Labeling effects debated.

Byline: TIM CHRISTIE The Register-Guard

About that bowl of cornflakes you had for breakfast, or that soda pop you'll drink with lunch:

Did you know that those cornflakes and that cola were most likely made with genetically modified ingredients? And more importantly, do you care?

In fact, about 70 percent of processed foods now contain some genetically modified, or GM, ingredients, according to the grocery industry.

The question facing Oregon voters on Nov. 5, in the form of Measure 27, is whether those foods containing GM ingredients should be labeled as such.

Proponents' argue that not enough is known about the human health effects of GM foods, and that consumers have a right to know what's in the foods they eat. Opponents counter that labeling will be hugely expensive to consumers and taxpayers, hurt Oregon food businesses, and unnecessarily alarm consumers about foods that are perfectly safe.

Measure 27 is being closely watched by the food manufacturing and

processing industry, as well as by organic food advocates, who say that if it passes here, California, Washington and other states will be next.

"It would set a nationwide precedent if it passes, and set a milestone to preserve safe foods and consumer choice," said Brent Blackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth, a national environmental organization that supports the measure.

Food industry and biotech giants such as Monsanto, General Mills, Kellogg and CropLife International are contributing millions of dollars to defeat Measure 27. As of Sept. 20, the Coalition Against the Costly Labeling Law had raised $4.6 million from industry.

"We take seriously any suggestion that the products we make aren't safe," said Pat McCormick, the hired spokesman for the campaign to defeat Measure 27. "The allegations that are made by proponents, raising unfounded concerns about the food people are eating, is something we have a responsibility to set straight."

National polls indicate that a majority of consumers, when asked directly if they'd like to see GM foods labeled, say yes. But GM foods don't rise to the top of consumers' concerns when they're asked open-ended questions about food safety, said Michael Rodemeyer, executive director of the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, a Washington, D.C., think tank.

"It's partly a question of trust, and who makes decisions," he said. "If you ask people the question, do you have a right to know something, people will almost always say yes. ... There's a sense they are entitled to have information to make their own choices."

Most processed foods include ingredients such as corn syrup, corn starch, soybean oil, lecithin or cottonseed oil, which can be derived from GM corn, soybeans or cotton. Scientists will take a gene from one plant or animal and add it to another in order to enhance a specific trait, such as resistance to frost or pesticides.

Labels required in Europe

About 20 countries now require labeling of GM foods, including those in the European Union. The result of labeling in Europe is that GM foods aren't on grocery shelves because manufacturers have reformulated their products to be GM-free, or they've taken them off the market, Rodemeyer said.

If food processors are required to label GM foods in Oregon, they'll simply choose to use non-GM ingredients in their foods, predicted Craig Winters of Seattle, executive director of the Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods.

"They're seeing the handwriting on the walls right now," he said. "They know it's not going to stop with Oregon."

McCormick of the No on 27 campaign said there's a key difference between the European labeling law and what is proposed for Oregon. In Europe, foods containing at least 1 percent GM ingredients must be labeled, he said. Measure 27 would require labeling for foods containing 1/10th of 1 percent GM ingredients.

Measure 27 goes even further, McCormick said. It would require GM labels on foods derived from or prepared with GM ingredients, "whether or not that material is present in the final product."

The food industry agrees that consumers should know what's in their food and the relevant health and safety information, but Measure 27 doesn't provide relevant information, McCormick said.

"It doesn't reliably tell them if the food contains genetically modified ingredients," he said. "This mechanism doesn't help consumers. Anything we put on food that's confusing or misleading isn't in the best interest of consumers."

Supporters of Measure 27, such as Mel Bankoff of Eugene, founder of Emerald Valley Kitchens, maker of organic salsas and other foods, say most consumers aren't aware of the presence of GM ingredients in their food.

"The fact is, consumers don't have a choice, and they don't even know about it," he said.

Bankoff and other Measure 27 backers say not enough is known about how GM foods affect human health. Specifically, they're concerned that as a gene from one organism is spliced into another, it can create new, unique proteins, which could cause allergic reactions in humans.

Speaking at a pro-Measure 27 rally Thursday at the University of Oregon, Bankoff put it more bluntly, calling genetically engineered foods "bioterrorism."

"It attacks the very food we eat every day," he said.

Evidence of adverse health effects caused by GM foods is scarce. Part of the problem, Blackwelder said, is that people don't know GM ingredients are in the foods they eat, so if they have an allergic reaction, they'll won't know to attribute it to the GM ingredients.

The biggest black eye on bioengineered foods involved StarLink, a strain of corn developed to contain an insecticidal protein. The Environmental Protection Agency approved StarLink for animal feed but not for human food until additional testing was conducted.

But in 2000, a Friends of the Earth staff member tested taco shells purchased at a grocery store and found that they contained StarLink corn. Kraft Foods recalled 2 million to 3 million boxes of the taco shells.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention investigated 28 cases of allergic reaction reported by people who ate the taco shells. Investigators found no evidence that any of the allergic reactions were linked with hypersensitivity to the suspect protein in StarLink - but nor could they rule it out.

Costs of labeling in dispute

Supporters and opponents disagree about how hard Measure 27 would hit the pocketbooks of consumers and taxpayers.

The state Agriculture Department, which is charged with administering the law, estimates that the program would cost $11 million a year to carry out, plus start-up costs of $6 million.

Proponents dispute this estimate because the department's estimate is based on the labeling restaurant foods as well as groceries. Measure 27's authors say it wasn't their intent for the law to apply to restaurants and that the Agriculture Department's costs would be $2.4 million annually with start-up costs of $3.7 million.

The No on 27 campaign hired a Massachusetts company called Northbridge Environmental Management Consultants to estimate the costs of Measure 27. The firm concluded that it would cost $470 million to enforce the measure, adding about $550 a year to the grocery bill of a family of four.

Rick Wright, executive vice president of Eugene-based Market of Choice grocery stores, said consumers may have to pay a little more, but not a lot.

"I don't think it would have a huge effect," he said.

Wright is bucking his own industry by supporting Measure 27.

"I believe it's pretty important for consumers to be informed about what they're eating," he said. "Basically it's a choice issue."

Bankoff said consumers need to demand accountability and disclosure from food makers.

"I feel like trust is built by openness and full disclosure," he said, "and if a company, any company, is not able to fully disclose what their products are, then I think the consumer should be suspicious and should fully know why it is they need to withhold that information."

MEASURE 27: FOOD LABELING

What it does: Requires all foods that include ingredients that have been genetically modified to be labeled as such. It's estimated that 70 percent

of processed foods contain genetically modified ingredients.

Cost to taxpayers: The cost of the measure is in dispute. The state Agriculture Department says it will cost $11 million a year to administer, plus $6 million in start-up costs. Proponents say those costs are inflated because they're based on labeling restaurant foods, which they say won't be required. Opponents estimate that the law would cost a family of four $550 a year.

Supporters: Organic Consumer's Association; Pacific Green Party; Natural Law Party; Oregon Democratic Party; Oregon Tilth; Greenpeace; Friends of the Earth; Oregon Food Co-ops; Oregon League of Conservation Voters; Sierra Club, Oregon chapter; Union of Concerned Scientists.

Arguments for: Supporters say consumers have a right to know what's in their foods. They say not enough is known about genetically modified foods, and whether the unique proteins created when genetic material from an organism is spliced to another may cause allergies in humans. "Essentially, the American public is participating in a giant feeding experiment," campaign literature says.

Campaign contact: Oregon Concerned Citizens for Safe Foods: Web site: www.labelgefoods.com; e-mail: [e-mail]; phone: [phone] or (866) LABELGE (866-522-3543). The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods: www.thecampaign.org.

Opponents: Oregon Farm Bureau Federation; Oregon State Grange; Associated Oregon Industries; Oregon Grocery Industry Association; Oregon Restaurant Association; Oregon Food Processors FoodPAC; Oregon Family Farm Association.

Arguments against: Opponents say the cost of labeling genetically modified foods would be huge and lead to higher food prices. They say it would unnecessarily alarm consumers about foods that are perfectly safe. They say it would hurt Oregon food businesses.

Campaign contact: The Coalition Against the Costly Labeling Law. Phone: [phone]. E-mail: [e-mail]. Web site: www.votenoon27.com.