Measure 92, the GMO labeling initiative, is not about food safety.

An EU commissioned report titled “A Decade of EU-Funded GMO Research” states that “the main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not more risky than conventional plant breeding technologies.” The American Medical Association concludes 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 per-reviewed literature.” Other well-respected organizations making similar statements include the World Health Organization, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Health Canada, the Royal Society of Medicine and the French Academy of Sciences.

On the other hand, remember the recall of organic baby spinach last year in 39 states, including Oregon, for E. coli contamination? With a focus on GMOs, maybe we’re barking up the wrong tree.

Measure 92 is not about choice. If a consumer wants to avoid GMO-based products he can already do that by buying products labeled organic. In 2011 a listeria outbreak associated with cantaloupe resulted in 146 cases of illness with 33 deaths. Should cantaloupes carry a label stating “More likely to harbor pathogens than smooth-skinned melons” to inform consumers that honeydews may be the better choice? That might have saved lives. The nationally known chain that marketed these cantaloupes bought them from a small producer in Colorado. Should produce from small operators carry a label “Small producer” to warn consumers that their food safety processes may not be equal to that of large growers? In this case the small producer washed the melons, while the California cantaloupe industry has learned that moisture is the enemy of safety. We see that the list of information that a consumer might claim a right to know about is endless.

Actually, Measure 92 is about eliminating choice through a fear-based campaign to benefit organic farming. Andrew Kimbrell of the Center for Food Safety said, “We are going to force them to label this food. If we force them to label it, then we can organize people not to buy it.” Ronnie Cummins of the Organic Consumers Association said, “How quickly can we move healthy, organic products from a 4.2 percent niche to the dominant force in American food and farming? The first step is to change our labeling laws.”

Labeling will lead to higher prices. It’s not just a matter of printing a new label and pasting it on a can. It’s a matter of maintaining two separate supply and distribution chains; one for Oregon and one for the rest of the nation. That costs money and the consumer will pay for it. And, what will happen to prices if activists such as Cummins are successful in eliminating the affordable products we currently buy at the market? Use soup as an example. I can buy a 19 ounce can of my favorite Chicken and Sausage Gumbo from Amazon for $1.48. iHerb.com is selling 14.5 ounce cans of organic soup for anywhere between $3.56 and $4.50. Maybe Amy makes very good soup, but the body of research has not been able to identify any discernible difference in nutritional value between GMO and organic.

To understand the near-religious fanaticism of anti-GMO proponents, look at the story of golden rice. Genes from the yellow daffodil and a soil bacterium were inserted into the rice genome, allowing it to make a beta-carotene. This strain of rice could alleviate vitamin-A deficiencies that cause more than 250,000 children to go blind each year. Yet, Greenpeace and other anti-GMO groups have opposed its cultivation.

Buy organic if you want; even introduce a new non-GMO label. But reject Measure 92 and maintain choice for safe, affordable food products.

— Steve Stambaugh lives in Bend.