News Update From The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear News Update Subscribers, Great news! Legendary musician Paul McCartney has endorsed Oregon's Measure 27 to require labeling on genetically engineered foods. He has even recorded a radio spot promoting the Yes on Measure 27 effort. You can hear the actual 30 second commercial featuring Paul McCartney if you have the Real Audio Player on your computer by going to the following link: http://www.voteyeson27.com/yeson27PAUL.rm If you would like to read the Press Release about Paul McCartney's endorsement and radio ad, go to: http://www.voteyeson27.com/mccartney.htm MEASURE 27: THE MOVIE! Friends of the Earth has facilitated the production of an entertaining and informative flash video about Oregon Measure 27. After you watch the flash movie, you can use the form on the same web page to send a suggestion to your friends to also watch the video. To watch the video, go to: http://www.voteyeson27.com/flash/index.html After you watch the flash video, you can send an instant e-mail out to eight of your friends inviting them to check out the flash film. This process is automated so you can quickly send out a second group of eight e-mails, and a third, and so on, until you let all your friends and family know about the online flash video. Naturally, voters who live in Oregon are by far the most important individuals to contact. But people throughout the United States and in other countries may be interesting in seeing the flash video about Measure 27. Let's see how many people we can get to watch the flash video. And these same folks may want to hear the Paul McCartney radio endorsement. Posted below are five articles about Oregon Measure 27. The first article is from Oregon Public Broadcasting Radio titled "Measure 27 Gets Backed by A Beatle." The second article is an editorial from the University of Oregon Daily Emerald Newspaper endorsing Measure 27. The third article is from The Oregonian titled "Measure 27's estimated cost varies widely." The fourth article is from the Statesman Journal titled "Altered food labels a contentious measure" and the last article is from Associated Press titled "Food labels could reflect genetically altered crops." Craig Winters Executive Director The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods The Campaign PO Box 55699 Seattle, WA 98155 Tel: 425-771-4049 Fax: 603-825-5841 E-mail: mailto:la...@thecampaign.org Web Site: http://www.thecampaign.org Mission Statement: "To create a national grassroots consumer campaign for the purpose of lobbying Congress and the President to pass legislation that will require the labeling of genetically engineered foods in the United States." *************************************************************** Measure 27 Gets Backed by A Beatle Jeff Brady PORTLAND, OR 2002-10-24 (OPB Radio) - Backers of a measure to require labels on genetically engineered food have gotten a boost from Former Beatle Paul McCartney. He's recorded the group's first radio commercial, which started airing Thursday. McCartney's on a cell phone and the sound is kind of scratchy, but Measure 27's supporters are very excited to have the former Beatle on their side. Paul McCartney: Hi, this is Paul McCartney here and I'm calling to show my support for Yes on 27 the resolution to label genetically engineered food. McCartney was in Portland last week for a concert. He contacted some Measure 27 supporters who asked him to record the radio commercial. Paul McCartney: Back in Europe we have that choice. Our food is labeled and it hasn't increased any costs for the consumer or the farmer The ad will run on radio stations throughout the state, but backers say not as often as their opponents' ads are airing. Those opposed to Measure 27 have a lot more money. Backers also received a boost from an Oregon State University report that analyzed the cost of the measure. OSU Economics Professor Bill Jaeger concluded that opponents' had severely overestimated how much Measure 27 would cost the government and consumers. Bill Jaeger: I think they're highly exaggerated and I don't think they come from, what I would consider to be an authoritative or carefully done economic analysis. Jaeger found a family of four would spend between 12 and 40 dollars a year more on food if the measure passes. That's much less than the 550 dollars a year Measure 27's opponents estimate. While opponents were not available to comment on tape, they did say Jaeger's estimates are lower because he's interpreting the language in the measure too narrowly. They contend the measure's language is so broad that the labeling requirement would apply to things the sponsors never intended such as restaurant food. Jaeger admits the language in Measure 27 is vague on some issues including the restaurant question. One of Measure 27's sponsors, Katelyn Lord, says the proposal will not apply to restaurants if it passes. Lord says she and her co-petitioner will fight any effort to include restaurants. Katelyn Lord: Anyone who's coming in and saying, We think that you should interpret it this way would have a very, very high hill to climb, legally. And I don't know who has an interest in doing that. I have not met one person who has an interest in doing that. The Oregon legislature and the state Department of Agriculture will have the final say over the scope of the measure if it passes. Meanwhile state officials are investigating allegations that a Corvallis food cooperative may have violated state election law by giving its customer discounts if they worked to pass Measure 27. A member of the co-op filed the complaint after learning customers working on the campaign were being given a 15-percent discount. It's difficult to say how voters are leaning on Measure 27. Nationally, polls show people support labeling GE food. But two local polls conducted by newspapers and TV stations indicated mixed results on the measure. *************************************************************** Editorial: Mandating gene-spliced food labels a fair measure Emerald editorial board - University of Oregon October 24, 2002 We heartily endorse Measure 27. It is only fair that the people know what they are eating -- especially if it contains genetically engineered products. The problems, or lack thereof, with genetically engineered foods are not yet known; hence the problem. While scientists for the British Department of Health have determined in short-term studies that some of the more extreme scenarios carry little risk, there are other worries about allergic reactions and whether certain GE foods may affect the body differently than non-GE food would. For instance, what if genes from a nut were placed in corn? Could it affect those who could have potentially deadly reactions to nuts? There haven't been enough studies, and all the possible combinations of plant genes that could be used in GE food make a comprehensive study daunting, if not impossible. Further, there are environmental implications that farmers may not foresee when they plant GE crops. Some research suggests that the natural pesticides created by some GE plants are indiscriminately harmful and will kill species outside of the few that prey on that crop. There is also concern that GE plants and weeds will intermingle, and that genes that make the crop more hardy will be transferred to the weeds, causing some agricultural havoc. Given these potential risks, it seems sensible to label the unknown quantity for consumers. People tend to get rightfully indignant when they're used as an unwitting test subject. The opponents of Measure 27 point to an immense cost in keeping records to show that all the foods used their product are GE-free if they want to avoid the label. They would like us to forget that they've had to do a very similar process for almost 100 years. Labeling of foods is neither a risky scheme nor anything new. People may not realize that ingredient labeling has been required for a number of different reasons since the early 20th century. First, the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, enacted in the wake of Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle," ordered that all ingredients had to be listed on the food's packaging, and that there had to be proof that the foods were not adulterated. This proof usually consists of diligent record-keeping by the manufacturers or producers. Further, products have had labels for other purposes for quite a long time. For decades, most companies -- even ones that don't produce foods -- have actively sought Jewish kosher certification for their foods and kitchen products, and since the 1990s, all foods have been required to have standardized nutritional info on their packaging. Now, the FDA is allowing those manufacturers who can prove that their food is totally organic to put a label attesting to the fact. Measure 27 is a reasonable plan. If it passes, we have only one suggestion: The measure should offer a scale telling what percentage of the food is genetically engineered. *************************************************************** Measure 27's estimated cost varies widely The Oregonian 10/24/02 What could it cost Oregonians to have genetically modified foods labeled? It depends on who is doing the estimating. Proponents say it would cost each resident 71 cents a year. Their estimate accounts for increased state government costs to regulate the labeling but assumes that producers and retailers will not raise consumer prices. In contrast, a study commissioned by opponents found Measure 27 could cost an Oregon family of four $550 a year. This week, Oregon State University released a study that says Measure 27 could cost Oregonians $3 to $10 a year, which would include costs passed on by producers and state government. William Jaeger, an OSU economics professor and agricultural and resource policy specialist, reviewed economic studies of genetically modified food labeling in the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. He found that Measure 27 would be similar to labeling programs in the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia, where the estimated cost is $3 to $10 a year. He also concluded that the cost for state government to implement and regulate the labeling program would range from $100,000 to $1.25 million a year, depending on the details of the labeling rules. That's far lower than an estimate prepared by the state Department of Administrative Services that said annual costs could be as high as $11.3 million a year if restaurants were included. Pat McCormick, spokesman for the "No on Measure 27" campaign, said his group stands by its original $550-a-family estimate. Jaeger was "ambiguous in his understanding and interpretation of the measure," he said. Katelyn Lord, one of Measure 27's chief petitioners, says supporters of food labeling are comfortable with Jaeger's findings. The Legislature would determine labeling rules and how much would be spent on regulation if Measure 27 passes Nov. 5. *************************************************************** Altered food labels a contentious measure If voters approve, Oregon would be the first state to mark genetically engineered ingredients. MICHAEL ROSE Statesman Journal (Salem, Oregon) October 22, 2002 Oregon, a state known for setting national trends, is stepping ahead of the pack again with Measure 27. The law would require labels on foods "sold or distributed in or from Oregon" that contain genetically engineered material. It's become a battle between grass roots activists who say Measure 27 is all about the public's right to know versus opponents who say the labeling law could cost Oregon residents plenty. The two sides also are miles apart in their interpretations of the labeling law. They disagree, for example, on whether restaurants would need to label foods and whether Northwest grain exported from Oregon would be subject to labeling. Restaurateur Bill McCormick and grocer Brian Rohter both have careers that revolve around food, but they're on opposite sides of the debate over Measure 27. McCormick sees a "closed for business" label slapped on Oregon should voters pass Measure 27. The president of the McCormick & Schmick's Restaurants worries that what's tempting to the palate could become secondary to tracking the origins of hundreds of food ingredients if Measure 27 becomes law. "It's absolutely ridiculous," said McCormick. The broadly worded law would require restaurants to put "genetic disclaimers" on menu items, he said. That strikes at the heart of the upscale restaurant chain's practice of updating menus twice daily. It would be a nightmare of higher costs and red tape to track every ingredient that might contain a speck of genetically engineered material. Meanwhile, labeling law supporter Rohter, president of New Seasons Market, said the "sky is going to fall" predictions are hype. "Our customers want the information and they have the right to it," said Rohter, who oversees four grocery stores in the Portland area. Shoppers are talking about Measure 27 and the majority support the labeling law, said Rohter, whose neighborhood grocery stores sell Frosted Flakes and Doritos along with a selection of organic products. Industry groups raised a similar uproar when Oregon passed the landmark bottle bill, he said. By some estimates, 80 percent of all foods sold in supermarkets contain at least one genetically engineered ingredient. Measure 27 would be the nation's first law requiring labels. Measure 27 backers say the intent of the law is to label foods on grocery store shelves - not those sold in restaurants or elsewhere. They're counting on the legislature to draft rules to clarify how the labeling program would work after the election. Critics of genetically engineered foods, called GE foods for short, argue that too little is known about them, putting the environment and human health at risk. The U.S. government's official position is that genetically engineered products are as safe as conventional foods. Jeff Watson, store manager at LifeSource Natural Foods in Salem, said his customers frequently want to know if a product contains a GE food. He wants Measure 27 to pass. "You can't get a baby formula without GMO (genetically modified organisms) in this country," Watson said. Labeling requirements for GE foods are either in place or are being implemented in the 15 countries of the European Union, as well as Australia, Brazil, the Czech Republic, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Korea, Switzerland, Taiwan and Thailand. Supporters of Measure 27 say labeling of genetically engineered products has been rolled out in those countries without leading to the many problems Measure 27 opponents assert. Opponents of labeling say the requirements and the associated costs extends well beyond supermarket shelves in Oregon. "It would be pretty much of a disaster for agriculture," said Andy Anderson, former president of the Oregon Farm Bureau, who now is working to defeat Measure 27. The anti-labeling camp says Measure 27 casts such a large net that wheat and other agricultural commodities exported through the Port of Portland might be required to have a special label. Farmers, food processors and grocery distributors serving multistate regions would face the prospect of putting what amounts to a warning label on their products, they say. That would give Oregon products a stigma that would harm national and international sales. Anderson said the law's definitions of what qualifies as genetically engineered also goes far beyond what the term has traditionally meant. Meat and milk from animals given feeds containing genetically engineered material would need a label. So would foods made from genetically engineered enzymes, even if the enzymes are not present in the finished product. Measure 27's list of opponents reads like a who's who of the American grocery aisle: Nestle, General Mills, Proctor & Gamble, Pepsico, Kellogg and Hershey, to name a few. The biggest contributions, though, came from a group of six chemical and biotechnology companies who collectively gave $3.7 million to Croplife International, based in Brussels, Belgium. Monsanto topped the list, contributing nearly $1.5 million. Then there are opponents such as Pieper Sweeney, a Dayton farmer who also markets a line of syrups and preserves. While none of the fruits used in the products contain genetically engineered materials, soy-based inks used on the packaging might qualify them for labeling. "All it's going to accomplish is frighten people," Sweeney said. One estimate by the Department of Administrative Services determined it would cost $11.2 million in annual ongoing costs - plus $6.3 million in first year start-up costs. But organic farmer Harry MacCormack said the numerous problems opponents cite with the law are a smokescreen. "It comes down to, they don't want people to know. They never have," said MacCormack, a co-founder of Oregon Tilth, a nonprofit agency that certifies organic farms. Given the choice, he said, many shoppers would pass on genetically engineered food. *************************************************************** Food labels could reflect genetically altered crops By William McCall Associated Press Monday, October 21, 2002 - PORTLAND, Ore. -- The old adage "you are what you eat" has taken on new meaning for Oregon voters as they decide whether to make the state the first in the nation to require labeling the food from genetically engineered crops and livestock already landing on their plates. For many voters, the scientific debate has evolved beyond the scare tactics of "Frankenfood" activists claiming that mutant genes will run amok, parodied in the 1978 John DeBello comedy film "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes." But as the science and public understanding has improved, the political battle has intensified and many questions about altering even the simplest genes remain unanswered. Supporters of Measure 27, the initiative on the Nov. 5 ballot that would mandate labeling for genetically modified food, say scientific research has shown that engineering animals or crops can pose true health risks and potential environmental problems, such as introducing food that triggers allergic reactions. They say the Food and Drug Administration has ignored warnings from its own scientists and has virtually abandoned regulation of genetically engineered foods. "The FDA's own experts say they're unsafe," said Steven Druker, executive director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity, based in Fairfield, Iowa. The alliance, which has documented the debate among FDA researchers, sued the agency to force it to begin testing genetically modified food but a federal judge dismissed the case. As a result, Druker said, testing is voluntary and has been left to a food industry that already has put genetically modified ingredients in an estimated 70 percent of the processed food on U.S. grocery shelves. "Until these foods are examined in a scientific way and it's clear these foods do not entail any element of risk, they shouldn't be on the market," Druker said. Earlier this month, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., introduced legislation that would establish a mandatory approval process for genetically engineered foods. The bill followed a report by the National Academy of Sciences which found that current laws are inadequate to address environmental concerns posed by genetically engineered animals, such as salmon. "Congress needs to act to ensure that applications of this promising technology are safe to humans and the environment," said Eric Hallerman, a Virginia Polytechnic Institute fisheries and wildlife professor who was among 25 scientists who signed a petition calling for regulation of bioengineered crops. The petition was drafted by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which has steered a middle road through the controversy. The center says genetically engineered foods already on the market are safe to eat but it is urging regulatory reform and improved testing. "I think you still need a government watchdog," said Greg Jaffe, biotechnology director for the center. "These products don't have mandatory approval at FDA before they get on the market and I think it's one of the reasons people are pushing for labeling," Jaffe said. "Consumers want to know what they're eating -- they don't like what's hidden from them." Tom Zinnen, a biotechnology education professor at the University of Wisconsin, says that as the science grows more complex, explaining it in a meaningful way on a label becomes more difficult. "One of the core consumer issues that is a tradition in the United States is that labels have to meet two tests -- they must be truthful and not misleading," Zinnen said. "So coming up with a label that informs but not misleads, and gives consumers the right to know but doesn't stigmatize the product, is going to be a difficult challenge." The Agriculture Department will put into effect its National Organic Rule that allows a USDA seal for food produced without hormones, antibiotics, herbicides, pesticides or genetic modification. But it will still leave U.S. consumers without any labeling for modified food to indicate how many genetically engineered ingredients are contained. The bulk of the genetically modified food on the U.S. market comes from soybeans and corn, which are used in a wide variety of processed foods and drinks. But it amounts to relatively minor tinkering, scientists say, mostly to allow farmers to grow more pest-resistant crops that require less chemical treatment. Critics such as Druker say even minor genetic changes can be unpredictable, requiring careful testing over years, much the way the FDA tests prescription drugs. The proposed Oregon law, he says, will add pressure to require such testing. More ingenious and complicated genetic engineering research is under way that likely will need extensive testing, said Diane Stadler, an Oregon Health and Science University medical researcher who specializes in nutrition. But the proposed Oregon law may simply increase food costs and reduce availability in one state without explaining both the benefits and risks to consumers, she said. "We need to demystify the process and give people the ability to make good decisions," Stadler said. -- The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. Instructions for unsubscribing may be found at: http://silverlist.org To post, address your message to: silver-list@eskimo.com Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html List maintainer: Mike Devour <mdev...@eskimo.com>
