Opponents of a genetically modified organism labeling initiative in Oregon say the measure would hurt growers who sell directly to the public.
Measure 92 would require processors to label packaged foods that contain genetically modified ingredients. Retailers selling unpackaged raw commodities containing GMOs would be required to provide signage.
Under Measure 92, citizens can file lawsuits accusing retailers and manufacturers of violating the GMO labeling requirement.
Growers are not subject to lawsuits unless they also manufacture or retail food products.
Critics of mandatory labeling are worried the initiative will create legal liabilities for growers who make jams, jellies or other processed products from their crops and sell them through farmers markets or other outlets.
“That’s going to be a lot of smaller operators that are trying to do value-added products,” said Katie Fast, vice president of public policy at the Oregon Farm Bureau.
Growers who don’t cultivate genetically engineered crops themselves would still bear the burden of proving that other product ingredients aren’t transgenic, said Barry Bushue, the OFB’s president.
“I think it creates a real litigation risk for farmers,” he said.
Measure 92 would create extra work for growers who sell value-added products, Fast said. A farmer who makes jams, for example, would have to find out whether his sugar supply is non-GMO.
If not, the farmer would then face the choice of seeking a different and more expensive sugar source or labeling his product as being produced with genetic engineering, which would carry a stigma, she said.
Even farmers who don’t sell to the public would be affected by the measure, as their buyers would require them to sign affidavits indicating whether crops are biotech or not, Fast said.
Buyers who are fearful of liability may require farmers to use separate equipment to handle, store and transport conventional and transgenic crops, she said. “If you’re doing some food processing, you could be putting in extra lines.”
Sandeep Kaushik, a spokesman for supporters of Measure 92, said that the initiative has strong protections for farmers and that opponents are exaggerating the risks.
“These arguments are red herring talking points from the big agribusiness companies and don’t represent the views of many if not most family farmers,” he said.
Only retailers and manufacturers who knowingly mislead consumers about GMOs would be subject to lawsuits, Kaushik said.
Food manufacturers simply need an affidavit about whether an ingredient is genetically engineered or not, he said. “Once you have that affidavit, you’re protected from liability.”
Many countries already require GMO food labeling and they haven’t seen major increases in food production costs or huge market shifts, Kaushik said.
“This is not a new idea,” he said. “We have a lot of real world experience to judge whether these claims from labeling opponents make sense. They don’t.”
Mandatory labeling would likely increase revenues for Oregon farmers, since most crops grown in the state are not genetically engineered, said Chris Hardy, a farmer in Jackson County, Ore., who supports Measure 92.
Consumers will favor non-GMO products from Oregon rather than processed foods from out of state, which often contain biotech ingredients, he said. “People are not going to want to eat this stuff and will have the choice to support more local choices in the state.”
New transgenic crops, like apples and potatoes, are currently in the development pipeline and may face a consumer backlash when they’re commercialized, said Ivan Maluski, director of Friends of Family Farmers, a group that supports labeling.
By requiring labeling for such transgenic crops, the initiative would protect Oregon farmers from negative associations among consumers, he said. “We shouldn’t have to prove they’re not GMO. That burden should be on the new products coming onto the market.”
Source: www.capitalpress.com