Measure 92 - Lessons Learned

What are the lessons learned working for the Yes On 92 campaign? 

We're having a debrief next Monday so the campaign hasn't officially figured this out yet. 

Here's my personal two cents.

I'd also not like to become part of any rumor mill. I don't want to contribute to a lot of the cannibalization that happens after we lose and we try to blame each other in a way that just creates strife and doesn't improve collaboration. 

We are only going to win if people recognize both the power of the unpaid grassroots and the power of funded campaign people all working together and counting on each other. 

I think what it basically comes down to is better coordination with volunteers (it was a marked improvement from WA but still, clearly room for more improvement). 

We need to keep educating voters constantly until next time, which, hopefully, will be 2016. 

With the higher turn out, higher level of educated voters and even more integrated and organized campaign I think winning will be hard, but definitely doable that year, there will also be funding (groups should be ready to go again by then). 

Another thing I would have done is utilized spokespeople (like farmers, moms, doctors, food company allies etc.) more and more effectively. 

Also: technically, if those 4,600 ballots had been counted we would have won this time. It was very close. We were winning two weeks out and then the opposition dumped an additional 8 million in almost one fell swoop. 

Competing against lies and a relatively uneducated electorate (people largely didn't know what a GMO was and so didn't have strong feelings on the issue and were therefore easily swayed by the oppositions compelling lies) is always going to be a really tough battle. 

And while it sucks to loose this campaign scared the shit out of the opposition and proved that it really is only a matter or time before we actually win. 

Every time we do this the voters are going to become harder to trick because they are actually learning about the issue. 

I'm not happy we lost and I think if we'd run a better campaign we could have won (perfection is hard to attain), it was always going to be close and it sucks to barely lose, but we definitely changed the game and created some progress, just not as much as we hoped. 

I don't want to (and no one on the campaign from what I can gather) make excuses, we will take a hard honest look at what could have been done better. 

But to flat out say the campaign fucked up and we lost feels super counterproductive and doesn't help anything get better. 

People, on every level of this campaign I can say with utter confidence had the absolute best intentions and did the best they could (this doesn't mean they were perfect, but they meant well and did their best and put in 110%). Everyone I've worked with is very open to admitting mistakes and making things better.

Lastly, I'd like to say that Colorado was what a 100% grassroots effort looks like and it wasn't pretty. A funded campaign with a powerful and organized grassroots, done well, is how we're going to win this thing.

Who is going to maintain the Yes On 92 social networks? The Yes On 522 website was deleted. Will this happen to the Yes On 92 website, too?

Not sure, I imagine this will be part of our debrief plans. From the beginning the campaign director said she wanted to make sure that what ever they build should go on to help keep the movement going. 

The thing about the website: everyone knows it's kinda crappy. Not the best tool anyway and who's going to pay to keep it updated and do the administration. Right? So we've got some figuring out to do. 

Also I was wrong about the date of the debrief. We're having a meeting next week to do some wrap up and to schedule a larger (hopefully in person) debrief as early as possible next year. As for the other social networks we'll have a discussion about that as well. We didn't plan this out up front though.

GMO Labeling: Seattle Political Consultant Dana Bieber Debates "No Side" On PBS Stations In Oregon and Colorado

Colorado Decides Live Stream: Proposition 105 Debate
15:03 Assumption: Issue not about labeling....GMO foods. Supporters are left side of political equation. How are we going to feed the growing world population "without biotech"? (Eric Sondermann)

Shannon Ridge: I'm so glad Robyn spoke for Colorado mothers like myself. It is about time that we know what is in the food we purchase. I was unaware for a long while that our corn, soy, sugar and canola was made in a lab. Although there are many exemptions in this particular legislation, we must vote YES to stand up for our right to know what we are buying. This initiative is a start to food and product transparency. Many other states are doing this very same thing because Americans are learning what has been done to our food. 64 other countries already have similar laws. Since this is new technology, we should be able to track it and trace it. If these organisms can be patented, they should be labeled as something different. It is no longer just corn if it can be registered with the EPA as a pesticide -- it should be labeled in our food as such! Vote YES on 105.

Zen Honeycutt: This issue is our right to know what is in our foods AND GMOs. We have the right to know that red food dye is in our food because it is an ingredient in our food period. We also need to know because some children react adversely to it. GMOs are a foreign protein ingredient in our food. And they have been shown to mutate DNA and wreak havoc in animals in scientific studies. GMOs are also genetically engineered to withstand pesticides or to be a pesticide. Everyone knows pesticides kill things. W have the right to avoid pesticides in our food.We now know that the main ingredient in Roundup, which 80% of GMOs are genetically engineered to withstand, glyphosate, does NOT wash or cook off. We are eating a poison which has been shown to kill gut bacteria ( weakens the immune system), cause chelation of vital nutrients ( vitamin and mineral deficiency which can lead to cancer) and endocrine disruption ( birth defects).

As a mother, I have a right to protect my child from being poisoned and sick. Doctors need to know to provide care for their patients. Health insurance providers need to know to support their customers to prevent expensive health conditions.

Yes the issue is GMOs and we demand that they be labeled clearly.

And no we do not need GMOs to feed the world. We have farmed and fed mankind for thousands of years before GMOs and toxic chemcials and we can do it again. In fact it is imperative to the survival of the human race that we do this again. Our human race will not survive if we continue to spray hundreds of millions of gallons of pesticides on our food crops every year. GMOs are not feeding the world, they are making us sick.

Diana Reeves - GMO Free USA: That question was off topic and inappropriate - the answer should have been - that question has nothing to do with this debate - this debate is about the right to know and the freedom to choose what we eat and feed our families. 64 countries around the world have the information they need to make informed choices and so should we. We'd be happy to provide the facts and figures in support of how & why the world can feed itself quite nicely without GMOs but that information is not relevant to a debate on the need for labeling GMOs.

Pamm Larry: I think it's another one of their false assumptions taken as truth because the lie has been told so many times people believe it.


Interview with Sandeep Kaushik, Oregon GMO Right to Know Communications Director


Podcast: Oregon Public Broadcasting Debate with Sandeep Kaushik, Spokesman for Oregon Right to Know, and Dana Bieber: Spokeswoman for Vote No On 92 (Sept. 24)

Oregon Poll shows | OregonLive.com

Democrats John Kitzhaber, Jeff Merkley continue to hold strong leads in Oregon races, poll shows | OregonLive.com:

A poll, sponsored by KATU TV, found that  54 percent supported  I-92, 16 percent were opposed and 30 percent were undecided.

Similar measures in California in 2012 and Washington in 2013 started with strong support in polls but wound up being narrowly defeated after expensive advertising campaigns were mounted by the food and biotech industries.

A poll released by the Oregonian on Thursday shows that a majority of Oregon voters support labeling for genetically engineered foods. This is exciting news for our campaign – but initiatives to label genetically engineered food in California and Washington started strong too, before being overtaken by huge corporate-sponsored misinformation campaigns by Election Day. We have to act fast to hold our lead. The first Grassroots Action Fund Deadline of the campaign hits tomorrow, and how much we have in the bank will go a long way toward determining how many voters we can afford reach between before Election Day. Contribute before tomorrow’s deadline and stand with our campaign to require labeling for genetically engineered food. Just $15 can make a big difference. According to the Oregonian, “Similar [GMO labeling] measures in California in 2012 and Washington in 2013 started with strong support in polls but wound up being narrowly defeated after expensive advertising campaigns were mounted by the food and biotech industries.” Monsanto and their Big Ag buddies are planning on doing the same thing here in Oregon, but this time we’re going to change the game: Contribute before tomorrow’s deadline to make sure we can and beat Big Food with a huge team of field organizers and volunteers >> Thanks, The Yes on 92 team

KATU TV Debate: "Your Voice, Your Vote:" Oregon's GMO labeling debate

This November you'll get a chance to vote on an initiative that will require labeling on all foods containing GMOs. It's called Ballot Measure 92, and it promises to be one of the most contentious and costly campaigns in Oregon's upcoming election. Sandeep Kaushik, spokesperson for the “Yes on 92” campaign, and Dana Bieber, who represented the “No on 92” campaign, joined KATU’s Steve Dunn on Sunday, Aug. 3, 2014 to debate both sides of the issue.

Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps Oregon and Colorado GMO Bottle Label

On the WWGF News Live Stream Google Hangout, David Bronner talked about the Oregon and Colorado product labels that support the state grassroots GMO Labeling campaigns. The quart bottles will be on store shelves nationwide next month.

“We are excited to introduce special GMO Info labels this fall on our quart soaps in support of the Oregon and Colorado right to know campaigns," explains David Bronner, President Dr. Bronner Soaps.  "We hope to educate and activate voters to engage with the respective campaigns, by donating money and volunteering time.  A particular focus of these labels is conveying the reality that the pesticide industry is genetically engineering food to tolerate high doses of the pesticides they sell:   GMOs = pesticides on and in our food.”

TOP BANNER –

Left of logo:

Consumers should not be kept in the dark about what is in their food.

STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHT TO KNOW IF YOUR FOOD IS GENETICALLY ENGINEERED

We have the right to choose the food we eat and feed our families.

OREGON TK Logo

LABEL GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS

VOTE BY TUES. NOVEMBER 4^TH IN OREGON STATE

Right of logo:

We must defeat deceptive pesticide companies that put profits over people.

IT’S TIME TO EXPOSE PESTICIDE INDUSTRY LIES ABOUT GMO LABELING We have a right to know when food has been engineered to produce and withstand pesticides.

Left vertical panel

GENETIC ENGINEERING IS A PESTICIDE INDUSTRY BOONDOOGLE

Chemical companies genetically engineer DNA from bacteria into food crops to enable them to survive high doses of the herbicides they sell. This foreign DNA produces foreign proteins in every cell of the plant, which gets served up on our plates along with increased pesticide residues.  No long-term independent safety studies have been conducted on GMOs. Instead, overuse of pesticides has created resistant ‘superweeds’ and ‘superbugs’, resulting in GMO crops now being designed to resist even more toxic herbicides like 2,4 D and Dicamba. These same companies made the herbicide Agent Orange and the insecticide DDT and claimed they were safe, and currently manufacture the neonic pesticides that are killing bees. 

Bottom 5 paragraphs

In America, we have the right to know important information about the food we eat and feed to our families – things such as sugar and sodium levels, country of origin, whether flavors and other ingredients are natural or artificial, and if fish is wild or farm-raised.

We also have the right to choose whether we want to buy and eat genetically engineered foods, just as citizens in over 64 other countries do, including Europe, Japan and China. U.S. companies already label genetically engineered foods for those citizens with no additional costs to consumers. Why are American families being left in the dark?

Traditional family farmers are concerned that GMO pollen drift will contaminate their crops and ruin key markets, jeopardizing their economic livelihood as experienced in 2013 when genetically engineered wheat halted exports from the Pacific Northwest to Japan and Korea for months.

Most GMOs are engineered by chemical companies to tolerate the pesticides they sell. Overspraying GMO crops is wiping out monarch butterflies, for example, and these same companies make the neonic pesticides that are killing bees.

Labels ensure transparency and preserve our freedom to make our own choices about the foods we eat. Your health and food decisions are up to you - not corporations, the government or special interests. Learn more at: www.oregonrighttoknow.org (Colorado) 

[right side vertical section]

The path to national labeling is through the states

VICTORY IN OREGON STATE IS KEY TO THE NATIONAL LABELING MOVEMENT

The Oregon Right to Know campaign is a grass-roots, volunteer-driven effort that has state-wide support including hundreds of family farmers, parents, educators, doctors, food producers, scientists, nutritionists, gardeners, birders, restaurateurs, conservationists, and many more.

The nationwide movement for GMO labeling has made huge strides including the recent victory in Vermont, the first state in the nation to pass a true GMO-labeling law. The power of the people can triumph over the Industrial Ag machine!

There is a lot at stake and a lot of support in Oregon for GMO labeling. Oregon has major farming and fishing sectors that are very concerned about the spread of GMO salmon, wheat and apples. We can punch through to victory as we did in Vermont - then other states will follow and national labeling will be inevitable. 

DON’T BE FOOLED BY DECEPTIVE TV ADS

Oregon voters will face a relentless deluge of deceptive TV ads funded by pesticide and junk food manufacturers. These ads will attack and mislead voters into thinking that a simple labeling law means food prices will skyrocket. But those same hollow arguments against our Right to Know have been made against every previous labeling regulation, such as country of origin and calorie disclosure. It’s wrong that American democracy has been hijacked by corporations that spend vast sums of money to keep consumers in the dark.

OREGON CAN W­IN WITH YOUR HELP!

Wherever you live in the U.S., now is the time to join the movement! Please visit www.oregonrighttoknow.org (Colorado) today to be educated, get active, donate and volunteer.

"In the case of a label that helps promote the Colorado campaign to consumers and shoppers in stores across Colorado," states Steven Hoffman, Communication and Fundraising Director for the Right To Know Colorado campaign, "is always welcome helping to increase awareness about the bill and the importance of voting for GMO labeling is very key. So, we welcome all types of education whether it be a special label from Dr. Bronner's or when we have spokespersons going out in and around the state helping to educate people about GMOs and the importance of GMO labeling."

In 2002, Oregon Voters Were Hoodwinked By Big Bucks And The FDA #WWGFNews

In the 2002 Oregon State General Election, Oregonians were swayed to vote against their Right To Know that GMOs were in their food by a six million dollar media blitz and a letter from the FDA to Governor John Kitzhaber. Before FDA Deputy Commissioner Lester M. Crawford sent his letter to the governor and news outlets on October 4, the Oregon Labeling of Genetically-Engineered Foods Act (Measure 27) was leading in the polls 65%-35%.

Supporters of the measure argued that "Oregonians should have the right to know what they are eating." They repeated the belief of some activists that genetic engineering of food poses a potential threat to health and safety. (See Voters Guide)

USA TODAY reporter Elizabeth Weise stated in her article, "In an unusual move, the federal government has warned the state of Oregon that it could be interfering with national food producers if voters pass a ballot measure requiring all genetically modified foods sold in the state to be labeled...The governor's press secretary, Tom Towslee, says the governor was surprised to get the letter. "For the federal government to weigh in on a ballot measure in little old Oregon is a little unusual, but they obviously feel strongly about it," Towslee says."

Thirty days after Dr. Crawford's letter Measure 27 was defeated 70%-30%.

Connecting the Dots 

• February 2005, President George W. Bush nominated Crawford to be Commissioner of Food and Drugs. His nomination stalled in the Senate for two months after he was accused of an extramarital affair with an FDA employee.

• July 2005, Dr. Crawford was confirmed by the Senate to be FDA Commissioner

• September 2005, Dr. Crawford resigned as the FDA Chief.

• 2005-2006: Dr. Crawford,68, joined the Washington lobbing firm, Policy Directions Inc., that represents the Grocers Manufactures Association, process food companies and biotech firms.

• In October 2006, the New York Times reported that Dr. Crawford was charged with conflict of interest and lying to congress. The 30 year FDA veteran held stock in biotech and food companies the government agency regulated and Policy Directions Inc. represented.

• On February 27, 2007, the former FDA Director was sentenced to three years' supervised probation and fines of roughly $90,000.

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
It does not take peer review scientific studies to see how the anti GMO Labeling campaign used a FDA director/criminal/Washington DC lobbyist to deceive and mislead Oregon voters twelve years ago. Twenty-five year EPA staffer E.G. Vallianatos' new book, "Poison Spring," is filled with insider stories that explain how industry uses government agencies to protect profits at the pain and suffering of the people they are directed by the US Congress to protect.  

Rick North: "Response" To The Oregonian Op-Ed - Measure 27 (2002)

October 25, 2002: In a recent editorial, the Oregonian said that Measure 27 would create increased costs for consumers, echoing the statements of the opposition.

However, when it comes to labeling genetically engineered foods, there is simply no evidence that costs would increase significantly, if at all.

Over 25 nations, comprising nearly half the world’s population, have required labeling of genetically engineered foods. In every country, the result was either zero or minimal price increases. The opposition cites a “study” that estimates an increase of $550 per year for a four-person family, or $137 per person per year.

The Oregonian accepted this figure at face value, even though the study was funded completely by the opposition. This is reminiscent of studies paid for by the tobacco industry indicating that cigarette smoking didn’t cause cancer or heart disease.

By contrast, an independent study by Professor William Jaeger, an economist and agricultural resource policy specialist at Oregon State, estimated that increased costs in Oregon would be only $3 - $10 per person per year.

Independent studies for four other nations estimated similar costs – none were even close to the $137 figure. In reviewing the opposition’s study, Jaeger concluded that it “does not represent a detailed, thorough, or reliable economic analysis.” The Department of Administrative Services estimated the annual cost to regulate the labeling program at $11.3 million.

However, this includes costs for restaurants, schools, hospitals, and other establishments that serve or distribute food ready-to-eat. Without restaurants, schools, etc., the annual costs are $2.4 million, only 71 cents per person per year.

The initiative refers only to labeling food already having display panels for bulk, wholesale, or retail sale, and does not mention food served ready-to-eat.

Measure 27 advocates have stated in their websites and literature that these foods are not included, although the opposition has argued otherwise. Again, the Oregonian has simply accepted the opposition’s viewpoint.

Because there has been controversy over the initiative’s wording on this point, it’s helpful to know what would happen if the measure passes. If there are questions about interpretation of anystatutory initiative, legislative committees typically gather input from all sides, clarify any issues,and submit an amended law.

Since neither advocates nor opponents want labeling for restaurants,schools and other ready-to-eat food establishments, there is no disagreement and they obviously wouldn't be covered.And to clear up one other misconception, grocery clerks wouldn’t label genetically engineered food packaging, just as they don’t label for calories or vitamins. It’s done by the processor.

There are serious health, environmental, dietary and religious questions about genetically engineered foods. This is why the Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, Union of Concerned Scientists and Oregon League of Conservation Voters, among many others, have endorsed Measure 27.

We have a right to know what is in our food. Consumers should be able to make an informed choice about what they eat, and, like the bottle bill, Oregon can lead the way. Please vote yes on Measure 27.

Rick North
Spokesperson
Vote Yes on 27 Committee
www.voteyeson27.com

David J. Brown - Dept. of Crop and Soil Sciences | College of Agricultural, Human, and Natural Resource Sciences

David J. Brown - Heavy NoOn44 article commenter.

David J. Brown

Associate Professor

Curriculum Vitae (pdf)

EducationPhD/MS Soil Science/Biometry, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 2002 MS Geography, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, 1997 BS/BA Electrical Engineering/Rhetoric, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, 1988

Research InterestsMy research group is focused on measuring, modeling and explaining the spatial variability of soil properties and processes at hillslope to regional scales.  In pursuing this research, we make extensive use of digital terrain modeling, optical remote sensing, spatial statistics, and proximal soil sensing techniques (e.g. VisNIR spectroscopy).

Article: 

Biotech's Losing Game of Whack-A-Mole

David Brown ·  Top Commenter · Associate Professor at Washington State University

Rick North, you can't really be intellectually honest and cite earthopensource as a credible source for science. Cherry picking a handful of poor studies in weak journals is advocacy, not science. Highlighting a handful of scientists who have doubts about GMOs does not balance out the vast majority who believe they are as safe as conventionally bred crops.

And you completely misunderstand the comparison of anti-GMO folks with climate change deniers. They are clearly not the same people. The argument is that they are equivalent in how they operate in a hermetically sealed world, reading only their own websites with carefully cultivated truth. And they are both clearly anti-science. But the anti-GMO folks are almost entirely on the left while the climate change deniers are almost entirely on the right.

On this forum, there have been multiple links provided to independent research, but clearly you haven't taken the time to explore this information seriously. It hasn't been an honest dialog. Instead you fall back on the giant conspiracy that all scientists have been corrupted by the 197th largest corporation in America. This is exactly analogous to the climate change deniers who believe that there is a vast government-academic conspiracy on climate science. Those on the right distrust government. Those on the left inherently distrust corporations. Both put their fingers in their ears and shut out the vast body of science on the GMO and climate change issues, respectively, by simply asserting that the academic enterprise has been corrupted by the enemy (government or corporations, take your pick).

If someone wants to get a balanced, informed, and accessible take on this debate from a science writer who actually supports labeling, spend some time reading Nathanael Johnson at Grist. I don't agree with everything Nathanael writes, but he is honest and informed, something we certainly need more of in this discussion.

http://grist.org/author/nathanael-johnson/

David Brown ·  Top Commenter · Associate Professor at Washington State University

The claim that there is no independent research on GMOs is a wildly false internet meme. For the formal approval process for ANY new food or drug, a company must pay for the science to document their submission (either done in house or more often by private firms). But that doesn't mean that academics haven't conduced research as well.

The European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC) recently released a report based on thousands of academic studies.
"EASAC also sought to placate green critics who claim that the majority of scientific studies on GMO safety are biased because they are carried out by researchers who are paid for by industrial lobby groups.

“We estimate that around 90% of the literature on which the conclusions of the report are based is on non-industry funded, peer-reviewed research,” said Sofie Vanthournout, head of the Brussels office of EASAC."

http://www.euractiv.com/science-policymaking/chief-eu-scientist-backs-damning-news-530693

Letter to Oregon Governor Supporting Mandatory Labeling of Foods Using Genetic Engineering | Consumers Union

Letter to Oregon Governor Supporting Mandatory Labeling of Foods Using Genetic Engineering | Consumers Union:

This letter explains why Consumers Union (publisher of Consumer Reports) supports Measure 27, the ballot initiative that would require mandatory labeling of foods and food additives produced using genetic engineering sold in Oregon, or produced in Oregon.
First and foremost, consumers have a fundamental right to know what they are eating. Many laws, at the federal, state and even local level, are designed to inform consumers of facts they want to know about food. These include laws that require labeling of juice made from concentrate, milk that is homogenized, imported food as to its country of origin, food that is frozen or irradiated, as well as ingredients and additives. All these foods are regarded as safe by the US Food and Drug Administration. However, this information is required to be given to consumers at the point of purchase because consumers care and want to know about these aspects of food. With this information, they are able to make informed choices for themselves and their families.


We thus disagree with the thrust of the letter sent to you on October 4, 2002, by FDA Deputy Commissioner Lester M. Crawford. Unlike FDA, we think the differences between genetically engineered food and non-engineered traditional foods are significant. We believe that FDA should have required labeling of genetically engineered food as a material fact under the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act. Indeed, several years ago more than 50 members of Congress sent a letter to the FDA Commissioner agreeing that genetic engineering is a material fact under the FDCA.

NOTE: On October 17, 2006, Lester M. Crawford pled guilty to a conflict of interest and false reporting of information about stocks he owned in food, beverage and medical device companies he was in charge of regulating. He received a sentence of three years of supervised probation and a fine of about $90,000.

Label debate pits big name vs. big bucks

Pamplin Media Group:

Supporters of a ballot measure requiring food companies to label genetically engineered foods have about $195,000 in campaign contributions and former Beatle Paul McCartney on their side.

On the other hand, while the measure's opponents may lack star power, they have a whopping $5 million in hand, contributed primarily by international food and biotechnology companies intending to snuff out the movement before other states get similar ideas.

Welcome to the battle over Ballot Measure 27, which is turning out to be among Oregon's most expensive Ñ and mismatched Ñ ballot measure campaigns.

Oregon is the first state to ask voters to decide if labels should be required on genetically altered foods. Previous attempts to pass national legislation requiring labels on such foods have gone nowhere.

The Oregon Labeling of Genetically-Engineered Foods, Measure 27 (2002) - Arguments in Favor

Measure 27 - Arguments in Favor:

The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods has been working since 1999 to pass federal legislation to require the mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods in the United States. We strongly support Oregon Ballot Measure 27.

According to a June 13-17, 2001 survey from ABC News, 93 percent of those polled said the federal government should require labels on food saying whether it has been genetically modified. ABC News stated "Such near-unanimity in public opinion is rare."

While legislation to require the mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods nationwide was introduced into both the 106th and the current 107th U.S. Congress, it has not received the priority treatment needed to pass it into law.

In the European Union, Australia, Japan, China and many other nations, the controversy over genetically engineered foods has received significant media coverage. As a result, mandatory labeling laws have been enacted in all those countries. Yet in the United States, we still don't have this right.

The food industry does not want labels on genetically engineered foods because they are concerned people will start asking questions such as "Have these foods ever been safety tested for human consumption?" The answer to that question is "NO!" The FDA decided that genetically engineered foods are "substantially equivalent" to non-genetically engineered foods and need no additional safety testing or labeling. Currently the biotech companies do not even need to notify the FDA that they are bringing a new product to market. The very corporations that have a financial interest in selling the products get to decide whether they are safe or not.

Oregon voters are smart and have often shown leadership in important areas of public concern before the rest of the country. Oregon citizens now have another opportunity to show leadership in the area of labeling genetically engineered foods.

Tell big business that you want the right to know if your foods have been genetically engineered. Vote YES on Measure 27!

(This information furnished by Craig Winters, The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods.)


"COMPILATION AND ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC OPINION POLLS ON GENETICALLY
ENGINEERED (GE) FOODS (UPDATED FEBRUARY 1, 2002) Below is a compilation of poll results concerning of genetically engineered foods, listed in chronological order:

• 90% of Americans said foods created through genetic engineering processes should have special labels on them (Rutgers University' Food Policy Institute study, 11/01)
•  90% of American farmers support labels on biotech products if they are scientifically different from conventional foods and 61% support labels on biotech products even if not scientifically different. (Farm Foundation/Kansas State University, survey of farms throughout the U.S., 9/01).
• 93% of Americans say the federal government should require labels saying whether it's been genetically modified, or bioengineered. "Such near unanimity in public opinion is rare" (ABC News.com poll, 6/01).
• 86% of Americans think that the government should require the labeling of all packaged and other food products stating that they include corn, soy or other products which have come from genetically modified crops (Harris Poll, 6/00).
• 86% of Americans want labels on genetically engineered foods (International Communications Research, 3/00)
• 81% of Americans think the government should require genetically engineered food products to be labeled. 89% of Americans think the government should require pre-market safety testing of genetically engineered foods before they are marketed, as with any food additive. (MSNBC Live Vote Results, 1/00).
• 92% of Americans support legal requirements that all genetically engineered foods be labeled. (BSMG Worldwide for the Grocery Manufacturers of America, 9/99).
• 81% of American consumers believe GE food should be labeled. 58% say that if GE foods were labeled they would avoid purchasing them. (Time magazine, 1/99).
• 93% of women surveyed say they want all GE food clearly labeled. (National Federation of Women's Institutes, 1998)."

A Work Product of the Center for Food Safety - Washington, DC 2002
For more polls see http;//www.centerforfoodsafety.org/facts&issues/polls.html

(This information furnished by Donna Harris, Oregon Concerned Citizens for Safe Foods.)


 Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, a group of doctors committed to human health, patient safety, scientific honesty and environmental protection, supports a yes vote on Measure 27. 


    Less than a decade since their introduction, two-thirds of products in U.S. supermarket shelves contain genetically engineered (GE) ingredients. Only one-third of Americans are aware that their foods contain GE ingredients. Multiple polls show that 85% to 95% of citizens favor labeling.

    Currently, food substances are labeled for vitamin, mineral, caloric and fat content; wines containing sulfites warn those allergic. The European Union requires labeling; many countries ban import of GE foods from the US; other countries have or are considering labeling laws and import bans. Unfortunately, US regulatory agencies rely on safety tests done by GE product-producing companies.

    Risks of GE foods include: toxicities from new proteins (deadly eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome in consumers of GE tryptophan supplements); altered nutritional value; transfer of antibiotic resistance genes, contributing to antibiotic resistance; increased pesticide use when pests develop resistance to GE food toxins; herbicide-resistant "superweeds"; non-target insects dying from exposure to pesticide-resistant crops, with ripple effects on other species; GE plants and animals interbreeding with and contaminating wild populations; GE plants outcompeting, or driving to extinction, wild varieties; GE plants adversely altering soil quality; decreased agricultural biodiversity; and corporate control of agriculture, with the transmogrification of farmers into "bioserfs."

    Labeling of GE foods will prevent dangerous allergic attacks (as occurred in unsuspecting consumers of soybeans modified with Brazil Nut genes); allow vegetarians to avoid plants injected with animal genes; and allow concerned individuals to avoid ingesting milk from cattle injected with recombinant BGH, which increases levels of potentially-carcinogenic IGF-1 in milk.
 
Labeling will increase public awareness of genetic engineering, allow us freedom to choose what we eat based on individual willingness to confront risk, and ensure a healthy public debate over the merits of genetic modification of foodstuffs.

Board of Directors
Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility

(This information furnished by Martin Donohoe, MD, FACP, for Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility.)

The Oregon Labeling of Genetically-Engineered Foods, Measure 27 (2002) - Arguments in Opposition

Measure 27 - Arguments in Opposition:



Measure 27 Would Create
a Regulatory Nightmare
for Oregon Restaurant Owners Measure 27 would force Oregon restaurant owners to provide special warning labels with thousands of menu items served each that aren't 100% "organic." Organic food companies are promoting the labeling scheme, to try to give themselves a competitive advantage over conventional food producers.

State officials estimate regulating
restaurant food labels will cost
nearly $9 million a year. State officials estimate the Oregon Department of Agriculture will have to monitor more than 400,000 menu items served in Oregon restaurants, actually auditing 100,000 of those items, then sampling and testing 20,000 of them. State restaurant monitoring and inspections will cost the state nearly $9 million per year with nearly $3 million in start-up costs.

Measure 27 would also cost restaurant owners millions more. Restaurants would face a complicated new burden ­ special record keeping and research to track and determine the origin of virtually every product or ingredient used in any dish we serve. Staff time and costs would be passed on to Oregon consumers through higher prices. On top of that, we'd face huge fines and even jail terms if we accidentally use the wrong labels.

Many basic foods would require costly labels. Basic food items like bread, dairy products, meats and many beverages, would require Measure 27 labels reading "Genetically Engineered," even if they don't contain any genetically engineered ingredients. The labels would be useless. They are just intended to scare consumers away from "non-organic foods" -- even though they are just as safe as "organic" products.

On behalf of all the members of the Oregon Restaurant Association, I urge you to say NO to the Co$tly Labeling Law.

Please Vote NO on Measure 27. Bill McCormick, President
McCormick & Schmick's Restaurants

(This information furnished by Bill McCormick, Oregon Restaurant Association.)


Measure 27 Shifts Funds from Short-Changed Schools
to Pay for a Meaningless New Food Labeling Bureaucracy.One Teacher's Concerns about Measure 27. As a teacher, I'm painfully aware of how Oregon's economic slump has forced budget cuts in schools across the state, including where I teach.

At a time when Oregon is struggling to find funds for schools, Measure 27 proposes to create a new state bureaucracy ­ costing taxpayers more than $118 million over the next 10 years ­ to put meaningless labels on foods that aren't 100% "organic."

Schools Would Have to Put Labels on Food and Beverages Served in School Cafeterias, Vending Machines and Concession Stands To add insult to that injury, Measure 27 is so poorly written that it would require schools like mine to label foods and beverages served in the school cafeteria, in vending machines on school property and at concessions stands during athletic events.

Measure 27 is another example of initiative activists forcing Oregon voters to decide on an innocent-sounding proposal with huge, hidden impacts on government programs, taxpayers and consumers.

When Oregon's economy is sour, proposals like this are even more damaging. School costs make up nearly half of state budget expenditures. So nearly half of Measure 27's costs are likely to come from funds that otherwise would be available to pay for teachers, textbooks and testing ­ all of which have been cut in the current budget crisis.

Measure 27 Is a Right-to-Learn Issue Backers of Measure 27 claim it's a right-to-know issue, but in fact the information on the labels it requires would be misleading and useless to consumers. I think of Measure 27 as a right-to-learn issue. I believe my students have a right to an adequately funded education. Their right to learn should be the state's top funding priority ­ not some new bureaucratic program designed to further one group's political agenda.

Kraig Hoene
High School Social Studies Teacher

(This information furnished by Kraig J. Hoene.)

• The Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration and Oregon's Department of Agriculture manage the Federal system of food safety through intense, continual scrutiny. Thousands of university-based, publicly financed research projects provide basis for protection of food and fiber supplies.
• The consequential loss of jobs, livelihood and tax revenue adds burden to the remaining taxpayers to carry the burgeoning costs of a la carte ballot measures such as Measure 27. By Department of Agriculture estimates, Measure 27 will add $118 million to our already oversized general fund expenses through 100,000 inspections and by adding 60 new staff positions.
• 4. Consumers would pay higher food costs. In fact, a recent study estimated that Measure 27's labeling scheme would cost an average family of four an additional $550 a year
• Studies show that, by forcing many common food products to be repackaged or remade with higher-priced ingredients, Prop 37 would cost the average California family hundreds of dollars more per year for groceries.
• Ultimately, consumers will pay for this through higher costs at the grocery store. In fact, a separate economic study concluded that forcing products to be repackaged or remade with higher priced ingredients would cost the average California family up to $400 per year in higher grocery costs.
• The average family of four would be forced to shoulder an average of $500 in additional food costs each year and could be as high as $800 per year. (New York)

Oregon Right to Know | Donate

Oregon Right to Know | Donate:

Here in Oregon we're counting on supporters like you. We have until midnight to raise $20,000 – that’s a lot of money. The good news is we’re just a few hundred dollars short of our goal. But our records show that we haven’t received your donation yet. We are counting on you to help us beat our goal for this important deadline at midnight, tonight. Contact Record: 728 Name: Jack Olmsted Deadline: MIDNIGHT Suggested amount: $5   Whether it’s an apple that’s been genetically engineered not to brown or a salmon that’s had its genes spliced with an eel-like fish, we should have the right to decide for ourselves whether to eat genetically engineered foods. Stand with us tonight: http://action.oregonrighttoknow.org/donate Thanks, Oregon Right to Know Account Summary Information for July 1, 2014 Contributions Amount      Cash Contributions   $1,157,939.68      Loans Received (non-exempt)   $0.00      In-Kind   $4,620.20      Total Contributions   $1,162,559.88 Expenditures          Cash Expenditures   $984,623.49      Loan Payments (non-exempt)   $0.00      In-Kind   $4,620.20      Total Expenditures   $989,243.69 Cash Balance          Beginning Balance (Previous Year)   $0.00      Total Contributions   $1,162,559.88      Other Receipts   $134.00      Loans Received (exempt)   $0.00   subtotal : $1,162,693.88      Total Expenditures   $989,243.69      Other Disbursements   $20.00      Loan Payments (exempt)   $0.00   subtotal : $989,263.69      Balance Adjustments   $0.00      Ending Cash Balance   $173,430.19 Financial Status          Cash Balance   $173,430.19      Accounts Receivable   $0.00   subtotal : $173,430.19      Total Outstanding Loans   $0.00      Outstanding Personal Expenditures   $156.46      Accounts Payable   $34,790.29   subtotal : $34,946.75      Balance Deficit   $138,483.44

Oregon I-44 Finance Stream

Oregon Secretary Of State:

1720534	05/06/2014	Original	Oregon GMO Right to Know	Mercola.com Health Resources LLC **	Cash Contribution	$350,000.00
1718291	05/05/2014	Original	Oregon GMO Right to Know	Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps **	Cash Contribution	$250,000.00
1739085	06/06/2014	Original	Oregon GMO Right to Know	Fieldworks, LLC	Cash Expenditure	$250,000.00
1721773	05/08/2014	Original	Oregon GMO Right to Know	Fieldworks, LLC	Cash Expenditure	$200,000.00
1702725	04/17/2014	Original	Oregon GMO Right to Know	Organic Consumers Fund **	Cash Contribution	$100,000.00
1741700	05/30/2014	Original	Oregon GMO Right to Know	Clif Bar and Co. **	Cash Contribution	$100,000.00
1695341	04/04/2014	Original	Oregon GMO Right to Know	Committee for Oregon's Right to Know (16554)	Cash Contribution	$92,696.79
1736014	05/29/2014	Original	Oregon GMO Right to Know	Fieldworks, LLC	Cash Expenditure	$84,000.00
1739124	06/04/2014	Original	Oregon GMO Right to Know	Karen Swift	Cash Contribution	$75,000.00
1724218	05/10/2014	Original	Oregon GMO Right to Know	GBA Strategies	Cash Expenditure	$44,000.00
1741677	06/05/2014	Original	Oregon GMO Right to Know	Fieldworks, LLC	Account Payable	$38,696.78
1737175	05/28/2014	Original	Oregon GMO Right to Know	Fieldworks, LLC	Account Payable	$36,523.10
1695346	04/13/2014	Original	Oregon GMO Right to Know	OLDMIXON HILL	Cash Expenditure	$26,594.90
1741691	06/09/2014	Original	Oregon GMO Right to Know	So Delicious Dairy Free	Cash Contribution	$25,000.00

1703110 04/19/2014 Original Oregon GMO Right to Know Moxie Media Cash Expenditure $13,786.00
1729376 05/18/2014 Original Oregon GMO Right to Know Moxie Media Cash Expenditure $5,000.00"