With defeat likely, fight for GMO labeling continues
With Oregon’s genetically modified organism labeling initiative apparently headed for a narrow defeat, supporters and opponents agree the debate isn’t over.
As of 11 a.m. Wednesday, “No” votes for Measure 92 were leading “Yes” votes by slightly more than a percentage point: 50.6 percent versus 49.4 percent.
While it’s still possible that 35,000 uncounted votes in left-leaning Multnomah County could still put Measure 92 over the top, that result is unlikely.
Supporters of the initiative remain hopeful that the razor-thin margin will swing their way, but even if it’s defeated, the issue is unlikely to fade away, said Sandeep Kaushik, spokesman for the Yes on 92 campaign, which supported the initiative.
Mandatory labeling of food containing GMOs gained traction among Oregonians despite being tremendously outspent by the opposition, Kaushik said.
“This is absolutely not the last we’ve heard of labeling,” he said. “This is a long term effort. We are making progress.”
Concern continues to grow around the country about GMO labeling and supporters plan to continue to press the issue, though a specific strategy has yet to be set, Kaushik said.
A defeat of Measure 92 in Oregon would mark the third time that voters rejected similar labeling initiatives in recent years, after California and Washington, said Scott Dahlman, executive director of Oregonians for Food and Shelter, which opposes labeling.
A labeling measure was also defeated Tuesday in Colorado.
Even so, the discussion is likely to continue, he said. “I don’t think this is an issue that is going away.”
Oregon voted down a similar labeling measure in 2002, which did not seem to deter backers of the most recent measure, said Pat McCormick, treasurer of the No on 92 campaign. “It’s apparent the proponents don’t take no for an answer.”
Oregon voters ultimately decided against the measure because they were convinced organic and non-GMO labels were more effective than a mandatory label, he said. “They’ve got a better system in place than this measure would provide.”
The initiative would have probably fared better in the 2016 presidential election, which will probably have higher voter turnout among young and liberal voters who favor labeling, said Russ Donero, retired political science professor at Pacific University.
“The proponents may have, unfortunately for themselves, mistimed when they put it on the ballot,” said Dondero, noting that a older, white, conservative demographic is more likely to vote in lower-turnout elections. “That didn’t help.”
Voters may have been confused by some aspects of the debate, like why certain types of food were excluded from labeling, he said.
Opponents of the measure were effective in raising doubts through their advertising, Dondero said.
Even if the advertising didn’t necessarily convince some people to vote against the measure, the negative message could have discouraged them from voting to the advantage of opponents, Dondero said. “It’s designed to do that.”