Almost all Americans want genetically engineered foods to be labeled.
The corporate special interests that oppose Measure 27 say it is an "attempt to push an extreme agenda." But the facts clearly show otherwise. According to an ABC News poll, 93 percent of Americans want genetically engineered foods to be labeled -- a level of unanimity so high it's almost unheard of in public opinion polls. Many other polls on labeling also show between 80 and 90 percent of Americans want labeling. Clearly, the American mainstream wants genetically engineered foods labeled. Biotech company Monsanto and its coalition associates are catering to the 7 percent who don't want labeling. Just who is pushing the extreme agenda?

Measure 27 will protect your right to know what's in your food.
Oregonians want to know what's in their food. Without labels, there's really no way for you to be sure whether you're buying foods that have been genetically manipulated or not. Genetic engineering is a very controversial and very young science, and many question marks surround the health and environmental safety of genetically engineered foods. You have the right to know what's in your food, and how it has been produced. Measure 27 would protect your right to know.

Measure 27 will empower you to choose whether to buy controversial genetically engineered foods for yourself and your family.
Given all the uncertainty and controversy, shouldn't you be able to go to the store and choose whether you will buy genetically manipulated foods for your family? Labeling would give you that simple choice.

Measure 27 will not raise the price of Oregon's food.
The opposition wants you to believe that Measure 27 would raise the price of food in Oregon. Yet, you'll notice that their ads and literature don't point to any examples of food prices going up in the 35 other countries around the world where labeling has been implemented -- including all of the European Union. Labeling laws in these countries have not increased consumer food costs.

Measure 27 will assist people who have religious or ethical problems with GE foods.
Vegetarians, for example, may not want to eat tomatoes that have been engineered to include flounder genes. But without labeling, they will have no way of knowing if they are eating hidden animal products -- such as rat genes in lettuce.

Measure 27's opponents are desperate to keep you from knowing what's in your food.
Monsanto and other biotech giants have foisted genetically engineered foods on the public in an aura of secrecy, with virtually no public debate. The Monsanto-led opposition now claims that labeling genetically engineered foods would create "scary-sounding labels." This is disingenuous, considering the great lengths to which the biotech industry has gone to keep genetically engineered foods secret. Are Monsanto and its coalition associates really saying that the average person is going to be scared of genetically engineered foods? Just what is it about genetically engineered foods that they are hiding from us? As one person asked, "Monsanto: If you're so proud of your products, why don't you label them?"

The government already supports labeling of certain foods for a wide range of reasons.
There is a long history of labeling foods in the United States. The government requires wines to be labeled if they contain sulfites. Food labels must indicate fat and caloric content, even though huge numbers of Americans are not overweight. Food labels must reveal the source of hydrolyzed proteins to accommodate vegetarians. To put it into perspective, the government requires labeling when orange juices are "made from concentrate." Shouldn't it also require labeling when the very genetic structure of the food has been changed?

Genetically engineered foods are poorly tested and their health and environmental impacts are not well understood.
Three agencies share responsibility for overseeing GE foods: the Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). But so far, they've been doing a much better job of passing the buck than creating a system of accountability and reliability.

Consider the case of the pesticidal potato. In the late 1990s, Monsanto put "New Leaf Superior" potato -- genetically engineered to produce the Bt pesticide in every one of its cells -- on the market. The FDA is responsible for food labeling, but refused to label the pesticidal potato; the agency told the New York Times that it has no authority to label pesticides, and that only the EPA can do that. Pesticides approved by the EPA usually carry a warning label. Bottles of pure Bt bear a label warning people not to inhale the substance and to avoid getting it in open wounds. However, since the Monsanto pesticidal potato is a food, the EPA says the responsibility for labeling falls on the FDA.

Moreover, no peer reviewed studies of the long-term impact of genetically engineered foods on humans or primates have been conducted. The FDA relies on the biotech industry to conduct its own safety studies, which biotech companies may voluntarily report to the FDA if they so choose. It's a situation that has many feeling like the U.S. government is letting the fox watch the chicken coop.

The Washington Post, in fact, says the lack of studies by the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency represent a "legacy of broken promises" to the American people.

The FDA ignored warnings about the safety of genetically engineered foods from their own scientists.
The FDA has consistently maintained that GE foods are safe, even though many scientists disagree. In June 1999, the Alliance for Bio-Integrity--one of the parties in a lawsuit against the FDA to force the agency to label GE foods-- received internal FDA documents that show that some of the FDA's own scientists have doubts about the safety of GE foods.

According to the Alliance, "so strong was the FDA's motivation to promote the biotech industry that it not only disregarded the warnings of its own scientists about the unique risks of gene-spliced foods, it dismissed them and took a public position that was the opposite."

"The FDA's records reveal," the Alliance adds, "it declared genetically engineered foods to be safe in the face of disagreement from its own experts--all the while claiming a broad scientific consensus supported its stance. Internal reports and memoranda disclose: (1) agency scientists repeatedly cautioned that foods produced through recombinant DNA technology entail different risks than do their conventionally produced counterparts and (2) that this input was consistently disregarded by the bureaucrats who crafted the agency's current policy, which treats bioengineered foods the same as natural ones."

Genetic engineers are doing outlandish things to our food.
Genetically engineered foods are known by many as "frankenfoods" for a very good reason: many kinds of GE foods seem to come out of a bad science fiction movie. Genetic engineers are creating strange foods such as pesticidal potatoes -- modified to produce pesticides within each cell of the potato. "Terminator" seeds -- yielding plants that can't reproduce -- have been developed that would force farmers to purchase seeds from wealthy seed manufacturers every year, instead of saving seed from harvest from year to year.

Genetic engineers plan on creating "edible vaccines" by inserting vaccines in bananas, potatoes and other fruits and vegetables against diseases such as hepatitis, cholera and malaria. But some scientists aren't sure what impact eating large quantities of these foods will have on young children in developing countries -- or what will happen if these genetically engineered crops escape into the wild. Genetic engineers also are modifying animals and crops to produce pharmaceuticals. Also on the drawing board are fish that grow four times faster than their normal rate and lettuce engineered to include rat genes.

Where will it all end?