Fw: Paul McCartney + Measure 27: The Movie!

[Guest guest]

Thought you might be interested in what is the most important issue in the news to me: GMO's Niz - News Update from The Campaign Friday, October 25, 2002 8:01 AM niz Paul McCartney + Measure 27: The Movie! News Update From The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods----Dear News Update Subscribers,Great news! Legendary musician Paul McCartney has endorsed Oregon'sMeasure 27 to require labeling on genetically engineered foods. He haseven recorded a radio spot promoting the Yes on Measure 27 effort.You can hear the actual 30 second commercial featuring Paul McCartney ifyou have the Real Audio Player on your computer by going to thefollowing link:http://www.voteyeson27.com/yeson27PAUL.rmIf you would like to read the Press Release about Paul McCartney'sendorsement and radio ad, go to:http://www.voteyeson27.com/mccartney.htmMEASURE 27: THE MOVIE!Friends of the Earth has facilitated the production of an entertainingand informative flash video about Oregon Measure 27. After you watch theflash movie, you can use the form on the same web page to send asuggestion to your friends to also watch the video.To watch the video, go to:http://www.voteyeson27.com/flash/index.htmlAfter you watch the flash video, you can send an instant e-mail out toeight of your friends inviting them to check out the flash film. Thisprocess is automated so you can quickly send out a second group of eighte-mails, and a third, and so on, until you let all your friends andfamily know about the online flash video.Naturally, voters who live in Oregon are by far the most importantindividuals to contact. But people throughout the United States and inother countries may be interesting in seeing the flash video aboutMeasure 27.Let's see how many people we can get to watch the flash video. And thesesame folks may want to hear the Paul McCartney radio endorsement.Posted below are five articles about Oregon Measure 27. The firstarticle is from Oregon Public Broadcasting Radio titled "Measure 27 GetsBacked by A Beatle." The second article is an editorial from theUniversity of Oregon Daily Emerald Newspaper endorsing Measure 27. Thethird article is from The Oregonian titled "Measure 27's estimated costvaries widely." The fourth article is from the Statesman Journal titled"Altered food labels a contentious measure" and the last article is fromAssociated Press titled "Food labels could reflect genetically alteredcrops."Craig WintersExecutive DirectorThe Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered FoodsThe CampaignPO Box 55699Seattle, WA 98155Tel: 425-771-4049Fax: 603-825-5841E-mail: labelWeb Site: http://www.thecampaign.org Mission Statement: "To create a national grassroots consumer campaignfor the purpose of lobbying Congress and the President to passlegislation that will require the labeling of genetically engineeredfoods in the United States."*************************************************************** Measure 27 Gets Backed by A BeatleJeff BradyPORTLAND, OR 2002-10-24 (OPB Radio) - Backers of a measure to requirelabels on genetically engineered food have gotten a boost from FormerBeatle Paul McCartney. He's recorded the group's first radio commercial,which started airing Thursday.McCartney's on a cell phone and the sound is kind of scratchy, butMeasure 27's supporters are very excited to have the former Beatle ontheir side.Paul McCartney: Hi, this is Paul McCartney here and I'm calling to showmy support for Yes on 27 the resolution to label genetically engineeredfood.McCartney was in Portland last week for a concert. He contacted someMeasure 27 supporters who asked him to record the radio commercial.Paul McCartney: Back in Europe we have that choice. Our food is labeledand it hasn't increased any costs for the consumer or the farmerThe ad will run on radio stations throughout the state, but backers saynot as often as their opponents' ads are airing. Those opposed toMeasure 27 have a lot more money. Backers also received a boost from an Oregon State University reportthat analyzed the cost of the measure. OSU Economics Professor BillJaeger concluded that opponents' had severely overestimated how muchMeasure 27 would cost the government and consumers.Bill Jaeger: I think they're highly exaggerated and I don't think theycome from, what I would consider to be an authoritative or carefullydone economic analysis.Jaeger found a family of four would spend between 12 and 40 dollars ayear more on food if the measure passes. That's much less than the 550dollars a year Measure 27's opponents estimate. While opponents were notavailable to comment on tape, they did say Jaeger's estimates are lowerbecause he's interpreting the language in the measure too narrowly. Theycontend the measure's language is so broad that the labeling requirementwould apply to things the sponsors never intended such as restaurantfood.Jaeger admits the language in Measure 27 is vague on some issuesincluding the restaurant question.One of Measure 27's sponsors, Katelyn Lord, says the proposal will notapply to restaurants if it passes. Lord says she and her co-petitionerwill fight any effort to include restaurants.Katelyn Lord: Anyone who's coming in and saying, We think that youshould interpret it this way would have a very, very high hill to climb,legally. And I don't know who has an interest in doing that. I have notmet one person who has an interest in doing that.The Oregon legislature and the state Department of Agriculture will havethe final say over the scope of the measure if it passes. Meanwhile state officials are investigating allegations that a Corvallisfood cooperative may have violated state election law by giving itscustomer discounts if they worked to pass Measure 27. A member of theco-op filed the complaint after learning customers working on thecampaign were being given a 15-percent discount.It's difficult to say how voters are leaning on Measure 27. Nationally,polls show people support labeling GE food. But two local pollsconducted by newspapers and TV stations indicated mixed results on themeasure. *************************************************************** Editorial: Mandating gene-spliced food labels a fair measure Emerald editorial board - University of OregonOctober 24, 2002 We heartily endorse Measure 27. It is only fair that the people knowwhat they are eating -- especially if it contains genetically engineeredproducts. The problems, or lack thereof, with genetically engineered foods are notyet known; hence the problem. While scientists for the BritishDepartment of Health have determined in short-term studies that some ofthe more extreme scenarios carry little risk, there are other worriesabout allergic reactions and whether certain GE foods may affect thebody differently than non-GE food would. For instance, what if genes from a nut were placed in corn? Could itaffect those who could have potentially deadly reactions to nuts? Therehaven't been enough studies, and all the possible combinations of plantgenes that could be used in GE food make a comprehensive study daunting,if not impossible. Further, there are environmental implications that farmers may notforesee when they plant GE crops. Some research suggests that thenatural pesticides created by some GE plants are indiscriminatelyharmful and will kill species outside of the few that prey on that crop.There is also concern that GE plants and weeds will intermingle, andthat genes that make the crop more hardy will be transferred to theweeds, causing some agricultural havoc. Given these potential risks, it seems sensible to label the unknownquantity for consumers. People tend to get rightfully indignant whenthey're used as an unwitting test subject. The opponents of Measure 27 point to an immense cost in keeping recordsto show that all the foods used their product are GE-free if they wantto avoid the label. They would like us to forget that they've had to doa very similar process for almost 100 years. Labeling of foods isneither a risky scheme nor anything new. People may not realize that ingredient labeling has been required for anumber of different reasons since the early 20th century. First, thePure Food and Drug Act of 1906, enacted in the wake of Upton Sinclair's"The Jungle," ordered that all ingredients had to be listed on thefood's packaging, and that there had to be proof that the foods were notadulterated. This proof usually consists of diligent record-keeping bythe manufacturers or producers. Further, products have had labels for other purposes for quite a longtime. For decades, most companies -- even ones that don't produce foods-- have actively sought Jewish kosher certification for their foods andkitchen products, and since the 1990s, all foods have been required tohave standardized nutritional info on their packaging. Now, the FDA isallowing those manufacturers who can prove that their food is totallyorganic to put a label attesting to the fact. Measure 27 is a reasonable plan. If it passes, we have only onesuggestion: The measure should offer a scale telling what percentage ofthe food is genetically engineered. *************************************************************** Measure 27's estimated cost varies widely The Oregonian10/24/02What could it cost Oregonians to have genetically modified foodslabeled? It depends on who is doing the estimating. Proponents say it would cost each resident 71 cents a year. Theirestimate accounts for increased state government costs to regulate thelabeling but assumes that producers and retailers will not raiseconsumer prices. In contrast, a study commissioned by opponents found Measure 27 couldcost an Oregon family of four $550 a year. This week, Oregon State University released a study that says Measure 27could cost Oregonians $3 to $10 a year, which would include costs passedon by producers and state government. William Jaeger, an OSU economics professor and agricultural and resourcepolicy specialist, reviewed economic studies of genetically modifiedfood labeling in the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.He found that Measure 27 would be similar to labeling programs in theUnited Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia, where the estimated cost is$3 to $10 a year. He also concluded that the cost for state government to implement andregulate the labeling program would range from $100,000 to $1.25 milliona year, depending on the details of the labeling rules. That's far lowerthan an estimate prepared by the state Department of AdministrativeServices that said annual costs could be as high as $11.3 million a yearif restaurants were included. Pat McCormick, spokesman for the "No on Measure 27" campaign, said hisgroup stands by its original $550-a-family estimate. Jaeger was"ambiguous in his understanding and interpretation of the measure," hesaid. Katelyn Lord, one of Measure 27's chief petitioners, says supporters offood labeling are comfortable with Jaeger's findings. The Legislature would determine labeling rules and how much would bespent on regulation if Measure 27 passes Nov. 5.*************************************************************** Altered food labels a contentious measureIf voters approve, Oregon would be the first state to mark geneticallyengineered ingredients.MICHAEL ROSEStatesman Journal (Salem, Oregon)October 22, 2002Oregon, a state known for setting national trends, is stepping ahead ofthe pack again with Measure 27. The law would require labels on foods"sold or distributed in or from Oregon" that contain geneticallyengineered material.It's become a battle between grass roots activists who say Measure 27 isall about the public's right to know versus opponents who say thelabeling law could cost Oregon residents plenty. The two sides also aremiles apart in their interpretations of the labeling law. They disagree,for example, on whether restaurants would need to label foods andwhether Northwest grain exported from Oregon would be subject tolabeling.Restaurateur Bill McCormick and grocer Brian Rohter both have careersthat revolve around food, but they're on opposite sides of the debateover Measure 27.McCormick sees a "closed for business" label slapped on Oregon shouldvoters pass Measure 27. The president of the McCormick & Schmick'sRestaurants worries that what's tempting to the palate could becomesecondary to tracking the origins of hundreds of food ingredients ifMeasure 27 becomes law."It's absolutely ridiculous," said McCormick. The broadly worded lawwould require restaurants to put "genetic disclaimers" on menu items, hesaid. That strikes at the heart of the upscale restaurant chain'spractice of updating menus twice daily. It would be a nightmare ofhigher costs and red tape to track every ingredient that might contain aspeck of genetically engineered material.Meanwhile, labeling law supporter Rohter, president of New SeasonsMarket, said the "sky is going to fall" predictions are hype."Our customers want the information and they have the right to it," saidRohter, who oversees four grocery stores in the Portland area. Shoppersare talking about Measure 27 and the majority support the labeling law,said Rohter, whose neighborhood grocery stores sell Frosted Flakes andDoritos along with a selection of organic products. Industry groupsraised a similar uproar when Oregon passed the landmark bottle bill, hesaid. By some estimates, 80 percent of all foods sold in supermarkets containat least one genetically engineered ingredient. Measure 27 would be thenation's first law requiring labels.Measure 27 backers say the intent of the law is to label foods ongrocery store shelves - not those sold in restaurants or elsewhere.They're counting on the legislature to draft rules to clarify how thelabeling program would work after the election.Critics of genetically engineered foods, called GE foods for short,argue that too little is known about them, putting the environment andhuman health at risk. The U.S. government's official position is thatgenetically engineered products are as safe as conventional foods.Jeff Watson, store manager at LifeSource Natural Foods in Salem, saidhis customers frequently want to know if a product contains a GE food.He wants Measure 27 to pass."You can't get a baby formula without GMO (genetically modifiedorganisms) in this country," Watson said.Labeling requirements for GE foods are either in place or are beingimplemented in the 15 countries of the European Union, as well asAustralia, Brazil, the Czech Republic, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, SouthKorea, Switzerland, Taiwan and Thailand. Supporters of Measure 27 saylabeling of genetically engineered products has been rolled out in thosecountries without leading to the many problems Measure 27 opponentsassert.Opponents of labeling say the requirements and the associated costsextends well beyond supermarket shelves in Oregon."It would be pretty much of a disaster for agriculture," said AndyAnderson, former president of the Oregon Farm Bureau, who now is workingto defeat Measure 27. The anti-labeling camp says Measure 27 casts such a large net that wheatand other agricultural commodities exported through the Port of Portlandmight be required to have a special label. Farmers, food processors andgrocery distributors serving multistate regions would face the prospectof putting what amounts to a warning label on their products, they say.That would give Oregon products a stigma that would harm national andinternational sales.Anderson said the law's definitions of what qualifies as geneticallyengineered also goes far beyond what the term has traditionally meant.Meat and milk from animals given feeds containing genetically engineeredmaterial would need a label. So would foods made from geneticallyengineered enzymes, even if the enzymes are not present in the finishedproduct.Measure 27's list of opponents reads like a who's who of the Americangrocery aisle: Nestle, General Mills, Proctor & Gamble, Pepsico, Kelloggand Hershey, to name a few. The biggest contributions, though, came froma group of six chemical and biotechnology companies who collectivelygave $3.7 million to Croplife International, based in Brussels, Belgium.Monsanto topped the list, contributing nearly $1.5 million.Then there are opponents such as Pieper Sweeney, a Dayton farmer whoalso markets a line of syrups and preserves. While none of the fruitsused in the products contain genetically engineered materials, soy-basedinks used on the packaging might qualify them for labeling. "All it'sgoing to accomplish is frighten people," Sweeney said.One estimate by the Department of Administrative Services determined itwould cost $11.2 million in annual ongoing costs - plus $6.3 million infirst year start-up costs.But organic farmer Harry MacCormack said the numerous problems opponentscite with the law are a smokescreen. "It comes down to, they don't wantpeople to know. They never have," said MacCormack, a co-founder ofOregon Tilth, a nonprofit agency that certifies organic farms. Given thechoice, he said, many shoppers would pass on genetically engineeredfood.*************************************************************** Food labels could reflect genetically altered cropsBy William McCallAssociated Press Monday, October 21, 2002 - PORTLAND, Ore. -- The old adage "you are whatyou eat" has taken on new meaning for Oregon voters as they decidewhether to make the state the first in the nation to require labelingthe food from genetically engineered crops and livestock already landingon their plates. For many voters, the scientific debate has evolved beyond the scaretactics of "Frankenfood" activists claiming that mutant genes will runamok, parodied in the 1978 John DeBello comedy film "Attack of theKiller Tomatoes."But as the science and public understanding has improved, the politicalbattle has intensified and many questions about altering even thesimplest genes remain unanswered.Supporters of Measure 27, the initiative on the Nov. 5 ballot that wouldmandate labeling for genetically modified food, say scientific researchhas shown that engineering animals or crops can pose true health risksand potential environmental problems, such as introducing food thattriggers allergic reactions.They say the Food and Drug Administration has ignored warnings from itsown scientists and has virtually abandoned regulation of geneticallyengineered foods."The FDA's own experts say they're unsafe," said Steven Druker,executive director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity, based inFairfield, Iowa.The alliance, which has documented the debate among FDA researchers,sued the agency to force it to begin testing genetically modified foodbut a federal judge dismissed the case.As a result, Druker said, testing is voluntary and has been left to afood industry that already has put genetically modified ingredients inan estimated 70 percent of the processed food on U.S. grocery shelves."Until these foods are examined in a scientific way and it's clear thesefoods do not entail any element of risk, they shouldn't be on themarket," Druker said.Earlier this month, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., introduced legislationthat would establish a mandatory approval process for geneticallyengineered foods.The bill followed a report by the National Academy of Sciences whichfound that current laws are inadequate to address environmental concernsposed by genetically engineered animals, such as salmon."Congress needs to act to ensure that applications of this promisingtechnology are safe to humans and the environment," said Eric Hallerman,a Virginia Polytechnic Institute fisheries and wildlife professor whowas among 25 scientists who signed a petition calling for regulation ofbioengineered crops.The petition was drafted by the Center for Science in the PublicInterest, which has steered a middle road through the controversy.The center says genetically engineered foods already on the market aresafe to eat but it is urging regulatory reform and improved testing."I think you still need a government watchdog," said Greg Jaffe,biotechnology director for the center."These products don't have mandatory approval at FDA before they get onthe market and I think it's one of the reasons people are pushing forlabeling," Jaffe said. "Consumers want to know what they're eating --they don't like what's hidden from them."Tom Zinnen, a biotechnology education professor at the University ofWisconsin, says that as the science grows more complex, explaining it ina meaningful way on a label becomes more difficult."One of the core consumer issues that is a tradition in the UnitedStates is that labels have to meet two tests -- they must be truthfuland not misleading," Zinnen said. "So coming up with a label thatinforms but not misleads, and gives consumers the right to know butdoesn't stigmatize the product, is going to be a difficult challenge."The Agriculture Department will put into effect its National OrganicRule that allows a USDA seal for food produced without hormones,antibiotics, herbicides, pesticides or genetic modification. But it willstill leave U.S. consumers without any labeling for modified food toindicate how many genetically engineered ingredients are contained.The bulk of the genetically modified food on the U.S. market comes fromsoybeans and corn, which are used in a wide variety of processed foodsand drinks. But it amounts to relatively minor tinkering, scientistssay, mostly to allow farmers to grow more pest-resistant crops thatrequire less chemical treatment.Critics such as Druker say even minor genetic changes can beunpredictable, requiring careful testing over years, much the way theFDA tests prescription drugs. The proposed Oregon law, he says, will addpressure to require such testing.More ingenious and complicated genetic engineering research is under waythat likely will need extensive testing, said Diane Stadler, an OregonHealth and Science University medical researcher who specializes innutrition.But the proposed Oregon law may simply increase food costs and reduceavailability in one state without explaining both the benefits and risksto consumers, she said."We need to demystify the process and give people the ability to makegood decisions," Stadler said.---------To be d from the News Update from The Campaign mailing list simply below http://www.thecampaign.org/cgi-bin/sment/s.pl?r=1 & l=2 & e=niz=:atomicwear.comGet more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com