Anti-GMO Initiatives in Oregon and Colorado: Science Wins in Centennial State – Outcome Uncertain in Beaver State

Voters in the Oregon and
Colorado were asked to vote on ballot initiatives that would
require many foods made with ingredients derived from modern
biotech crops to be labeled as such. Science won in Colorado with
voters
rejecting the mandatory labeling requirement by 68 to 32
percent. The Oregon vote is still too close to call, but the vote
was
51 percent against labeling and 49 percent in favor. The final
results in Oregon may not be known until Friday.

Both initiatives are egregiously unscientific, but the Oregon
Measure 92 is particularly dishonest. Measure 92
misleadingly asserts that the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration…

…does not require or conduct safety studies of genetically
engineered foods. Instead, any safety consultations are voluntary,
and genetically engineered food developers may decide what
information to provide to the agency. Market approval of
genetically engineered food is based on industry research
alone.

Of course, this is precisely the way in which new
pharmaceuticals are regulated and approved. Companies keep
providing information about each new crop variety to the FDA
regulators until they have no more questions. In any case, this
process is unnecessary. If a trait (pest resistance or herbicide
resistance) is safe in one crop it is safe in all crops. There
should be no need for approval for each new variety.

Another false Measure 92 finding and declaration is …

The genetic engineering of plants and animals often causes
unintended consequences. Manipulating genes via genetic engineering
and inserting them into organisms is an imprecise process. The
results are not always predictable or controllable. Mixing plant,
animal, bacterial and viral genes through genetic engineering in
combinations that cannot occur in nature may produce results that
lead to adverse health or environmental consequences.

The proponents of Measure 92 offer no examples of “adverse
health or environmental consequences.” Why? Because none have been
reported. As I have
noted elsewhere:

The World Health Organization
flatly states, “No effects on human health have been shown as a
result of the consumption of such foods by the general population
in the countries where they have been approved.”

In 2010, a European Commission review
of 50 studies on the safety of biotech crops found “no scientific
evidence associating GMOs with higher risks for the environment or
for food and feed safety than conventional plants and
organisms.”

At its annual meeting in June, 2013 the American Medical
Association endorsed a report on the
labeling of bioengineered foods from its Council on Science and
Public Health. The report concluded that “Bioengineered foods have
been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt
consequences on human health have been reported and/or
substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.”

And one other bit of misinformation is the claim that …

The cultivation of genetically engineered crops can have serious
effects on the environment. For example, in 2013, 93 percent of all
soy grown in the U.S. was engineered to be herbicide resistance. In
fact, the vast majority of genetically engineered crops are
designed to withstand herbicides, and therefore promote
indiscriminate herbicide use. As a result, genetically engineered,
herbicide resistant crops have caused 527 million pounds of
additional herbicides to be applied to the nation’s farmland.

Actually, the USDA released in May, 2014 its report, Pesticide
Use in U.S. Agriculture: 21 Selected Crops, 1960-2008, in
which it analyzed the trends in herbicide and pesticide use. The
study found that herbicide applications peaked at 478 million
pounds in 1981 and since drifted down to 394 million pounds in
2008, the latest year for which the agency has figures.
Interestingly, Measure 92 fails to mention that pesticide
applications peaked in 1972 at 158 million pounds and has now
fallen to 29 million pounds. Why? Because of crops genetically
engineered to resist insect and other pests.

Colorado’s
Proposition 105 is more succinct in its misleading
assertions:

(3) U.S. FEDERAL LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR THE REGULATION ON THE
SAFETY AND LABELING OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD;

(4) THE LONG TERM HEALTH, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
OF GROWING AND CONSUMING GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD ARE NOT YET
FULLY RESEARCHED AND ARE NOT YET WELL UNDERSTOOD BY SCIENCE
….

Measure 92 would require that “Genetically Engineered” clearly
and conspicuously appear on the front or back of the package of
foods using ingredients from biotech crops by January, 2016.
Similarly, Proposition 105 would mandate “PRODUCED WITH GENETIC
ENGINEERING” APPEAR IN A CLEAR AND CONSPICUOUS MANNER ON ITS LABEL”
by July, 2016.

Addendum: A referendnum in Maui County in Hawaii passed 50 to 48
percent to
ban the growing of biotech crops in the jurisdiction. For more
background on the scientifically idiotic campaign against biotech
crops in Hawaii see my article, “The
Fable of Hawaiian Frankencorn.”