The Clackamas Print
★ THE CLACKAMAS PRINT*
October 30, 2002
Requires labeling/of genetically-engineered foods (as defined) sold or distributed in or from Oregon
GE labeling proposal falls short of lofty goals
Editor-in-Chief
Daisy Bain
Copy Editor
Frank Jordan
Opinion/Design Editor
Erinn Leiten
A&E Editor
Jen Kane
News Editor
Shadra Beesley
Sports Editor
Elena Boryska
How would you feel if you were a
vegetarian and you found out the
tomato you just ate contàined DNA
from certain kinds of fish? Or that the
milk you’re drinking contains a hor
mone linked to breast and prostate
cancer? Now suppose you are
informed that that same hormone was
Luke Mahan
created by a company who manufac
Photo Editor
tured Agent Orange during the
Vietnam War. Sadly these situations
are too real to just imagine, and too
serious to ignore. This is the reason Measure 27 was drafted; to label
genetically engineered foods so that consumers will know what they
could be buying, and have the choice to reject these altered foods.
The arguments I have heard and read seem to orbit two chief issues:
One being the fact that these foods have not been proven to be poison
ous, toxic, or health or environmentally damaging in any way. The sec
ond being the cost involved in labeling.
Concerning the first argument, that is just the problem: Genetically-
engineered foods have not been proven to be damaging; but neither have
they been proven to be harmless. There is no way we can tell now what
affect these foods may have on health and the environment in the future,
and labeling such foods will give consumers the option not to take the
risk. It’s been said probably millions of times, but the message of the old
cliché still holds true: “Better safe than sorry!” We could pay dearly for
rushing into the use of these altered foods without further study.
As for cost, it seems as though anti-labeling advocates say it will cost
too much. Millions of dollars even, in taxes, over time. Pro-labeling
advocates say there will be no cost, citing many other countries with
labeling laws as examples. So who is right? It’s hard to say. However, I
can say that whatever costs are involved in labeling altered foods, I
would be happy to pay, for they are surely less than the potential dam
age that indiscriminate use of genetically-engineered foods can cause.
Here is where my opinion takes an unexpected turn: I am not advo
cating a yes vote on Measure 27. It is widely admitted, even among pro
labelers, that the measure is poorly written. Holes are left unfilled which
allow some foods to go unchecked. Additionally, the status of federal
legislation is currently being decided, specifically The Genetically
Engineered Food Right To Know Act of 2002. This would make an
Oregon law unnecessary.
I fully support the labeling of genetically engineered food, as I
believe all citizens have the right to know what is in their food. But I do
not think it should be achieved by avenue of Measure 27.
Deep down, I really wanted to like
Measure 27. It’s not hard to see how the
labeling of genetically engineered products
would be important to some people, most
especially those unable to consume certain
foods due to medical restrictions, religious
convictions or rampant bouts of vegetarian
ism. Really, I’m a big believer in knowing
precisely what it is I’m about to ingest. I
simply think there has got to be a better way
of finding out.
Oh sure, Measure 27 sounds incredibly
reasonable and promising at first. No doubt it was created with only the best of inten
tions. However, it doesn’t take long to recognize it is poorly written and potentially
harmful. I’m now convinced it must have been written by a not especially gifted type
writing monkey. One who was suffering from some kind of brain damage. Maybe
a concussion. With widespread unemployment and a struggling economy, Measure
27’s costly labeling regulations could not come at a worse time.
In a letter to Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber, Deputy Commissioner of the FDA
Dr. Lester Crawford stated that in the FDA’s scientific judgment there is no signifi
cant difference between genetically engineered food and non-engineered foods, that
their evaluation of genetically engineered foods show them to be as safe as their more
natural equivalents, and “Moreover, mandatory labeling to disclose that a product was
produced through genetic engineering does not promote the public health in that it
fails to provide material facts concerning the safety or nutritional aspects of food and
may be misleading to customers.”
That’s our nation’s highest authority on food talking. Measure 27 has managed to
attract quite an impressive list of detractors here at home as well, including Oregon
farmers, the Associated Oregon Industries (AOI), school officials (did I mention that
Measure 27 would be wasting a substantial amount of money that might otherwise be
available for school funding?), Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Norman E. Borlaug, and
Robert Buchanan, former director of the Oregon Department of Agriculture and
Economic Development Department, among many others.
And of course we must not forget the all-important bottom line. The cost. Oh,
where to start. How about $17 million in the first year alone. Around $120 million
over the next ten years. Tens of millions of dollars in lost sales and increased over
head costs for Oregon farmers and restaurants, meaning fewer jobs and increased cost
for the consumer. A recent study estimated that Measure 27’s labeling scheme would
cost an average family of four an additional $550 a year. Ouch. And that’s just food
costs. Don’t get me started on tax repercussions. It’s scary.
So if you’d like to pay hundreds, perhaps thousands more a year on food bills and
taxes just so the ODA can slap some moronic sticker on your box of Twinkies, then
by all means vote yes on Measure 27. If not, you’re always more than welcome to
join me in voting NO.
Feature Editor
Elisabeth Meyer
How do you feel about Measure 1 7?
Photo Editor
Amends constitution: reduces minimum age requirement to serve as state legislator from 21 years to 18 years
See story page 4
Luke Mahan
Advertising Manager
Michael Choe
ext. 2578
Staff Writers:
Secretary:
Robb Egan
Megan Cobb
Isaiah Creel
Pete Ford
Jason Bonadurer
JoAnne Gale
Adviser:
Linda Vogt
Goals:
The Clackamas Print aims to report the
news in an honest, unbiased, profession
al manner. The opinions expressed in
The Clackamas Print do not necessarily
reflect those of the student body, college
administration, its faculty, or The
Clackamas Print. Products and services
advertised in The Clackamas Print are
not necessarily endorsed by anyone
associated with The Clackamas Print.
The Clackamas Print is a weekly publi
cation and is distributed every
Wednesday except during Finals Week.
The Clackamas Print Copyright 2002.
Advertising:
The advertising rate Is $4.75 per col
umn inch
19600 S. Molalla Ave.
Oregon City, Oregon
97045
(503) 657-6958 X2309
cccprint@cbckarrras.cc.or.us
http://depts.clackamcis.cc.or.us/print
Bradley Bushnell
18
"The sooner people that
age get into politics the
better chance they have
later in life."
"You have to have
more experience in life.
You have to know
what's going on. You
haven't even finished
your education at that
age.
Karie Harbin
19
Mark Falling
18
"When you're 18 you
don't have enough
knowledge or experi
ence."
"We're not mature
enough. We don't have
enough life experi
ence."
Jeremy Marcum
19
ROBB EGAN Clackamas Print
► You can drop your ballots off at the ASG office in
CC 140 until 5 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. 5.
For more information call ext. 2247