Colorado Voters Reject Mandatory GMO Labeling
05 Nov 2014 --- Colorado voters look set to reject Proposition 105, labeling of genetically modified foods, with 35 percent of votes counted, according to a report in The Denver Post. The measure would have required labels for GMOs — foods produced with genetic engineering or containing genetically modified ingredients. More than 68 percent of voters said no to labeling.
Most processed foods sold in America include GMO ingredients such as corn syrup, corn oil, soybean crops and sugar.
Supporters of GMO labeling, such as Right to Know Colorado, Whole Foods and Natural Grocers, said it would give consumers a choice about what they serve their families.
It's a label, not a ban, alerting people to an unnatural manipulation of food, they argued.
The official ballot question was: Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning labeling of genetically modified food; and, in connection therewith, requiring food that has been genetically modified or treated with genetically modified material to be labeled, "Produced With Genetic Engineering" starting on July 1, 2016; exempting some foods including but not limited to food from animals that are not genetically modified but have been fed or injected with genetically modified food or drugs, certain food that is not packaged for retail sale and is intended for immediate human consumption, alcoholic beverages, food for animals, and medically prescribed food; requiring the Colorado department of public health and environment to regulate the labeling of genetically modified food; and specifying that no private right of action is created for failure to conform to the labeling requirements?
Proposition 105 would have required food manufacturers to label most food that has been genetically modified to have the label "Produced with Genetic Engineering," starting July 1, 2016. There are exemptions for food from animals that have consumed genetically modified food or drugs, food intended for immediate consumption, alcoholic beverages, food for animals, and medically prescribed food.
Proponents of the measure pointed out that the labeling will provide additional knowledge to consumers for making better-informed food choices.
The use of such labeling is widespread throughout Europe and a few states in the US have also passed similar regulations that have not, yet, been enacted.
Opponents argued that the increased costs to food producers to comply with the regulation would result in higher food prices for consumers. Additionally, opponents were concerned about the potential for false information. Because of the exemptions in the regulation, some exempted food items may be perceived as non-GMO since they won't have the labeling despite the fact that they may be GMO foods.
A similar vote is also taking place in the state of Oregon.
