Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
Oregon Measure 92, Mandatory Labeling of GMOs Initiative (2014)
| |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
The Oregon Mandatory Labeling of GMOs Initiative, Measure 92 was on the November 4, 2014 statewide ballot in Oregon as an initiated state statute, where it was defeated. The measure would have mandated the labeling of certain foodstuffs that were produced with or contained genetically modified organisms. The measure was sponsored by the group Oregon GMO Right to Know.[1]
Aftermath
Because the measure was initially defeated by a mere 802 votes, a recount was held, as the margin of defeat was less than the 0.2 percent margin that automatically triggers a recount under Oregon law.[2] As the recount neared its conclusion, it became clear that the margin of defeat was not going to change significantly. Supporters of the measure filed a lawsuit challenging the method used by elections officials to ensure signatures on ballot measure envelopes were not fraudulent. The lawsuit was attempting to force officials to count 4,600 ballots that were disqualified because "signatures on the vote-by-mail envelopes didn’t match those on registration cards." The lawsuit was also seeking to prevent the certification of the election results.[3] A judge decided not to halt the recount, and the measure was ultimately defeated upon the conclusion of the recount.[4][5]
Election results
Below are the official, certified election results:
Recount:
| Oregon Measure 92 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
 No | 753,574 | 50.03% | ||
| Yes | 752,737 | 49.97% | ||
Election results via: Oregon Secretary of State
Initial count:
| Oregon Measure 92 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| No | 753,489 | 50.03% | ||
| Yes | 752,687 | 49.97% | ||
Election results via: Oregon Secretary of State
Text of measure
Ballot title
The certified ballot title read as follows:[6]
| “ | Result of “Yes” Vote: “Yes” vote requires the labeling of raw and packaged foods produced entirely or partially by “genetic engineering,” effective January 2016; applies to retailers, suppliers, manufacturers. Result of “No” Vote: “No” vote retains existing law, which does not require “genetically engineered” food to be labeled as such. Summary: Current law does not require labeling of “genetically engineered” food. Measure requires retailers of genetically-engineered raw food to include “Genetically Engineered” on packages, display bins, or shelves; suppliers must label shipping containers. Requires manufacturers of packaged food produced entirely or partially by genetic engineering to include “Produced with Genetic Engineering” or “Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering” on packages. Defines genetically engineered" food as food produced from organisms with genetic material changed through in vitro nucleic acid techniques and certain cell-fusing techniques; exempts traditional plant-breeding techniques like hybridization. Does not apply to animal feed or food served in restaurants. Directs agencies to implement law. Permits state, injured citizen to sue manufacturer, retailer for knowing/intentional violation; attorney fees for prevailing citizen. Other provisions.[7] |
” |
Full text
The full text of the measure was as follows:[8]
|
Background
Efforts for required labeling and bans of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have been a growing issue in American politics at the state and local level. More than a million people signed a petition to the Food and Drug Administration asking it to label GMOs, which was the most signatures for any petition in the agency’s history. Similar labeling measures failed in California in 2012 and Washington in 2013. As of May 14, 2014, there were 84 bills in 29 states regarding the labeling of GMOs. In 2014, Vermont became the first state in the country to require labeling of GMOs. Maine and Connecticut also passed labeling measures, but those were designed not to take effect until several neighboring states also adopt such measures. Arizona, Colorado and Oregon all had signature-gathering efforts for initiatives designed to be on the 2014 ballot.[9][10] Colorado voters also weighed in on GMO labeling during the November 2014 election via Proposition 105, which was also defeated.
Support
The measure was sponsored by the group Oregon GMO Right to Know.
Supporters
Officials
Organizations
- Oregon GMO Right to Know
- GMO Free Oregon
- OSPIRG Action
- Vote Yes on Measure 92: We have the right to know what's in our food
- Consumers Union
- Food & Water Watch
- Center for Food Safety
- Committee for Oregon's Right to Know
Michael Hansen of the Consumers Union: Label GMOs in Oregon, Vote Yes on 92! |
Businesses
- Chipotle[12]
Arguments
The group Oregon Right to Know gave the following as an argument in favor of Measure 92:[13]
| “ | We have a right to know important information about the food we eat and feed our families – such as sugar and sodium levels, whether flavors are natural or artificial, and if fish is wild or farm-raised. We should also have the right to choose whether we want to buy and eat genetically modified (GMO) food, just like 64 other countries already do.
Labeling GMO foods would assist shoppers who are concerned about the potential effects of increased pesticides and herbicides to make informed purchasing decisions at the store. The Oregon Right to Know initiative is about transparency and empowering shoppers. This is not a ban on genetically modified food and this is not a debate on the science. It’s about consumers getting the information we need to make our own decisions about the food we feed our families. Give us the information and we will make our own decisions. [7] |
” |
The Oregon League of Women Voters listed the following as arguments in favor of Measure 92:[14]
| “ |
|
” |
Campaign contributions
Oregon GMO Right to Know registered as a supporting committee for this initiative on February 28, 2014.[15] Another committee formed to support another version of an initiative requiring labeling of GMOs, Committee for Oregon's Right to Know, which gave its remaining funds to Oregon GMO Right to Know's committee on April 4, 2014. The information below was current as of December 1, 2014.[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]
Petition committee and PAC info:
| Committee or PAC | Amount raised | Amount spent |
|---|---|---|
| Vote Yes on Measure 92 | $9,112,288.00 | $8,710,855.59 |
| Oregon GMO Right to Know | $1,511,044.92 | $1,595,813.78 |
| OSPIRG Action (PAC) | $495,482.84 | $499,117.70 |
| Committee for Oregon's Right to Know | $112,000.00 | $112,000.00 |
| Oregonians for Safe Farms & Families | $25,938.89 | $25,919.54 |
| Total | $11,256,754.65 | $10,943,706.61 |
Total campaign cash  as of December 1, 2014 | |
 Support:
|
$11,256,754.65 |
 Opposition:
|
$20,881,101.73 |
Top 5 contributors:
The following were the top five contributors to Oregon GMO Right to Know, as of December 1, 2014. The top five, Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps, Center for Food Safety Action Fund, Mercola.com Health Resources LLC, Organic Consumers Fund and Tom Hormel, were all out-of-state contributors.[16]
| Donor | Amount |
|---|---|
| Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps | $2,172,634.81 |
| Center for Food Safety Action Fund | $1,228,000.00 |
| Mercola.com Health Resources LLC | $1,050,000.00 |
| Organic Consumer's Fund | $680,000.00 |
| Tom Hormel | $500,000.00 |
Opposition
NO on 92 Coalition was the primary opponent of this initiative. One of its directors, Scott Dahlman, was also the executive director of Oregonians for Food and Shelter. That organization advocates for "the right to responsibly use pesticides and biotechnology." The group has also been linked to the agribusinesses Monsanto and Syngenta.[24]
Opponents
Citizens Panel, NO on 92 Coalition |
Organizations
- NO on 92 Coalition
- Oregonians for Food & Shelter (OFS)
- Kellogg Co.[25]
- Monsanto
- American Association for the Advancement of Science
Individuals
- Scott Dahlman, Executive Director of OFS
- Michael Gruber, Vice President of Federal Affairs for the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA)
Arguments
The NO on 92 Coalition website listed the following as some of the arguments against Measure 92:[26]
| “ |
Measure 92 would mandate a whole separate food labeling system just for Oregon that conflicts with existing nationwide labeling regulations and that would only exist in our state. That would require farmers and food producers in Oregon and throughout the country to separate, repackage and relabel their products and ingredients just for our state, unless they are specially remade with higher priced, organic or non-GMO ingredients. Several recent economic studies indicate that this would cost farmers, food producers, food manufacturers and distributors hundreds of millions of dollars — and ultimately increase grocery bills for Oregon families by hundreds of dollars per year. Measure 92’s complex requirements and exemptions are so badly written they do not provide consumers with reliable information about which foods contain GMOs and which do not. Under Measure 92, thousands of food products would be required to be labeled “genetically engineered” — even if they’re not. Thousands of other foods would be exempt from labeling even if they do contain or are made with GMO ingredients. Measure 92 arbitrarily exempts from its labeling requirements two-thirds of the foods we buy — even if they are made with or contain GMOs. For example, under Measure 92 meat and dairy products would be exempt from labeling, even if they come from animals raised on genetically engineered feed or injected with GE medications. This conflicts with existing national labeling standards for “organic” and “non-GMO” labels for these products. Measure 92 also exempts restaurant foods, alcoholic beverages, foods and beverages sold “ready to eat,” foods in school and hospital cafeterias, and many other food products. And Measure 92 will not tell consumers which ingredients in food products are GMOs or how much of the product is made of GMO ingredients, if any. Measure 92 would create two new state bureaucracies to enforce and implement its costly regulations. Two separate state agencies would be responsible for writing regulations for our state government to enforce these Oregon-only labeling regulations on thousands of food products at thousands of stores statewide. The Oregon Department of Administrative Services staff estimated that inspection programs to enforce Measure 92 would cost taxpayers more than $14 million every budget cycle. And Measure 92 doesn’t provide any funding source or set any limit on how much these new bureaucracies would cost taxpayers. Moreover, Measure 92 would give trial lawyers a special new right to sue food producers and store owners — or any farmer who operates a farm stand or makes food products — over the wording on food labels. That would create an incentive for shakedown lawsuits that would cost farmers, businesses and our court system millions more. Measure 92 conflicts with existing nationwide labeling standards that already provide consumers a more reliable way to choose foods made without GMO ingredients. Foods labeled “organic” or “non-GMO” are made without GMO ingredients and follow national labeling standards to provide a reliable way for consumers to choose these foods if that is what they prefer. Measure 92 conflicts with these national labeling standards. [7] |
” |
The Oregon League of Women Voters listed the following as arguments in opposition to Measure 92:[14]
| “ |
|
” |
Campaign contributions
NO on 92 Coalition was the only political action committee (PAC) registered opposing Measure 92 as of August 1, 2014. The group set a new record for the most money ever raised in the state by one side of a ballot measure campaign. Measure 92 also became the most expensive ballot measure in the state's history, as of 2014, bringing in over $30 million. The information below was current as of December 1, 2014.[27][28][29][30]
Petition committee and PAC info:
| Committee or PAC | Amount raised | Amount spent |
|---|---|---|
| Vote No on 92 Coalition | $20,881,101.73 | $20,477,544.17 |
| Total | $20,881,101.73 | $20,477,544.17 |
Top 5 contributors:
The following were the top five contributors to Oregon GMO Right to Know, as of December 1, 2014. The top five, DuPont Pioneer, Monsanto, PepsiCo, Inc., Coca-Cola and DOW AgroSciences LLC, were all out-of-state contributors.[16]
| Donor | Amount |
|---|---|
| Monsanto | $5,958,750 |
| DuPont Pioneer | $4,518,150 |
| PepsiCo, Inc. | $2,350,000 |
| Coca-Cola | $1,170,000 |
| DOW AgroSciences LLC | $1,157,150 |
Reports and analyses
ECONorthwest
ECONorthwest, a "consulting firm specializing in economics, finance, and planning," was contracted by Consumers Union to compile "a review of published research on the cost of labeling foods containing genetically engineered ingredients."[31][32] ECONorthwest reviewed "assessments of the cost impact of state ballot initiatives similar to Oregon’s Ballot Measure 92, and the European Union’s GE labeling regime, as well as the United States Food and Drug Administration labeling cost model, and academic studies of the global impacts of GE agricultural products." Following a review, the firm concluded:
| “ | We concluded that the median cost of labeling in the studies that provided relevant models was $2.30 per person per year. Relevant cost estimates presented in the studies we reviewed ranged from $.32 to $15.01. | ” |
| —ECONorthwest[32] | ||
ECONorthwest explained why different researchers come to different conclusions. Different economists look at different variables and sometimes have different assumptions about those variables. Some researchers assume manufacturers would pass 100 percent of increased expenses onto consumers, while others assume different percentages. Others speculate on "consumer behavioral changes" and "other matters not directly related to the cost of designing and labeling a product as containing a GE ingredients."[32]
Healthcare Triage discusses research on GMOs. |
AAAS statement on GMOs
According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), "crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe." They said further,
| “ |
As a result and contrary to popular misconceptions, GM crops are the most extensively tested crops ever added to our food supply. There are occasional claims that feeding GM foods to animals causes aberrations ranging from digestive disorders, to sterility, tumors and premature death. Although such claims are often sensationalized and receive a great deal of media attention, none have stood up to rigorous scientific scrutiny. Indeed, a recent review of a dozen well-designed long-term animal feeding studies comparing GM and non-GM potatoes, soy, rice, corn and triticale found that the GM and their non-GM counterparts are nutritionally equivalent. [7] |
” |
| —AAAS | ||
Ahmed (2002)
A 2002 paper by Farid E. Ahmed discussed the possible techniques and difficulties facing GMO detection. Ahmed's discussion grew out of the need for testing methods given the growing desire and actual requirement for GMO labeling. The author described two main types of testing for GMO presence: "testing for the presence of introduced DNA" or tests to detect "expressed novel proteins encoded by the genetic material."[34]
In the paper, Ahmed proposed a tiered system for GMO detection in the European Union's system. The author also discussed some of the problems facing DNA testing methods. For example, the author noted:
| “ | The greatest uncertainty of using DNA-based assays, as for protein-based methods, is that not all products derived from GM foods (e.g. refined oil) contain enough DNA. In addition, heating and other processes associated with food production can degrade DNA.[7] | ” |
| —Farid E. Ahmed[34] | ||
Media editorial positions
Support
- The Mail Tribune said,
| “ | Ballot Measure 92 appears to be a carefully worded initiative that simply requires food manufacturers to provide consumers basic information about what's in their products. We recommend a yes vote. [7] | ” |
| —Mail Tribune[35] | ||
- The Register-Guard said,
| “ | The Portland City Club reviewed and endorsed Measure 92. An impressive list of political supporters includes Democratic Gov. John Kitzhaber and his Republican opponent, state Rep. Dennis Richardson, as well as U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore.
They understand that Oregon should be on the cutting edge of the GMO labeling movement, just as the state in decades past has been on the cutting edge of other environmental initiatives ranging from the beach bill to the bottle bill. Measure 92 reflects the concerns of a growing number of Oregonians about genetically engineered foods, and the arguments of opponents are flimsy and insulting to the ability of Oregonians to make informed decisions. Voters should approve Measure 92.[7] |
” |
| —Register-Guard[36] | ||
- The Skanner said,
| “ | We want to know what’s in the food we’re eating--what’s wrong with that? We vote YES.[7] | ” |
| —Skanner[37] | ||
- The Ashland Daily Tidings said,
| “ | There are many substances in food that have no negative health effects, but which must be listed on labels. Have water or molasses or oregano in your product and it has to be listed. Why should the fact that a product contains GMOs be hidden? People have a right to know what they are eating, regardless of others' views of the food. There would be some modest costs associated with producing new labeling, but a study by ECONorthwest said the typical family would pay less than $3 more per year as a result.
We'll say it one more time: People have a right to know what they are eating.[7] |
” |
| —Ashland Daily Tidings[38] | ||
- The Baker City Herald said,
| “ | Food packages are larded with labels, many of which employ nonspecific adjectives — “wholesome” and the like — rather than plain fact.
Measure 92, which Oregon voters will decide on in the Nov. 4 election, deals with the factual kind of label. It would require packaged food to include a label if the food contains genetically modified organisms (GMO). Many foods do contain GMOs, and have for more than 20 years. We support Measure 92 because we believe consumers should have as much accurate information as possible about their food.[7] |
” |
| —Baker City Herald[39] | ||
Opposition
- The Oregonian said,
| “ | Protecting less-informed consumers from misleading labels would alone justify a "no" vote on Measure 92. But mandatory labeling almost certainly will raises food costs as well, which will have a disproportionate effect upon those with the least money to spend...Oregonians may or may not like genetically engineered food products and the big companies that provide them, but such antipathy is a lousy reason to approve a measure that will mislead many consumers and place a disproportionate financial burden on those least able to carry it.[7] | ” |
| —Oregonian[40] | ||
- The Portland Mercury said,
| “ | Finally! A real sense of how many GMOs you're consuming. A better ability to make an informed choice about what you put into your body, and when...And yet, after much debate, we're coming down just on the "no" side of this issue.
The essential problem is dishonesty. Measure 92's proponents argue it's all about helping consumers make an informed choice. They insisted in our interview they have no problem with GMOs, and no other motives, ulterior or not, besides the spread of information. But this campaign—like identical efforts that narrowly failed in California and Washington recently—is quite clearly a bid to get food companies to abandon GMOs, a backdoor attempt at altering our agricultural landscape.[7] |
” |
| —Portland Mercury[41] | ||
- The Portland Tribune said,
| “ | Consumers are more accustomed to labels that warn of dangers — think tobacco and alcohol — or that convey useful nutritional information about calories, fat and sodium. The GMO label doesn’t fall within those categories — especially when you consider this labeling wouldn't be done at the federal level.
Ballot measures generally are the poorest method for making public policy. Particularly when it comes to a technical matter such as food labeling and GMOs, any measure drafted by passionate advocates is going to have unintended consequences. We recommend a “no” vote on Measure 92.[7] |
” |
| —Portland Tribune[42] | ||
- The Statesman Journal said,
| “ | There is one overwhelming reason to oppose Ballot Measure 92, which would make Oregonians the first voters to require labels on some genetically engineered foods.
That reason: Product labeling is a national and global issue, and that is where the requirements should be established. It is unrealistic to impose a patchwork of state-by-state requirements on food manufacturers. Genetic-engineering labeling is not as simple as the multistate deposit information that appears on Oregon beverage cans and bottles.[7] |
” |
| —Statesman Journal[43] | ||
- The Dalles Chronicle said,
| “ | The Chronicle voted by a 4-3 margin to oppose Measure 92, which requires labelling of GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) foods in Oregon.
The majority of the board believed all consumers have a right to know what is in their food. However, we support having the issue of GMOs addressed at the federal level so rules are uniformly applied. We did not want the playing field to be uneven for Oregon farmers who could face greater regulation and costs than their peers.[7] |
” |
| —Dalles Chronicle[44] | ||
Polls
- See also: Polls, 2014 ballot measures
- Between June 25 and 30, 2014, DHM conducted a poll in Oregon, Washington and Idaho regarding support for GMO labeling on raw and packaged foods. It found 69 percent support among Washington residents and 77 percent among Oregon residents.[45]
|
| Oregon GMO Labeling Initiative (2014) | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poll | Support | Oppose | Not sure | Margin of error | Sample size | ||||||||||||||
| Elway Research 10/26/2014 - 10/27/2014 | 42% | 48% | 7% | +/-5 | 403 | ||||||||||||||
| Survey USA 10/23/2014 - 10/27/2014 | 44% | 43% | 13% | +/-4.3 | 552 | ||||||||||||||
| GBA Strategies 10/19/2014 - 10/21/2014 | 52% | 44% | 4% | +/-3.5 | 800 | ||||||||||||||
| DHM Research 10/08/2014 - 10/11/2014 | 49% | 44% | 7% | +/-4.3 | 516 | ||||||||||||||
| DHM 6/25/2014 - 6/30/2014 | 77% | 12% | 11% | +/-4.9 | 400 | ||||||||||||||
| AVERAGES | 52.8% | 38.2% | 8.4% | +/-4.4 | 534.2 | ||||||||||||||
| Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org. | |||||||||||||||||||
Path to the ballot
KOIN 6, "Oregon activists announce GMO labeling campaign," May 15, 2014 |
Three different initiatives regarding the labeling of GMOs were submitted to the Oregon Secretary of State with potential to be placed on a 2014 ballot. The first, proposed initiative petition 13, was filed on May 21, 2013, with the subject "Oregon Genetically Engineered Food Labeling Act." This version, however, was withdrawn on November 15, 2013. A second version, proposed initiative petition 27, had already been submitted on August 19, 2013, and was approved for circulation on December 10, 2013.
The third version, which was the version on the ballot, was filed on January 1, 2014. It was numbered proposed initiative petition 44 and approved for circulation on May 14, 2014. All three versions of the measure included Scott Bates as a chief petitioner in their application.[46][47][48]
Supporters had to collect 87,213 valid signatures by July 3, 2014, in order to land the measure on the 2014 ballot. The group Oregon GMO Right to Know announced that they turned in more than 155,000 signatures on July 2. With almost twice as many unverified signatures than the necessary validated amount, it was highly likely this measure would be certified for the ballot.[49]
On July 23, 2014, the secretary of state's office certified it for the ballot with 118,780 valid signatures.[50]
Related measures
See also
External links
Proposed initiatives
Organizations
Additional reading
- Seattlepi.com, "In 2002, Oregon Voters Were Hoodwinked By Big Bucks And The FDA," July 28, 2014
- Statesman Journal, "Battle lines drawn for November's 7 ballot measures," July 26, 2014
- The Register-Guard, "EDITORIAL: 2014 ballot takes shape; number of ballot measures well below average," July 9, 2014
- Associated Press, "Pot, immigration, food labels likely headed for Oregon ballots," July 5, 2014
- Associated Press, "Ore. activists announce GMO labeling campaign," May 15, 2014
- The Atlantic, "Want to Know If Your Food Is Genetically Modified?: Across the country, an aggressive grassroots movement is winning support with its demands for GMO labeling. If only it had science on its side.," May 14, 2014
- Food and Chemical Toxicology, "Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: A literature review," December 3, 2011
- European Commission, "A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001-2010)," 2010
- The New York Times, "Leave 'Organic' Out of It," May 6, 2014
Footnotes
- ↑ The Oregonian, "Oregon supporters of GMO labeling clear big hurdle for 2014 initiative as they try to woo funders ," December 6, 2013
- ↑ Oregon Live, "With all votes in, GMO labeling Measure 92 defeated by just 800 votes," November 24, 2014
- ↑ The Register Guard, "GMO labeling supporters sue over vote count," December 9, 2014
- ↑ Herald Net, "Judge declines to halt GMO ballot measure certification in Oregon," December 9, 2014
- ↑ FSRN, "Recount confirms defeat of Oregon ballot initiative to mandate labeling of GMOs," December 10, 2014
- ↑ Oregon Secretary of State, "Amended Ballot Title," accessed June 5, 2014
- ↑ 7.00 7.01 7.02 7.03 7.04 7.05 7.06 7.07 7.08 7.09 7.10 7.11 7.12 7.13 7.14 7.15 7.16 7.17 7.18 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Oregon Secretary of State, "Full text of initiative petition #44," accessed September 30, 2014
- ↑ Associated Press, "Ore. activists announce GMO labeling campaign," May 15, 2014
- ↑ The Atlantic, "Want to Know If Your Food Is Genetically Modified?: Across the country, an aggressive grassroots movement is winning support with its demands for GMO labeling. If only it had science on its side.," May 14, 2014
- ↑ Statesman Journal, "Rep. Peter DeFazio urges supports for GMO labeling," September 23, 2014
- ↑ The Montana Standard, "Chipotle backs Colorado, Oregon labeling proposals," October 14, 2014 (dead link)
- ↑ Oregon Right to Know website, accessed October 29, 2014
- ↑ 14.0 14.1 Oregon League of Women Voters, "Oregon Voters' Guide November 4, 2014," accessed October 29, 2014
- ↑ Oregon Secretary of State, "Statement of Organization History: Oregon GMO Right to Know," accessed July 14, 2014
- ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 Oregon Secretary of State, Elections Division, "Account Summary: Oregon GMO Right to Know (16728)," accessed July 14, 2014
- ↑ Oregon Secretary of State, Elections Division, "Transaction Search Results: Oregon GMO Right to Know (16728)," accessed June 10, 2014
- ↑ The Oregonian, "GMO labeling campaign spends $591,000 on signature gathering: Oregon campaign finance," June 9, 2014
- ↑ Oregon Secretary of State, "Statement of Organization for Political Action Committee: Vote Yes on Measure 92," accessed December 12, 2014
- ↑ Oregon Secretary of State, "Statement of Organization for Political Action Committee: OSPIRG Action," accessed December 12, 2014
- ↑ Oregon Secretary of State, ""Statement of Organization for Political Action Committee: OSPIRG Action," accessed December 12, 2014
- ↑ https://secure.sos.state.or.us/orestar/sooDetail.do?sooRsn=76295 Oregon Secretary of State, "Statement of Organization for Political Action Committee: Oregonians for Safe Farms and Families," accessed December 12, 2014]
- ↑ Oregon Secretary of State, "Statement of Organization for Petition Committee: Committee for Oregon's Right to Know," accessed December 12, 2014
- ↑ The Oregonian: Politifact Oregon, "Do two state agriculture groups have ties to biotech firms?" September 24, 2013
- ↑ The Oregonian, "GMO labeling: Who's pouring cash into Oregon's Yes and No campaigns? (Interactive map, database)," October 6, 2014
- ↑ NO on 92 Coalition website, accessed October 29, 2014
- ↑ Oregon Secretary of State, "Statement of Organization for Political Action Committee ID: 17015," accessed August 1, 2014
- ↑ Pamplin Media Group, "Measure 92 sets Oregon spending record," November 3, 2014
- ↑ Oregon Secretary of State, "No on 92 Campaign Finance Activity," accessed December 12, 2014
- ↑ Oregon Secretary of State, "Statement of Organization for Political Action Committee: NO on 92 Coalition," accessed December 12, 2014
- ↑ ECONorthwest, "What We Do ," accessed October 8, 2014
- ↑ 32.0 32.1 32.2 ECONorthwest, "GE Foods Labeling Cost Study Findings," September 12, 2014
- ↑ American Association for the Advancement of Science, "Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods," October 20, 2012
- ↑ 34.0 34.1 Ahmed, F. E. (2002). "Detection of genetically modified organisms in food." TRENDS in Biotecchnology. 20(5), 215-223.
- ↑ Mail Tribune, "Our View: Food labeling measure is a reasonable step," October 2, 2014
- ↑ Register-Guard, "Approve mandatory labeling," October 5, 2014
- ↑ Skanner, "The Skanner News Elections Endorsements: Support These Measures on the Nov. 4 Ballot," October 16, 2014
- ↑ Ashland Daily Tidings, "Our View: Our View," October 2, 2014
- ↑ Baker City Herald, "Approve food label measure," October 6, 2014
- ↑ Oregonian, "Voters should oppose mandatory-labeling measure: Editorial endorsement," August 30, 2014
- ↑ Portland Mercury, "It's the Mercury's Endorsement Guide! ," October 22, 2014
- ↑ Portland Tribune, "Our Opinion: Measure 92 slpas bad label on Oregon," October 28, 2014
- ↑ Statesman Journal, "GMOs: No on Measure 92, but no on scare tactics, too," October 28, 2014
- ↑ Dalles Chronicle, "Editorial: No pot candy, make GMO rules federal," October 22, 2014
- ↑ Earth Fix Oregon Public Broadcasting, "Most Northwest Residents Say They Want Labeling For Genetically Modified Food," July 7, 2014
- ↑ Oregon Secretary of State Elections Division, "Detailed Information For : 13/2014," accessed June 5, 2014
- ↑ Oregon Secretary of State Elections Division, "Detailed Information For : 27/2014," accessed June 5, 2014
- ↑ Oregon Secretary of State Elections Division, "Detailed Information For : 44/2014," accessed June 5, 2014
- ↑ Associated Press, "Activists submit signatures for GMO-labeling measure," July 3, 2014
- ↑ Statesman Journal, "GMO labeling initiative qualifies for Oregon ballot," July 23, 2014
 |
State of Oregon Salem (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
