ingredients were genetically modified, although measure backers say the companies could add more details. These labels have no national precedent: Vermont, the only state to pass a GMO-labeling law, is fighting a lawsuit filed by a coalition of food companies and hasn’t begun labeling yet.
Four words, which no matter how I wrap my head around it, seems a waste of $11 million. It’s about labeling- NOT whether GMOs are bad for you, or what effect they might have on our health, or even how they might be beneficial. The ads produced by both sides have been short on facts and truth, but they’ve contained an abundance of hooks designed to produce emotional reactions. Evidently, the only enemy both sides have agreed on is that sober, rational consideration of the facts is a very bad thing for their cause.
I have yet to make up my mind. As loathe as I am to hand Big Agribusiness a victory, I’m having difficulty understanding how four words will change things for the better when labeling programs already exist. What I really want is for someone to do three things:
Tell me why GMOs are bad. What are the risks and side effects of consuming GMOs? How can/will consuming GMOs be harmful to the public health? Why is using GMOs being presented as the worst thing since thalidomide babies? I’m not saying that I think GMOs are good (or bad) things, but no one has yet convinced me that they’re the sort of thing that will cause mothers to give birth to two-headed children.
Tell me why labeling is a bad thing. If you produce GMOs, where’s the harm in adding four words to your packaging? How does being required to make consumers aware that your foods contain GMOs a bad thing? Don’t consumers deserve to know what’s in the food they consume? If you believe GMOs to be safe, why not acquiesce to public sentiment and label your GMO foods accordingly?
Tell me how passing Measure 92 will increase food prices? How will adding four words to labels increase the cost of food when that hasn’t been the case in countries around the world that require GMO labeling? Will Measure 92 REALLY increase food prices? Or will passage be used as an excuse to raise food prices in order to pad the profit margins of food producers?
The problem, at least from my perspective, is that neither side scores high marks for honesty and integrity when it comes to making their case. The pro-Measure 92 folks are heavily invested in fear-mongering and portraying GMOs as bad, evil, nasty things which are BAD for us. Instead of providing factual information, they’re relying on disinformation and creating fear and mistrust. Why educate when you can spread misinformation?
The anti-92 folks are being equally dishonest. WHY is labeling so bad? WHY are four little words added to current packaging so objectionable? Most of all, WHY are so many big agribusiness companies so heavily invested in this fight? And WHY don’t consumers deserve to know what’s in their food?
The debate jumped the rails months ago, and no one’s made much of an effort to get things back on track. Oregon voters will have a choice between fear-mongering, distortion, and insufficient evidence on one side and lies, propaganda, and disinformation on the other.
Choose wisely….
For my part, I hope both sides lose…but that’s really not possible, is it?
