The 131st Annual Meeting (November 15-19, 2003) of APHA

Abstract #57622

Martin T Donohoe, MD, FACP, Senior Scholar, Center for Ethics in Health Care, Oregon Health and Science University, 3718 Rivers Edge Drive, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, 503/819-6979, martin.donohoe@verizon.net

Oregon's Measure 27, defeated 73% to 27% on the November, 2002 ballot, called for the labeling of genetically-engineered (GE) foods sold wholesale or retail. Risks of GE foods include: allergies and toxicities from new proteins entering the food supply; altered nutritional value of foodstuffs; transfer of antibiotic resistance genes to human pathogens; increased pesticide use; interspecies gene transfer, creating herbicide-resistant “superweeds”; non-target insects dying from exposure to pesticide-resistant crops, with ripple effects on other organisms; GE plants and animals interbreeding with and spreading novel genes into wild populations; GE plants out-competing (or driving to extinction) wild varieties or invading neighboring farms; GE plants adversely altering soil quality; decreased agricultural biodiversity; and corporate control of agriculture, with farmers transmogrified into “bioserfs.” Measure 27’s lopsided defeat was surprising, since polls show that approximately 90% of U.S. citizens favor labeling. The European Union, Japan, China and other countries require labeling; many nations ban the import of GE foods. Opponents of the measure frightened the public with pseudoscientific misinformation; unfounded fears of a complicated bureaucracy and much higher food prices; and unsubstantiated claims of economic harm to farmers. Opponents outspent proponents $5.3 million to $200,000. Most opposition funding came from out-of-state corporations like Monsanto, Dupont, and others with a vested interest in spreading misinformation to keep the public ignorant of the adverse consequences of their profit-driven manipulation of the world’s food supply. This session will discuss tactics which might facilitate the passage of future labeling laws.

Learning Objectives:

At the conclusion of this session, the participant will be able to:
• Articulate the potential and real risks and benefits of the production, distribution and consumption of genetically-modified foodstuffs.
• Describe Oregon's Measure 27, the failed 2002 ballot initiative aimed at requiring the labelling of genetically-modified foodstuffs.
• Assess the arguments and strategies employed by both sides in the battle for public opinion.
• Recognize the role of,and strategies employed by, large corporations (with a vested interest in earning profits and controlling market share) in influencing the outcome of state initiatives designed to further public health. 5)Develop strategies to create and promote new initiatives designed to give consumers more information about the nature and safety of the foods they eat.

Keywords: Food Safety, Public Health Legislation

Presenting author's disclosure statement:
I do not have any significant financial interest/arrangement or affiliation with any organization/institution whose products or services are being discussed in this session.