As Oregon voters weigh GMO initiative, ‘Big Food’ puts thumb on the scale

[G_j]

http://america.aljazeera.com/blogs/scrutineer/2014/10/20/gmo-oregon-initiative.html

Last week, Measure 92, the mandatory GMO labeling initiative in Oregon, became the costliest ballot measure in state history when Coca Cola donated $468,000 to the opposition campaign. Coca Cola is only the most recent donor in a string of “Big Food” and biotechnology companies supporting the opposition campaigns, joining corporate food giants like Kraft Foods, PepsiCo, and the largest donor, agrochemical behemoth Monsanto in flooding the airwaves with $11.1 million worth of attack ads in the weeks leading up to the election.

If it passes, Measure 92 would require food manufacturers to label all genetically modified foods as either partially or wholly produced using genetic engineering. Proponents of GMO labeling argue that consumers have a right to know whether or not potentially harmful pesticides and toxins were in their food supply. The opposition claims that labeling will confuse the consumer, and unnecessarily raise costs. However, particularly after a recent study found that Measure 92 would only cost consumers an extra $2.30 per year, many supporters believe that these talking points only thinly veil the opposition’s corporate interests.

<snip>

This “give late, give big” tactic has consistently worked in the past — and is part of why GMO labeling initiatives have been so difficult to pass in the United States. Last year, the same companies threw money at opposing a similar ballot measure in Washington state, which ultimately failed. The year before, corporate donors launched a $46 million ad campaign opposing California’s “Right to Know” initiative, which was defeated, even though voters had overwhelmingly supported it just a few months prior to the election. When the Vermont legislature passed a GMO-labeling law, a handful of affected organizations, such as the Grocery Manufacturers Association and the Dairy Foods Association, challenged it in court, claiming that it imposed “burdensome” speech requirements and did not ultimately benefit the health of consumers.

Rather than investing in market communications about some envisioned consumer benefit of engineered foods, between 2012 and 2014, Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturers Association spent a combined $100 million fighting GMO labeling legislation across the United States. It is a bet, says Murphy, that shows the future of labeling laws is an inherently governmental battle.

“There is no market-based solution,” he said. “This is a political problem, created by political operatives at the FDA, and the only way to overcome it is a political solution.”

[JEB]

1. The airwaves are flooded with the corporate lie that labeling

GMO foods is costly and will cost consumers more. Seems to be their only argument. No defense of their product, no claims of its safety, no recounting of any benefits of using GMOs here in Oregon. But with this constant barrage of commercials, I'm afraid the corporate agenda will prevail.

[G_j]

8. and even that argument

doesn't hold up well, as pointed out in the article.

[Arugula Latte]

2. I wish I had faith in people to see through corporate propaganda, buuuuuut ....

We shall see. There are two Yes votes in my house at least.

[JEB]

3. Two here as well.

But in the barber shop I heard much parroting of the propaganda. argh!

[Faux pas]

4. I wanna know where my

FrankenFood comes from. Yes vote here.

[gratuitous]

5. The scare campaign has worked before

It will be interesting to see if a late ad buy has much effect. A lot of Oregonians have already cast their ballots, thanks to vote by mail. I was rather disappointed, though, to see that Willamette Week endorsed a No vote on Measure 92, caught up in the nonsensical rhetoric peddled by Monsanto and Coca-Cola.

[Nye Bevan]

6. Why not print "may contain GMO products" on every single food item? (nt)

[pnwmom]

7. Because it wouldn't be true. Some food producers of organic foods

work hard to keep GMO's out of their products. Why should they have to use that label?