The fight over labelling genetically modified (GMO) foods has created some strange bedfellows in Oregon.



On Tuesday, Oregon voters will pass judgment on Measure 92, which would give the state power to force food producers to reveal that they are using genetically modified ingredients.

Except this isn’t just a battle in Oregon; the state has become the focus of the national dispute over food labelling. That influx of national interest is why Measure 92 has broken the Oregon record for costliest ballot measure: total campaign funding now stands at $26.8m. Although Oregon’s vote is a local issue, 100% of the budget for the opposition campaign – and 80% of the funds in support – have come from outside of the state.



Following the paper trail reveals some strange alliances. The Yes campaign has raised $7.8m, while opponents collected more than twice the amount, at $19m.

The opposition campaign benefits from the deep pockets of its largest corporate contributor, the multinational agribusiness company Monsanto, which made $4.7m in donations to the No camp. It is also getting a big boost from Hormel foods, the multibillion-dollar owner of brands such as Spam and Skippy, which has gifted $95,000.



Countering Monsanto is California-based staple of health-food stores Dr Bronner’s Magic Soap, which has pumped in $1.7m in support of GMO labelling. Last year, Dr Bronners’ “activism director” Adam Eidinger walked into the Senate building in Washington DC and rained money down the atrium (a shower of 2,000 $1 bills they called “Monsanto money”).



And countering Hormel? Hormel scion Tom Hormel, an artist and photographer who has taken a stance against the old family business by donating $500,000 to the Yes camp. He has stated in interviews that he and his brothers were cut off from the family business after the death of their father Jay Hormel.

“It’s a monster of a threat that people have no concept of,” Hormel told the Oregonian about his support for GMO labelling. “I want there to be a clear picture of the risks and I don’t see any. No one is talking about that.”

Shouting "Monsanto money!" activists protest #Monsanto and GMOs at Hart Senate Office Building pic.twitter.com/sTL06l2vRV — Jared Gilmour (@jaredgilmour) October 10, 2013

If Oregon passes the measure, it would be the second. Only Vermont successfully passed mandatory GMO labelling. It’s not that other states haven’t tried. Oregon’s Measure 92 comes close on the heels of similar unsuccessful high-budget campaigns in Washington and California. Ice-cream maker Ben and Jerry’s fought for the labeling in its home state earlier this year with a specially themed “Food Fight Fudge Brownie” flavour and is now supporting the campaign in Oregon, imploring its fans to vote Yes.



Ben and Jerry’s co-founder announced the Food Fight Fudge flavour in support of Measure 92 in Oregon Photograph: Benjerry

To understand the fight over Measure 92 better, we talked to Ivan Maluski, who runs a family-owned farm in Linn County, Oregon. He is the policy director of Friends of Family Farmers, an Oregon association of independent farmers. He says Oregon’s farmers principally support Measure 92 because it benefits local formers over large corporations.



Below is our conversation with Maluski, edited for space and clarity.



Why are Oregon’s farmers supporting Measure 92?

It’s important to know that the vast majority of Oregon farmers do not grow GE [genetically engineered] food crops. For example, nobody grows soy or cotton here. We have a ban on canola in one of our biggest agricultural producing regions because it threatens our specialist seed industry. There are some GE crops grown here but they are typically not intended for consumption and they’re not our biggest crops.

We farmers here have tended to benefit from consumers wanting to know where the food comes from and whether it’s genetically engineered. Hiding information tends to not help us. It tends to benefit out-of-state processed foods more than Oregon farmers.

Jerry Greenfield and David Bronner at an event in support of Measure 92 Photograph: Dr Bronner's Soaps

But won’t special labeling increase costs to Oregon’s consumers?

Food companies change their labels all the time. That cost is non-existent. There’s nothing in this measure that says the companies have to change what’s in the food. All this measure does is tell you you have to accurately say it on the food.



At the end of the day, the costs will be nothing or at most very minimal. Like a couple of dollars a year for consumers.

What do you think is the future of GMO labeling as a political issue in the US?

The federal government has failed to do its job in providing oversight over genetically engineered crops and food in a way that protects farmers and consumers. The FDA, for example, has been sitting on draft of non-binding voluntary labeling guidelines since 2001.

Congress cannot seem to legislate its way out of a paper bag, so there’s no realistic hope that Washington DC will address these issues. That’s why we support the rights of local communities including states to be able to lead the way. We think that this initiative is very reasonable. It protects farmers from losses.

It’s very consistent with labelling requirements that are in place in other locations around the world. If you were to ever go to a national labelling standard in the US, we think this Oregon measure could be a model to build that on. If enough states act, the federal government may finally lead in the right direction as well.

What would you say to scientific opposition that GMO foods are not very different from other foods?

I don’t think there is any good scientific argument against labelling. It’s more of a market economics issue and a truth-in-advertising question. Perhaps some oppose the stigma. I’m not sure why just stating whether something is genetically modified or not is a stigma.

Putting a label on, as being proposed by Measure 92, is not in conflict with other labels we have for foods whether it’s juice “from concentrate” or “country of origin”.