Measure 92 ReflectionEssay Preview: Measure 92 ReflectionReport this essayMeasure 92 is an initiative that would require food in Oregon to be labeled telling if it was a genetically engineered organism (GMO) or not. The measure is based on the idea that consumers have the right to know what goes into their food. While it is important to know this information about the food we eat, it could cause a complex and misleading food labeling system only required in Oregon.
People who want the bill passed have several main points. Supporters wish to promote food safety and public heath, inform consumers on possible environmental impacts reduce and prevent consumer confusion and deception, promoting and protecting non-genetically engineered markets, provide consumers with data so they can make informed decisions for a variety of reasons, and allow consumers to make informed decisions. [Section 2: statement of purposes, section 2 A-E] Another thing supporters believe is that because 64 other countries have it, including China, India, and Australia, label GMOs, [Section 1: findings and declaration, section 3] Oregon should too. However, not a single state in the U.S. has GMO labeling.
The Oregon State Government website states that it would not be in the public interest to “disassociate states’ efforts to advance GMOs from that of other states”.
“A third point is of paramount importance, which is that some legislators (that are not Republicans) and members of the public are willing to be complicit in promoting harmful and misleading food safety policies.”
What could be happening to Oregon agriculture? Oregon agriculture is a biotechnology industry that is made up of the US, Canada, Mexico, United States, Mexico and many others, where the majority of those jobs are associated with the production of GMOs.
This is because they are working in a system of agribusiness that is the direct product of a vast agribusiness conspiracy that has been spreading through the US. And it is because of the money being spent on GMO labeling, but also because in some cases they are in other countries.
California, New York, and other states have now moved to the point where California’s Monsanto-linked agribusiness companies have an independent and independent responsibility to educate consumers, get their ingredients tested, and ensure they receive quality food, when it is approved.
In a similar manner, Michigan officials have a separate role in determining GMOs’ health, which means even members of that state have to look over their products for possible hazards. Their role is that of enforcing the regulatory and regulatory processes set by the regulatory boards.
So far in 2015, Michigan-owned Procter & Gamble has been involved in GMO labeling campaigns in California. But there have been cases involving claims of poisoning caused by GMOs, and others have been concerning safety issues.
In the US, there are just 2 “good” GMO labeling laws in all – the Food of the American People Act and the Genetic Literacy Act. The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) regulates only those that are “legal scientific knowledge based” on “the results of studies that have been verified. Those studies are then referred to food safety and scientific education committees. Those committees are not allowed to interfere in the implementation of an approved program or food safety or dietary standards.”
On August 1, 2015, Procter and Gamble and Procter’s parent company, K&L, sued their federal partner in Harris County, California, alleging they had been unfairly fired for doing so – but in a similar position this time they had been granted immunity from both civil claims and an action by the Justice Department.
When the suit was brought last autumn, Procter and Gamble lost. Then, in May, they learned that the company had been fined $1.3 million for failing to properly disclose the existence of a carcinogen that could be an important health hazard. The fines were lifted three days later.
But the next April, a lawsuit filed by the American
The Oregon State Government website states that it would not be in the public interest to “disassociate states’ efforts to advance GMOs from that of other states”.
“A third point is of paramount importance, which is that some legislators (that are not Republicans) and members of the public are willing to be complicit in promoting harmful and misleading food safety policies.”
What could be happening to Oregon agriculture? Oregon agriculture is a biotechnology industry that is made up of the US, Canada, Mexico, United States, Mexico and many others, where the majority of those jobs are associated with the production of GMOs.
This is because they are working in a system of agribusiness that is the direct product of a vast agribusiness conspiracy that has been spreading through the US. And it is because of the money being spent on GMO labeling, but also because in some cases they are in other countries.
California, New York, and other states have now moved to the point where California’s Monsanto-linked agribusiness companies have an independent and independent responsibility to educate consumers, get their ingredients tested, and ensure they receive quality food, when it is approved.
In a similar manner, Michigan officials have a separate role in determining GMOs’ health, which means even members of that state have to look over their products for possible hazards. Their role is that of enforcing the regulatory and regulatory processes set by the regulatory boards.
So far in 2015, Michigan-owned Procter & Gamble has been involved in GMO labeling campaigns in California. But there have been cases involving claims of poisoning caused by GMOs, and others have been concerning safety issues.
In the US, there are just 2 “good” GMO labeling laws in all – the Food of the American People Act and the Genetic Literacy Act. The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) regulates only those that are “legal scientific knowledge based” on “the results of studies that have been verified. Those studies are then referred to food safety and scientific education committees. Those committees are not allowed to interfere in the implementation of an approved program or food safety or dietary standards.”
On August 1, 2015, Procter and Gamble and Procter’s parent company, K&L, sued their federal partner in Harris County, California, alleging they had been unfairly fired for doing so – but in a similar position this time they had been granted immunity from both civil claims and an action by the Justice Department.
When the suit was brought last autumn, Procter and Gamble lost. Then, in May, they learned that the company had been fined $1.3 million for failing to properly disclose the existence of a carcinogen that could be an important health hazard. The fines were lifted three days later.
But the next April, a lawsuit filed by the American
While supporters have valid points, I disagree with the act and stand against it. I feel like throughout the bill, the writers are trying to imply drastic health problems if you consume genetically engineered foods, however, they cannot prove it and no studies have been done. [Section 1: findings and declarations, subsection 4] In section one: findings and declarations, subsection 5, I quote the writers saying mixing plant, animal, bacterial, and viral genes through genetic engineering in combinations that do not occur in nature may reproduce results that lead to adverse health or environmental consequences.” but the authors never give proven examples which makes this entire section sound like pure speculation. Also in that quote, the writers use the word may, making it seem even more like speculation. This instills fear in people who