|
|
People are talking
Why all GE foods
should be labeled
|
|
The Oregon Department of Administrative Services released an estimate
of the government costs associated with Measure 27. However, the
cost estimates incorrectly assume that food services such as restaurants,
and high school and hospital cafeterias, will be affected by Measure
27. They won’t. Oregon Concerned Citizens for Safe Foods has
revised the DAS estimates to reflect this fact. Changes to the document
are reflected by strikethroughs. New explanatory text is
reflected by underlines.
Measure Number: Measure 27 (Initiative 23)
Subject: Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods
Government Unit Affected: Department of Agriculture
Prepared By: Laurie Byerly, Department of Administrative
Services
Date: July 22, 2002
Comments: This measure requires label stating
"Genetically Engineered" on surface or outside packaging
of genetically engineered (as defined) foods sold or distributed
in or from Oregon. Defines "genetically engineered" to
mean produced by biological changes to the molecular or cell biology
of an organism by means not possible under natural conditions. Breeding,
conjugation, fermentation, hybridization, in-vitro fertilization,
and tissue culture processes are excluded from the definition. Defines
"food" to mean any article used for food or drink for
man or other animals, chewing gum, and articles used for components,
including food additives. Labeling applies to all foods derived
from, or prepared with, genetically engineered material, regardless
of whether the material is present in the final product. Creates
additional label language for certain foods significantly different
from natural counterparts or food resulting from trans-species gene
transfers. Requires Oregon State Department of Agriculture to create
the label. Requires the legislature to prescribe, enact and enforce
measures implementing the labeling program.
Fiscal Impact Summary:
Adoption of this ballot measure directly impacts workload and expenditures
for the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA). Using estimates
based on specific assumptions and experience from the United States
Department of Agriculture National Organic Program, annual program
costs are projected at $11,260,000 [$2,424,000]. Additional
start-up costs during the initial year of the program are estimated
to be $6,340,000 [$3,700,000 ($700,000 EQUIPMENT + $3,000,000
DATABASE*)]. This fiscal impact summary is based on two assumptions:
1) ODA will meet the label creation requirement by establishing
label language and placement guidelines through the adoption of
administrative rules.
2) The legislature will delegate enforcement of the labeling law
to ODA; the agency would test foods and audit production processes
to regulate the program.
Lab testing of food samples would check foods for genetically engineered
ingredients and appropriate product labeling. A process audit would
check products for which sample testing is either inappropriate
or ineffective by examining production steps for the use of genetically
engineered substances. Based on test and audit results, the product
label would be reviewed for accuracy, completeness, and appropriate
display. It is anticipated that these activities would take place
both in retail and food service environments.
Retail Environment
Testing in the retail environment would focus on food products available
for direct sale to consumers in retail stores, through distributors,
or from producers. Collection and testing of 5,000 food samples
per year, representing five percent of an estimated 100,000 retail
food items, would cost approximately $1,490,000 annually. This amount
is based on lab costs of $250 per sample and three positions at
$80,000 each. It is estimated that the first year of the program
will require an additional $460,000 for start-up lab equipment and
other one-time costs.
Auditing in the retail environment would require audits at warehouses,
processors, retailers, and ports throughout the state. To foster
program compliance, approximately 25,000 food products, or 25% of
an estimated 100,000 items, would be audited each year, at an estimated
annual cost of $774,000. This cost is based on eight auditing positions
at $80,000 each, one clerical position at $43,000 and one supervisor
at $91,000. Initial start-up costs for the first year would be approximately
$240,000 for equipment and supplies.
Food Service Environment
Testing in the food service environment would focus on food products
served to consumers by restaurants and other food service providers.
Sampling five percent of an estimated 400,000 menu items offered
in Oregon restaurants would require testing 20,000 products annually,
at a projected ongoing cost of $5,960,000 per year. This amount
is based on lab costs of $250 each and 12 staff at $80,000 each.
Initial start-up costs for the first year would be approximately
$1,840,000 for lab equipment and supplies.
Auditing in the food service environment would require audits
at restaurants and other food service providers. To foster program
compliance, approximately 100,000 food products, or 25% of an estimated
400,000 items, would be audited each year, at an estimated annual
cost of $2,876,000. This cost is based on 32 auditing positions
at $80,000 each, three supervisors at $91,000 and one clerical position
at $43,000. Initial start-up costs for the first year would be approximately
$960,000 for equipment and supplies.
Other Program Costs
To adequately track and monitor food products testing and program
compliance, the need for developing a database is highly likely.
Based on previous systems development for the department, it is
estimated database development will initially cost $3,000,000 with
$160,000 in ongoing system support costs. (*M27 NOTE: CLARIFICATION
OF EXCLUSION OF “FOOD SERVICE” COMPLIANCE MAY REDUCE
DATABASE COSTS OR MAKE THE NEED UNLIKELY ALTOGETHER)
Program Funding
Other food monitoring programs administered by the Department are
supported by a combination of General Fund and Other Funds fee revenues.
For this particular program, since entities outside the state and
the country are affected, it may be difficult and potentially illegal
to implement a fee-based program.
COLORADO: May 2000 Title Board Summary (Ballot Initiative to
Label Genetically Engineered Foods)
“The summary prepared by the Board is as follows:
…The initiative contains exemptions for restaurants and retail
establishments that sell prepared foods and provides legal protection
for persons who do not knowingly sell or distribute foods that contain
genetically engineered materials after making reasonable investigation.
The initiative delegates to the general assembly the responsibility
to create enforcement mechanisms and provide funding for the labeling
requirements and enforcement provisions. It permits the general
assembly to make statutory revisions that are consistent with the
intent of this initiative.
The fiscal impact of the measure on state government is expected
to be significant, and at or in excess of $1.2 million initially
and $1.2 million per year for implementation. The measure is not
expected to have any significant impact on local governments.”
(Emphasis added)
CALIFORNIA
“Date: September 14, 2001 File No.: SA2001RF0021
The Attorney General of California has prepared the following title
and summary of the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure:
LABELING OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Provides that all foods sold or distributed in or from California
that contain, or are produced with, “genetically engineered
material” shall bear labels stating: “Genetically engineered.
NOTICE: This product contains genetically engineered material or
was produced with genetically engineered material.” Requires
labels for “genetically engineered foods” to specify
(1) changes in a food’s composition, nutritional value, or
required preparation steps that are due to genetic engineering,
(2) details of any “trans-species gene transfer,” and
(3) details of any transfer of animal genes into plants. Violations
of these provisions shall be a misdemeanor. Summary of estimate
by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact
on state and local government: This measure would probably result
in state costs of several million dollars annually and potential
state revenue reductions that are probably minor in the context
of overall state revenues. It could also result in unknown, but
probably no significant, costs for local government.” (Emphasis
added)
|
|
