Re Measure 92: Check out this inter-active map showing how many OTHER states,

[99th_Monkey]

Last edited Sun Nov 2, 2014, 08:02 PM - Edit history (1)

including MOST states, ALREADY have some form of GMO labeling laws either in place or that are being legislated and/or introduced via citizen initiatives.

This simple fact exposes the big lie being promulgated by the No on 92 campaign that "92 would result in a $400 annual increase in an Oregon family's food budget" because they IMPLY that Oregon would be the ONLY state in USA where food producers would need to separately label and distribute non-GMO food.

Oddly enough, Yes on 92 ads DO cite how many other NATIONs already have GMO-labeling requirements and/or ban them altogether; but I have never seen them point out how many other states have GMO labeling requirements in the works, which clearly shows that food producers are ALREADY going to be required in SOME STATES to label GMOs, it won't "only" be required Oregon.

http://www.righttoknow-gmo.org/states


I only ran across this interactive map yesterday, or would have posted it earlier.

[classof56]

1. Great info and thanks for posting.

My ballot was delivered to the county on Friday, and I voted yes on 92. Amazing, all the money that's been poured into the "Vote No" campaign. Hope OR can join the list of states as well as nations with GMO labeling requirements. We've been on the forefront of so many environmentally friendly and other progressive causes. This would be one more feather in our collective cap! Keepin' my fingers crossed!

[cascadiance]

2. This could make history. We could be the first state to pass a labeling statue at the ballot box.

All of the other states that have GMO labeling laws in place have passed them through the legislature. It's no wonder that it has the most money spent on this measure than any other ballot measure in Oregon election history. Really hope we pass this and vote down 90.

We have a very significant portion of the world's organic farmers in this state. THEY deserve a break that the Monsanto's, etc. are trying to falsely claim that those who don't grow organically are going to have their costs increased, when those who DO introduce products in to a market that adds costs over things like health and environmental costs should be the party that bears the costs of that change, not those that have been trying to farm like they've traditionally farmed.

[99th_Monkey]

3. That will be a sweet win, for sure, if it happens.

I guess we'll find out soon enough .. like in 25 minutes .. where it's leaning.