By Emily Neelon |
The Nov. 4 vote on Measure 92 has been the subject of hot debate in Oregon. If passed, this ballot measure will require food manufacturers, retailers and suppliers to label food containing genetically engineered ingredients beginning in January 2016.
Although there is no evidence that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are dangerous to eat, proponents of the labeling law are concerned with the lack of testing that has been conducted on the agricultural innovation. With both sides facing-off in fierce debate, the food fight continues.
The Law
Current state and federal law does not require raw or packaged GMO products to be labeled. California rejected a similar measure requiring the labeling of genetically engineered foods in 2012, as did Washington in 2013.
Measure 92 is not Oregon’s first attempt at creating a labeling law for genetically engineered products. In 2002, the state was the first in the nation to try to pass a GMO initiative, but Measure 27 was defeated by more than a two-to-one margin. Twelve years later, Oregon is poised to fight again.
Measure 92 would enforce strict labeling on any fully or partially GMO product at retail stores and on shipping containers. The measure defines genetically engineered food as “food produced from organisms with genetic material changed through in vitro nucleic acid techniques and certain cell-fusing techniques”.
A recent SurveyUSA poll conducted for KATU reveals that the majority of Oregonians are in favor of Measure 92. Of those surveyed, 52% said they plan to vote yes on the ballot, 21% said no, and 26% are undecided.
Proponents
Proponents of Measure 92 cite concerns about the uncertainty of GMOs’ effects on health, the economy and the environment. Biology professor David Taylor, who specializes in botany, is concerned about the lack of knowledge the scientific community has on genetically modified plants and their effects.
“We know extremely little about how those genes that have been inserted…might interact with other genes in the cell of that plant,” Taylor said.
Because of the mystery and potential unsustainability of genetically engineered products, Taylor believes it is essential that consumers be informed about whether their food contains GMOs.
“Maybe it’s safe, but maybe it’s not,” Taylor said. “Doesn’t the consumer have the right to know that there is an untested product in their food? They should have the right to know if the corn that made their food is part of a sustainable process, or if it is part of a process that very quickly creates resistance to pesticides and destruction to common good.”
Overall, Taylor believes that if the public had been given the choice to decide whether GMO products would make up the majority of food available, the issue would not exist.
“It’s not the consumers’ fault that these corporations changed the base of the good part of our agricultural system without any public forum on this,” Taylor said. “It’s the industry’s fault that they were trying to make these changes for their own economic gain. If from the very beginning they had done what was right and informed consumers that something new is taking place here, we wouldn’t be in the problem we are in today.”
Opponents
Opponents of Measure 92 cite the positive outcomes of genetically engineered products. They can combat malnourishment by creating food for poverty-stricken populations as well as rid some foods of their natural toxins.
Dr. Steven Strauss, a professor in the Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society and Molecular and Cellular Biology Program at Oregon State University, advocates against Measure 92. He believes that opponents to genetic engineering and modified organisms are working to get rid of the innovative and lifesaving approach altogether.
“They wish [to] remove the method from agriculture and the food supply entirely,” Strauss said. “And they are doing this with a costly government program when the private sector has already given consumers GMO-free alternatives, and at a time when the USA and the world desperately needs powerful tools like GMOs to be available to produce safer and less costly foods.”
Although scientists have yet to learn about the long term effects of eating GMO’s, there is no evidence that consuming them is unsafe. Strauss points out that using this biotechnology in crop production has lead to enriched foods with higher levels of antioxidants, proteins, zinc and iron.
Strauss said there are already many options available to consumers who wish to eat food without any trace of GMOs or who are concerned about the safety of genetically engineered products. Organic food products are readily available to shoppers and are often labeled GMO-free in grocery stores. This labeling process does not impose costs on others, unlike a GMO label would.
Overall, Strauss foresees many negative consequences if the measure passes. If labeling is enacted, the cost of food may increase, hurting the impoverished and changing consumer habits. It may also hinder future developments to biotechnology.
“Its not about right to know, its about whether the label truly informs or misleads consumers about what matters to health and environment,” Strauss said. “Its about the ethics of promoting a system that increases food costs for all, and further impedes economically beneficial and life-saving innovations – in Oregon and abroad.”
Looking Forward
Political Science professor Gary Malecha believes that if Measure 92 passes, other states are likely to pick up similar policies.
“You will have different states with different laws, which is going to be really cumbersome so we’re going to have to have some kind of resolution of that”.
Before students head to the voting booth, Malecha says they should read the bill and investigate the issue for themselves.
“I think they need to be aware that it is a complex issue,” Malecha said. “They need to carefully assess and evaluate it and the claims that were made before they arrive at rendering a decision when they vote. It needs to be investigated.”
Emily Neelon is a reporter for The Beacon. She can be reached at neelon17@up.edu.
