Following a similar script from California and Washington state, support for the mandatory GMO labeling initiative is losing support as the vote nears.
The measure was trailing 48 to 42 in a survey of 403 likely voters conducted over Monday and Tuesday by independent Elway Research of Seattle and commissioned by The Oregonian and KGW. Seven percent of respondents said they were undecided. The poll had a margin of error of 5 percentage points.
“We’re delighted, of course,” said Dana Bieber, a spokeswoman for the No on 92 Coalition, “but it’s exactly what we’ve said all along — the more people know about Measure 92, the less they’re going to like it. That’s what this poll demonstrates.”
Measure supporters, buoyed by a sizable lead just a few weeks ago, challenged the poll results, saying its not capturing the true sentiment of Oregon voters.
“That’s not where we think the race currently stands,” said Sandeep Kaushik, communications director for the Yes on 92 campaign. “We have known from beginning we were going to get vastly outspent and this would be a close election. We continue to think that’s the case and that we’re in a good position to win.”
Supporters of the measure have raised almost $7 million while opponents have more than double that, just over $16 million, on hand. It’s the the costliest ballot measure fight in Oregon history.
A poll released in July by Oregon Public Broadcasting put support for GMO labeling at 77 percent. But as was the case in the two other western states that voted on labeling bills, the more voters learned about the law and the science behind genetically modified crops and foods, the more supporter eroded.
In 2002, Oregon became first state to try and pass a GMO labeling initiative—Measure 27 lost by a margin of more than 2 to 1.
Well I hope it doesn’t pass after all this. Anti-GMO groups have said openly that the first step is to label GMOs so people think there’s something wrong with them, the next step is to ban GMOs.
Why on earth would they think there could be anything wrong with GMOs?? If science is so believable, where are the triple-blind study results for proof? Why have those been so closely guarded? Just believe whatever the mainstream media tells you, right?
There has obviously been a LOT of money thrown at this issue to keep the people in the dark about the truth of what they’re eating. Why would it be important enough for these chemical corporations to spend millions to prevent people from knowing what’s in the food?
When you’re able to step back and see the psychological games being played in the media and on farmers trapped in their game, plus what these corporations stand to gain from their secrets, patents, and motives, which are all fueled by profit, it gets more clear and murky at the same time. They’re not actually trying to help people as they claim, they’re actually working toward owning the food supply while slowly killing us off by disease-causing chemicals.
It’s time we start putting people first over profit. That’s the new world that’s being created for our kids now. Capitalism had its day. Let’s move this world forward already!
I don’t like the science or the results of thousands of studies, so I’m going to ignore its existence or claim it was bought instead. So there!
I would really be surprised if Portlandia can’t pass this.
If I were opposing this in the state, I would buy air-time and run nothing but the organic chicken clip from episode 1 of that show.
“His name was Collin.”
LOL ! Love that skit ! A restaurant in Philly, a few years back, wrote on their specials of the day board that a main ingredient came locally from Allentown, PA. They didn’t like it much when i mentioned that’s where the Alpo plant is!
Me too. As a Portland native, I know many, many people who are the yuppy-organic-obsessed kind (mostly my parents’ friends)…what gives me hope is that everyone I know my age (20s) opposes the measure. Then again, I’m mostly friends with science-oriented people…
It’s interesting that more and more people are learning (finally!) about the science of biotechnology, with each of these campaigns. One little bit of good news in these ridiculous battles.
Sitting in Portland watching the ads the “yes” side is doing a good job and “no” just got some better ads up. I hope the poles are right !
A No on 92 member.
Look like the thug corporations and their $millions are going to stick it to the people again. Thank you, Jon Entine, for pushing agro-business bought “science” in the assault against the public good.
Except the experts in this area of science and technology aren’t all private sector Monsanto employees. If the Billions the oil industry has, and all the money in various tobacco products, couldn’t prevent clear independent research from being done and communicated to not only the public, but the peers of that field I’m totally sure one company with several times less the funds was able to buy out every single scientist involved in studying genetics, agriculture, evolution, chemistry, general biology, clinical health, and epidemiology. Not to mention the CDC and FDA. congratulations, for elucidating this vial and wicked non-issue.
So your contention is that everyone has to be bought in order for money to be effective? Great argument!
Remember “morans” in the other thread?
You are one of them.
Compared to you I’m a genius, but that’s not at all hard.
Congratulations on going around clumsily attacking people and making them feel brilliant.
The Dunning Kruger is strong with you!
Dunning-Kruger is a cliche with the unthinking. Thanks for your self identification, but it was unnecessary.
So is your actual problem not the amount of money, but rather that the side you don’t like uses it better?
And, if not and it’s just about “buying” people – doesn’t that mean your side is doing the same? They just don’t have the budget to pervert public opinion in the way you consider to be ethically justified?
You didn’t make much sense with the thug nonsense – as though organic companies don’t stand to profit, and aren’t supporting the bill – and you sound like you’re just throwing up chaff to distract from your inability to meaningfully challenge her point.
How do define sides? Is your side the corrupting mega corporation side?
If I don’t make sense to people who like thugs, it’s not my fault.
Where did this “organic” thing come from? Your agro-business playbook? From the same mega corporations who are buying up “organic” corporations and down-grading the quality of their products to increase profits? The same thug corporations who support this site through George Mason University and its bought “educational” program?
Here, have something to muddy up the clear waters of your corporate-washed mind.
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/10/29/local-gmo-fights-smash-records-monsantos-millions-bankroll-opposition
Your own comment said “Thank you, Jon Entine, for pushing agro-business
bought “science” in the assault against the public good.”
Not everyone has to be “bought” to have bias, but you just said that the science on GMOs is somehow soiled and wrong because it doesn’t agree with your own biases and opinion. You also didn’t address the fact that thousands upon thousands of people research this area of technology and research, even these specific products and yet the independent research shows no problem, and GMO crops are the most studied food on the planet. Yet some how according to you every researcher is able to blindly ignore anything they see wrong with them and support the influence of something supposedly bigger than them with incredible powers able to silence their critics because corporations and their millions are just that powerful. Somehow you seem to think that “big-agro” is able to hide facts and lie to the people and is holding hands with scientists to do so. This is also ignoring the fact that many GMO crops were made, not by Monsanto, but by independent groups often with the support of the public and government. The Papaya grown in Hawaii is a golden example for this. Each GMO must be evaluated individually and extensive research is done on them. no claim I’ve heard has yet to be addressed or is unique to GM foods. If you have specific claims to make, then make them with evidence to back them up rather than speculation, if you have questions to issue then issue them. Don’t go tossing fear based biased opinions around all willy-nilly.
Wow, good yammer full of unfounded assumptions by which you accuse me of being another version of yourself. When you get older, you will realized that not everyone thinks with the same parochial confinement and limited erudition.
I am flattered by your extended attention to the grievious threat I pose to the illusive order of your simple little world full of “willy-nilly “, “fear based biased opinions”, i.e. everything not coherent with your unkind indoctrination.
Give a snickering hello and a middle finger for me to Monsanto, Dow AgroSciences, Dupont, Syngenta, and any other agro-businesses you adore.
I will be happy to write a recommendation for you to any of them for the appropriateness of attitude for a lobbying job.
Well that hostility was uncalled for.
They weren’t unfounded assumptions, they were implied by your comments. if you have a correction to make please clarify you opinions. Also, I’m unsure of why you feel so confident of what my age may be. I’m not here to fight, I’m here to discuss, so please make an actual claim rather if you wish to continue with a discussion. Just because I don’t line up with your beliefs doesn’t mean I am looking to ‘lobby’ a job. I have a degree and a job in Molecular genetics field but do not work on plant genetics. My job prospects do not involve those groups, but understanding the science does fall into my court and I do my best.
You’re not here to discuss. You’re here to pretend to an adulthood and science education of which there is no evidence, while defending the predatory conduct of large corporations. You may consider your shallow understanding of a single degree in science enough to make judgements without during the literature search and background accumulation necessary to speak with such fierceness. But don’t expect to receive from others the outsized respect you demand.
“Well that hostility was uncalled for.” – how stupidly patronizing when you haven’t done your homework, which certainly doesn’t include any examination of corporate development, history, and power mechanics.
Uh-huh. see, you still aren’t making any specific claims on GMO technology or products, you haven’t addressed any of the points I’ve brought up in anywhere near a reasonable manor. Instead of trying to attack me, and make assumptions as to my level of scientific literacy, you could make an actual contribution to the discussion topic (being GMOs) and we could talk about it. If not, then I have nothing else to contribute to this thread.
Uh, huh, yourself. Why do I have to refute your lack of education? I agree that you have nothing worth regurgitating. Go do some research, so others won’t have to argue with your vast continents of ignorance. Follow the money, not you beloved myths.
On second thought, you obviously need help. Why don’t you start with George Mason University? Where the money comes from? Where does it go? Into what programs? Who funds them? For what reasons? What corporations are involved? What “think tanks?” What kind of “thought” they dispense? Where does the money go? How does it tie in with Jon Entine and his “Genetic Literacy” program? What’s Entine’s educational background? His business enterprises? Who does he play hatchet man for? Who does he hack and why?
Do you know how to use a search machine? Wikipedia? Government databases? Dig! Instead of making silly judgements about me and others who have risen beyond the mythology to which you are still utterly subservient.
On the other hand, why bother? You’re confident in your insolence.
I am receiving frantic emails from various GMO labeling campaigns. They are working hard now to get support through phone banking. This tells me that they are not confident that they “are in a good position to win.”
Did you catch the problem with the pie chart above? I went to grab a screen shot of it, but they fixed it at the site. Heh.
Does the Oregon initiative also call for labeling cheese, or is that conveniently excluded like in Vermont? What about labeling food from crops produced by cell fusion, gene mutagenesis, or hybrid breeding? If the right to know argument is to be fair and logical, don’t Oregonians have a right to know about all of the technologies used to produce the foods they eat?
I have to wonder whether the Yes campaign is finally feeling some backlash from their misinformation, as well as their hypocritical censorship of fact-based comments on their social media outlets.