GMO Labeling Ballot Measure in Oregon

From: Stephenson, Garry (Garry.Stephenson@ORST.EDU)
Date: Thu Oct 24 2002 - 19:51:20 EDT


Greetings,
 
Some of you may be following the ballot measure in Oregon that will =
require labeling of all GMO ingredients in food products. It has been a =
contentious debate with over $6 million in funds from outside of Oregon =
being used to fight the measure. Proponents say people have the right to =
know what is in the food they eat. Opponents say the food is safe and =
the cost of labeling would be prohibitive. Below is a news release =
related to a study by an Oregon State University agricultural economist =
on the estimated cost of labeling. It includes a link to the full =
report. The cost is less than claimed by opponents to the measure.
 
Garry
Garry Stephenson
Extension Small Farm Program
Oregon State University

OSU ECONOMIST ESTIMATES COST OF GM FOOD LABELS (10/23/02)

CORVALLIS - An economics professor at Oregon State University reports =
that requiring labels for genetically modified foods could cost an =
average Oregonian less than a dollar a year, or as much as $10, =
depending on how requirements are defined and applied.

Oregonians will decide Nov. 5 whether to approve Measure 27, which would =
require labeling of genetically modified (GM) foods and ingredients. If =
voters pass the measure, Oregon would become the first state in the =
nation to require such labeling.

Jaeger, an economist and Extension agriculture and resource policy =
specialist for OSU's Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, =
has produced a research paper titled "Economic Issues and Oregon's =
Ballot Measure 27: Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods." It estimates =
costs associated with labeling GM foods.

"(The paper) is based on economic studies of GM labeling programs in =
Great Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand," Jaeger said. "It =
examines these cost estimates and considers differences between these =
programs and the proposed Oregon program."

Measure 27 is similar to GM labeling options being considered in the =
United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia, where the estimated cost of =
GM labeling is $3 - $10 a year for each person. Based on these costs, =
the OSU study estimates the annual government cost of the Oregon ballot =
measure would amount to between $100,000 and $1.25 million.

Jaeger's paper is an analysis of five alternative options for GM =
labeling that range in cost and complexity. These cost estimates range =
from 23 cents a year for each consumer for labeling only those products =
made directly from genetically modified foods, to $3.89 for labeling of =
products in which genetically modified substances were used during =
production or processing.

Measure 27's costs would be at the high end of the range because of how =
extensively genetically modified products are defined in the measure, =
Jaeger said. For example, the more expensive estimate includes the =
labeling of meat, eggs, and dairy products produced from animals fed =
genetically modified feed, as does Measure 27.

Some U.S. food producers and exporters already separate genetically =
modified foods from the rest to comply with GM labeling requirements in =
effect in other nations.

Twenty-two nations, including Great Britain, France, Australia, Japan, =
South Korea, and Mexico - and the European Union - have passed =
regulations that require GM food labeling. Because of this, Jaeger said, =
extra costs due directly to GM labeling requirements in Oregon may be =
reduced.

Corn, soybeans, canola and cotton account for most of the genetically =
manufactured crops grown in the United States. Few genetically modified =
crops are grown in Oregon, which would reduce the cost to farmers of =
complying with Measure 27 if it passes, Jaeger said.

Less than 1 percent of farm sales in Oregon come from growing =
genetically modified corn or soybeans. Oregon farmers grow virtually no =
canola or cotton.

Jaeger's analysis also addressed key questions about Measure 27, such as =
what effect it might have on food producers, and how it might affect the =
competitiveness of locally made products, product availability, =
transportation costs, and trade status.

Another consequence of GM labeling could be that Oregon products might =
be at a competitive disadvantage when sold in other states, Jaeger said. =
Consumers who see the words "genetically modified" or "genetically =
engineered" on a label might opt for an identical product that does not =
have the label, and this could raise the costs of Measure 27.

The entire text of Jaeger's study can be found at =
http://eesc.oregonstate.edu. Click on "publications and videos," then =
select "community development and government" to access the document.

Many foods now on grocer's shelves contain GM ingredients, including =
corn chips, corn taco shells; soft drinks containing high fructose corn =
syrup, soymilk, and canola oil.

Genetic modification, also known as genetic engineering or genetic =
alteration, all are terms that refer to the practice of transferring a =
genetic trait from one species into another. The resulting modified =
species has characteristics that would not have occurred naturally, or =
would have required years of traditional breeding methods, Jaeger said.

Genetic modification in agriculture has been controversial since it came =
to light in the late 1990s.

At the heart of the complex and contentious debate, proponents of =
genetic modification in agriculture contend that it is a safe, valuable =
tool for efficiently producing more food, even in poor soils and dry =
conditions, Jaeger said. They point out that some genetically modified =
crops require fewer pesticides, an environmental bonus.

Those critical of applying genetic modification to agriculture contend =
that its safety to health and the environment is unproven, and its =
developers too quickly and too quietly applied the new technology to =
crop production in the mid-1990s, without much regard to public concerns =
about the potential risks of GM technology.

Supporters of labeling contend that consumers have a right to know what =
is in their food to make informed choices, Jaeger said.

By Theresa Novak, 541-737-3378

SOURCE: William Jaeger, 541-737-1419

 


.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 21 2003 - 15:26:38 EDT