Originally published November 26 2014
Too close to call: Oregon's GMO-labeling initiative gets automatic recount
by Julie Wilson staff writer
(NaturalNews) Just as we predicted, the mainstream media announced Oregon's GMO-labeling initiative as defeated prior to counting all the votes, a suspicious move considering the measure was trailing just 49 to 51 percent on the evening of voting day.
Measure 92, an initiative that would require genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to be labeled, excluding alcohol or restaurant-prepared food, would go into effect January 2016 if passed.
Portland's KPTV reports that Measure 92 was initially "too close to call on election night," but the following morning FOX 12 political analyst Tim Hibbitts projected that the initiative would fail.
However, recent analysis shows that the ballot returns have a margin of fewer than 1,500 votes between those in favor and those opposed to GMO labeling, meaning an automatic recount is in store for Oregonians!
At least 13,00 ballots with signature errors not included in GMO-labeling race
An automatic recount occurs when the difference between the "yes" and "no" votes is 0.2 percent of the total number of votes cast. In this case, the difference is 0.1 percent, placing the ballot measure up for an automatic recount, according to a November 20 report by KPTV.
"The only thing I'm certain about right now is there will be a recount," said Hibbitts. "The margin of error is 3,000. I'm completely comfortable it's going to be way inside of that; we are going to go to a recount."
After analyzing the final election returns released by 15 counties on November 19, Hibbitts noticed a trend that included higher percentages of "yes" votes compared to previous returns.
The discovery follows "Yes on 92" campaign efforts that reached out to 13,000 voters whose ballots had errors, including signature problems. These ballots had not been considered in the original vote, reports KPTV, a huge factor in a race with just a difference of 1,500 votes.
For the first time this year, Oregon's Secretary of State released the names of contested ballots, a move that could make the race even closer, predicts Hibbitts.
"Officials in Multnomah, Lane and Deschutes counties are still counting more than 13,000 ballots that were initially rejected for issues like signatures that didn't match, so that margin could still narrow some," confirms FOX 12.
Measure 92 was the costliest initiative on this year's ballot, breaking Oregon state records in terms of campaign spending. More than $25 million was funneled into the battle over whether or not to label GMOs, a proposal that's trending in popularity across the nation, as consumers demand to know what's in their food.
More than $12 million was spent by the biotech industry fighting the measure, with Monsanto alone dumping more than $8 million toward fighting labeling initiatives in Oregon and Colorado.
Kraft Foods, Land O' Lakes and Kellogg's also contributed ginormous amounts to strip consumers of their Right to Know. However, other companies sought to do the right, with Dr. Bronner's donating nearly $300,000 in support of GMO labeling.
If Measure 92 passes, Oregon will become the first state to enact a voter-approved GMO-labeling law, as reported by Natural News. The Vermont legislature victoriously passed a similar proposal last spring, but is now being sued by the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), a.k.a. Big Food's mouthpiece.
Truthful recount could mean victory for the Right to Know movement
If the recount is done truthfully, it's very likely that GMO labeling will pass in Oregon, as polls in all states considering similar proposals show overwhelming public support for labeling.
The dangers of GMOs are so substantial that even the biotech industry couldn't prevent the truth from reaching the masses; in fact, an independent, non-biased study on the safety of GMOs and their associated pesticides in set to launch early 2015.
"Factor GMO" will be the first long-term study to monitor the effects of 6,000 lab rats fed GMO corn over a three-year period.
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml