Former Colorado ag commish: Vote ‘No’ on Colorado GMO labeling law

Colorado voters are faced with an important decision on the November 2014 ballot. As a former Colorado commissioner of agriculture, I strongly oppose Proposition 105 and hope you will join me in voting “no.”

Proposition 105 is a complex and poorly written food-labeling proposal that would give Colorado consumers inaccurate, unreliable and misleading information about foods we buy due to the arbitrary labeling requirements and multitude of exemptions written into the proposition. It would severely harm Colorado’s vital agricultural economy, put our state’s farmers and food producers at a competitive disadvantage in the national marketplace, and increase food costs for Colorado families.

Proposition 105 purports to inform consumers about which food products contain GMO ingredients and which do not — but it fails. Proposition 105’s labeling requirements are so unscientific, inaccurate and arbitrary that it would require thousands of food products to be labeled as “genetically engineered” even when they have no GMO content. Conversely, thousands of other foods would be arbitrarily exempted from the measure’s labeling requirements even when they do contain, or are made with, genetically engineered ingredients.

Consumers already have reliable options to choose foods made without GE ingredients. They can select from thousands of foods labeled “organic” or “non-GMO” under existing federal labeling standards. Any manufacturer can label products as GMO-free if they meet these national guidelines. Proposition 105’s requirements conflict with these existing nationwide standards which already provide consumers a more reliable way to know which foods are made without GE ingredients.

Read full, original article: Should Colorado voters approve Proposition 105 (GMO food labeling measure)? No

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

Screenshot-2026-10-12-at-10.44.38-AM
Widely condemned as unethical, hepatitis B vaccine study funded by RFK Jr’s CDC gets a final greenlight
Open-Menthol-Cigarette-Pack
How the tobacco industry conspired with conservative activists to kill the Biden administration’s proposed ban on menthol cigarettes 
Cross and Syringe Standoff
Viewpoint: Hijacking Jesus: How anti-vaccine fanatics are exploiting religious exemptions and killing children
Screenshot-2026-10-11-at-10.24.21-AM
Viewpoint: RFK Jr.’s new CDC head Erica Schwartz greenlights hepatitis B vaccine study critics call “unethical and designed to cast doubts on its safety”
ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
Screenshot-2026-10-12-at-12.18.57-PM
5 deaths, 1,000 reported cases: These horrific numbers underestimate the consequences of the anti-vax movement
Caution-Taped-Fresh-Produce-Aisle
Should we be afraid of our food?
Screenshot-2026-10-05-at-11.57.44-AM
Scaremongering or legitimate safety concerns? The political dogfight over America’s food safety system
Personalized-Cancer-mRNA-Vaccine-Vial
Personalized mRNA vaccines are poised to revolutionize cancer treatments. Here are the barriers.
Profile and Vaccination Portraits
Convinced COVID shots cause widespread harm, Kennedy plans federal initiative to incentivize doctors to report alleged injuries
Screenshot 2026-10-12 at 12.25
Tearful onions? CRISPR has a solution for that
Deepfake Democracy Media Mosaic
31 states have passed a patchwork of laws to limit election deepfake commercials. They’re not working very well.
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.