Lab Members: Jesse Simpson and Perri Pond
Background
Measure 92 is an Oregonian measure that is pushing the labeling of Genetically engineered foods. It has become a widely popular and talked about measure as November approaches, in fact according to the The Center for Public Integrity Measure 92 has become the 5th largest supported measure in the U.S.. According to the Oregonian, “More than $5 million has been spent on TV ads in the campaign, according to the center — $3 million by opponents, $2.1 million by backers.” According to the Yes on Measure 92’s website, “genetically engineered foods are foods [that] must be altered in a laboratory where a “beneficial new trait” is inserted into the DNA of a plant or animal. Over 99% of GMOs are engineered to tolerate high doses of pesticide and/or produce their own insecticide.” The Yes on Measure 92 argues that people have the right to know what they are eating, and thus are pushing for any and all food that are genetically engineered be labeled. While on the other hand, No on Measure 92 claims Measure 92 is misleading and argues that it would “cost Oregon farmers, food companies, taxpayers and consumers hundreds of millions of dollars.” Additionally No on Measure 92 disagrees with the measure because they claim it force farmers to have to have separate storage bins and packaging. For this lab we choose to analyze two ads, “Oregon Farmers say: Vote Yes on 92!” from Yes on 92 and “Farmer Matt” from No on 92.
Procedure
For this analysis, we first watched each of the ads posted on the Oregon Right to Know youtube channel and the NO on 92 Coalition channel, assessing their common arguments and thematic choices. We selected “Oregon Farmers say: Vote Yes on 92” from the YESon92 campaign and an ad titled “Farmer Matt” from the No on 92 campaign, as we were interested in how the two campaigns could use the same kind of a spokesperson—a farmer—to spread opposing views of Measure 92. We watched each set of ads numerous times, paying attention, at different points, to the selection (what does each side talk about), sequencing (how these selected elements arranged), and the visual and musical accompaniment within the ads. We quickly noticed that both ads, despite using a symbol of labor as their spokesperson, centered the discourse on consumers.
From watching the various ads we noticed that both campaigns ran ads that had consistent themes and images. For example, No on 92 used the same figure to describe that Measure 92 exemptions of thousands of products produced with GMOs in many of their ads. The Yes on 92 campaign used the same green colored map of the world to show that 64 countries around the globe already mandate that products containing GMOs must be labeled. The generalized moral of Yes on 92 ads was that Oregonians and furthermore all global citizens have the right to know what they are eating. While the generalized moral of the No on 92 campaign was that Measure 92 is confusing and will ultimately do more harm than good to Oregonians and Oregonian farmers.
Results:
The ad for Yes on 92, “Oregon Farmers say: Vote Yes on 92!” featured an Oregon farmer, identified by name only in a text blurb, opened with an appeal to the alignment of consumer and producer interests in favor of GMO labelling. The ad used a set of middle-aged white farmers, equipped with baseball hats, plaid shirts, and overalls, to argue that GMO labelling is good for consumers. Despite the use of producers as spokespeople, the ad focused little on the effect of Measure 92 and GMOs on production relations; there is a couple blurbs that GMO labelling “will help Oregon farmers.” The ad emphasizes the role of consumer trust of food and the “right to know” what you’re eating. There is no mention of the role of corporate intellectual property ownership of GMO seeds, and the troublesome politics for farmers which can result from that. Instead, “labelling helps family farmers” only “by letting people know the difference between the traditional food we grow, and food genetically engineered in a lab.” The contrast between traditional food and genetically engineered food is heightened by the visual and musical accompaniments; over the course of this sentence, the scene changes from a bucolic farm and bountiful supermarket to sterile, white lab where a couple of scientists are hunched over beakers, with no sign of nature or food in sight. The musical accompaniment of this scene shift is noteworthy. The commercial begins with a rustic country tune in the background that is interrupted by an ominous stringed tune once the scientists flash across the screen.
There is also a certain blurring of the distance between the ideal producers and consumers in the Yes on 92 ad. The previously mentioned scene shifts immediately from a farmer carefully handpicking and inspecting tomatoes to a consumer picking produce from a colorful supermarket display, eliminating the role of logistics and transportation in the food systems, and advancing an idea that the relationship between the ideal (non-GMO) farmers and consumers is unmediated by the industrial food system. The selection and sequencing of “Oregon Farmers say: Vote Yes on 92!” functions both as a direct call to action, and a more implicit moral that labelling will allow for this direct relationship between family farmers and consumers, and allow for informed, mutually-beneficial consumption of traditional, “natural” food. Overall, the Yes on 92 campaign relied on a declensionist narrative, with scientific engineering of food portrayed as very simply and inherently bad. While this ad didn’t make any direct health claims, the call that we need labelling to “trust” our food relies on and recalls vague consumer anxieties about GMOs. There are heavy declensionist narratives presented here, with traditional equated with good, and genetically engineered food science identified as bad. This morals is evidenced by the sequencing of the musical elements and the language (the food you can trust is, presumably, traditional).
Rather than being a reflective progressivist narrative about the benefits of GMOs in terms of their yield capabilities (see Monsanto’s FAQ for an example of a progressivist GMO narrative), the ads No on 92 run offer a more limited and defensive narrative, centered on flaws in Resolution 92 and the cost of labelling to the consumer. For example, in the ad we analyzed, Matt the farmer claims that Measure 92 is “a bunch of complex, costly regulations that don’t exist in any other state.” Matt’s complaints about the burden of regulation, however, are couched in consumer-centric rhetoric. He claims that these regulations “wouldn’t even give consumers reliable information” about GMOs, owing to the exemptions for meat, restaurants, and alcoholic beverages under the measure. While Matt states that Measure 92 would “hurt family farmers,” he makes sure to emphasize that it would also increase food costs for consumers. The sequencing of these statements, just as with the Yes campaign, conceptually links farmers and consumers together; in this case, however, the farmer spokesperson is arguing against labelling for the consumer’s sake. The ad closes with a graphic insert listing local farm bureaus and associations that are “Groups representing over 10,000 family farmers” who oppose labelling. The ad as a whole is structured around the presentation of selected facts, with the predominating (explicit) value expressed that of cost to the consumer. The content and sequencing of “Farmer Matt” generates a moral that the referendum would not give consumers any clarity, and would impose an additional cost on them.
Finally, from watching the various ads we noticed very consistent themes and images in each campaign’s advertisement. For example, No on 92 used the same infographic on the foods that Measure 92 exempts from labelling in many of their ads, including in “Farmer Matt.” The YES on 92 campaign used the same green colored map of the world to show that 64 countries around the globe already mandate that products containing GMOs must be labeled.
Discussion
According to this article, Measure 92 is “No. 5 in the nation for money spent on television advertising, according to the Center for Public Integrity.” As we researched this ballot measure we found an interesting article that included a map that showed who and where both the no and yes on 92 groups were getting their funding from. Through examining this map we discovered that Coca-Cola, Dupont, Monsanto, Kraft Foods and Pepsi Co Inc. were the top five funders in the opposition of Measure 92. Each of these companies are all from out of state, and 99.98% of total No on 92 funding has come from out of state. It was a little surprising to see that the No on 92 ads featured a limited critique of the initiative, especially considering the financial backers. One would think that Monsanto would want to spread a progressive story of the development of GMOs, however instead they have used their monetary power and influence to just instead the paint the concepts of Measure 92 to be harmful to family farms. The no on 92 ads do not focus on their true motivations of their support, rather they only discuss the flaws of measure 92 and claim it is misleading. While these flaws could be reasons to oppose labelling, exemptions within the measure are certainly not the motivating factors behind the millions of dollars that Monsanto, Dupont, and processed food companies have poured into the campaign. The no on 92 ads do not openly support monocultural agriculture, pesticide use, or genetic modification, rather they claim measure 92 will increase increase consumer costs and create consumer confusion.
Though no on 92 and yes on 92 are opposed to each other, it was interesting to see how both campaigns used similar techniques to convey their messages. For example, in both the ads we examined, they use farmers as a vehicle for their respective campaigns. The talking points and underlying narratives of the Yes and No campaigns remain much the same across all of their ads, even when they voiced opinions from nutritionists, scientists, farmers, and consumers. In particular it was interesting to see that both the Yes and No campaigns used farmers to talk about consumers. The largest divergence came in which consumer value the campaigns emphasize, with the Yes on 92 ads highlighting trust and the right to know what’s in your food, while the NO on 92 ads stress the cost of labelling to consumers.
Another example of the Yes and No 92 campaigns employing similar rhetoric and ideas was the use of the “family farm.” Both campaigns refer to family farms as being a keystone to their campaign, however a family farms in the Yes and No 92 ads do not align. Furthermore, our (the consumer) idea of a family farm does not line up with their definition and use of family farms. For example, what we would generally view as a family farm—a small farm could in actuality be a farm of many acres that produces only one crop. For example, Matt Frketich and his wife Brenda Frketich live on a thousand acre farm, yet they claim to be a small family farm.