By R. Scott Rappold
WebMD Health News
Nov. 17, 2014 -- Voters in Colorado and Oregon rejected measures this month that would have required labels on foods made with genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
Such foods, a high-tech version of breeding that farmers have been doing for centuries, are made by transferring genes from one plant to another to grow larger crops that are more resistant to weeds and pests. Up to 90% of the corn, soybeans, and sugar beets grown in the U.S. are genetically modified.
Some activists and organic food advocates say there are too many unknowns about health impacts of eating genetically modified food, such as people with food allergies being sickened from ingredients they didn’t know about. Another concern is antibiotic-resistant genes being passed into the bacteria in the stomach.
But the FDA in 1992 said genetically modified crops are no different than regular crops and don't need to be labeled. The agency hasn't changed its stance.
Also, the National Academy of Sciences, after convening several independent panels over the years to review GMO research, found no evidence that eating genetically modified food impacts people’s health.
Research claiming to show bad health effects from eating GMOs has been roundly criticized. When French scientists released a 2012 study claiming rats that ate modified maize were getting tumors and dying early, other scientists attacked it as flawed, saying too few rats were tested and those used were already prone to tumors later in life. The journal Food and Chemical Toxicology retracted the study, though it has since been republished.
Food Fight
Both ballot measures drew intense resistance from the food industry.
In Colorado, the campaign against GMO labeling raised $16.6 million, compared to $895,000 spent by label supporters. The result was also lopsided, with 65.4% of the vote against mandatory labels.
Denver pollster Floyd Ciruli says the anti-labeling campaign did a better job of getting out its message: that labeling would hurt Colorado farmers. Some television ads featured the head of the state’s farm bureau.
“I think the difficulty it [the labeling measure] ran into was a multi-million dollar campaign, mostly with the message that the agriculture community felt it would be harmed by this initiative -- because it would have unintended consequences, because it was too excessive, because it was not well-drafted, and would hurt farm jobs and the way of life,” Ciruli says.
“While in general we like more information than less and safe food is important … The numbers of people who feel (GMOs) are really dangerous and really important is pretty modest.”
Opponents of the measure also argued that mandatory labels would increase grocery bills: Manufacturers would stop using GMOs in products shipped to Colorado, hurting efficiency, and the cost would be passed onto consumers, they said.
source : Voters in 2 States Reject GMO Labeling
