Proponents paint Proposition 105 as providing consumers with choice.<\/p>\n
\u201cDon\u2019t we have a right to know what\u2019s in our food?\u201d asked Larry Cooper, a proponent of the Right to Know Colorado initiative. \u201cCan\u2019t we make an informed decision about what we\u2019re buying, what we\u2019re feeding our families?\u201d<\/p>\n
Cooper isn\u2019t the typical \u201ccrunchy granola\u201d environmental type you might expect pushing such an initiative. Sitting in an inexpensive campaign office in Wheat Ridge, his gray hair is perfectly groomed and his polo shirt neatly tucked in.<\/p>\n
Cooper joined the GMO-labeling movement for his grandchildren. After reading the ingredients in his 1-year-old grandson\u2019s formula, he started wondering.<\/p>\n
\u201cI started reading it and I couldn\u2019t read half the words that were on the can,\u201d Cooper recalled. \u201cI was a little puzzled by it. Do you throw it away? Do you feed it to him? Here we are feeding this 1-year-old baby genetically engineered food, and we don\u2019t know if it\u2019s safe or not. That kind of alarmed me.\u201d<\/p>\n
But farmers and producers, including big names like the Colorado Farm Bureau and Monsanto, point out that there is no definitive science indicating that GMOs are bad.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere have been a lot of studies, and from everyone that I have heard from, the studies that show that there may be some problem, none of those have been completely accepted by peer-reviewed scientists in the field, and that troubles me,\u201d said Don Shawcroft, president of the Colorado Farm Bureau and a fourth-generation rancher from Conejos County.<\/p>\n
Opponents are raising large amounts of cash to fight the initiative, more than $9.7 million so far. It is a David and Goliath fight, as proponents have only raised about $320,696.<\/p>\n
Farmers and producers point to concerns around cost, suggesting that the initiative would raise the price of food on consumers, a factor noted in the state ballot analysts as well.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt isn\u2019t just about the cost of the label, it\u2019s the cost of compliance with that label,\u201d Shawcroft said. \u201cThat will cost more.\u201d<\/p>\n
He also points to issues around competition, suggesting that the mandate would put farmers and producers at a disadvantage compared to other states and nations.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis would put us at a competitive disadvantage to be saddled with this type of regulation,\u201d Shawcroft said.<\/p>\n
He suggested that a better approach would be a voluntary program at the federal level, rather than a patchwork of state laws. Measures have been introduced in Congress.<\/p>\n
Some question whether Proposition 105 would have teeth, pointing to exemptions for chewing gum, alcoholic beverages, foods prepared for immediate consumption, restaurant food, and foods derived entirely from an animal, such as milk and meat.<\/p>\n
The initiative also would prohibit lawsuits for failing to comply.<\/p>\n
But Cooper said it\u2019s a step in the right direction after the state Legislature failed to act this year.<\/p>\n
Sixty-four countries have banned or required labeling of GMO products, including China and Russia. Thirty-seven states are working together through coalitions to develop similar language on labeling mandates.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis is about just giving us information. (GMOs) may be safe, and they may not. I really don\u2019t know,\u201d Cooper said. \u201cI want to know as a grandfather, as an informed consumer \u2013 or in this case, uninformed consumer \u2013 and I find it very disingenuous that they\u2019re telling me I don\u2019t have a right to know what\u2019s in my food.\u201d<\/p>\n