Washington State Voters Reject Labeling of GMO Foods

The initiative would have required labels on foods containing genetically engineered ingredients.

(Photo: Robyn Beck, AFP/Getty Images)

Washington state voters on Tuesday rejected an initiative that would have required foods containing genetically engineered ingredients to be labeled.

The vote was 54.8% opposed to labeling and 45.2% in favor of it.

Had it passed, Initiative 522 would have made the state the first in the nation to require such labeling.

The initiative was the most expensive in state history, though it was largely fought by out-of-state interests.

The No on 522 campaign set a record for fundraising, bringing in $22 million in donations according to The Seattle Times. Just $550 came from Washington residents, according to the newspaper. The top five contributors were the Grocery Manufacturers Association, Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Dow AgroSciences and Bayer CropScience.

The largest donor to the pro-labeling campaign were California-based Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps and the Center for Food Safety in Washington, D.C. However the initiative garnered almost 30% of its funding from individuals in Washington state, the Times reported.

Food industry ads claimed that the initiative would raise food prices. Labels would mislead consumers into thinking that products that contain genetically engineered ingredients are "somehow different, unsafe or unhealthy," said Brian Kennedy of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a food industry group based in Washington, D.C.

The Yes on 522 campaigns emphasized consumers right to know what's in their food.

The Washington initiative was part of an ongoing national fight by those opposed to genetically engineered crops to push for labeling. A similar bruising $37 million battle in California in 2012 went against labeling advocates. The final vote was 51.4% opposed and 48.6% in favor.

"Sooner or later, one of these is going to pass. It's only a matter of time. At some point the industry is going to get tired of pouring this kind of money into these campaigns," said Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition at New York University.

She said she doesn't believe there's anything dangerous about genetically engineered foods but is concerned about corporate control of the food supply.

Genetically engineered crops have a gene from another plant inserted into them to give them some ability they didn't have before.

There are two common genetic modifications. One is for herbicide tolerance: Plants are given a gene that protects them from harm when a farmer sprays them with herbicides to kill weeds. The other is a gene from a soil bacteria called Bacillus thuringiensis that allows plants to produce their own insecticide.

A huge proportion of commodity crops grown by U.S. farmers are genetically engineered: 97% of the nation's sugar beets, 93% of the soybeans, 90% of the cotton and 90% of the feed corn for animals, according to the 2013 figures from the Department of Agriculture.

About 60% of the papaya grown in the United States, all in Hawaii, has been genetically engineered to allow it to withstand the ringspot virus, which virtually wiped out papaya production in the islands in the 1980s, according to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications.

Very small amounts of genetically engineered zucchini, yellow squash and sweet corn are also sold in the United States.

The Food and Drug Administration does not require foods containing genetically engineered ingredients to be labeled because it considers them "functionally equivalent" to conventionally grown crops.

[via USA Today]

Biotech Attack GMO Labeling in WA—Organic Brands Hide Behind Lobby Group

Proposition I-522, a citizen’s initiative on the ballot on November 5 in Washington state, would mandate clear labeling of genetically engineered (GE) ingredients on food packages.  It has become the latest battleground pitting consumer and farmer advocates against multi-billion-dollar agribusiness corporations.

Recent polling indicates strong support for the Washington state informational labeling measure. But a flood of money to fight the ballot initiative has rolled in from Monsanto, DuPont, and other biotechnology interests and food manufacturers, now totaling over $11 million, according to Washington state election records.

“Consumers might be surprised to find out that some of their favorite organic and natural brands, hiding behind their lobbyist, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, are contributing bushel baskets of cash towards thwarting the consumer’s right to know what is in their food in Washington,” says Mark Kastel, Codirector of The Cornucopia Institute.

Cornucopia has released an infographic designed to inform consumers and let them make purchasing decisions reflecting their values. Many organic and natural food manufacturers are financially supporting the GMO labeling effort. They and other proponents are identified in Cornucopia’s infographic along with the biotech and agribusiness concerns fighting the labeling effort.

Last year, a similar GMO labeling measure was narrowly defeated in California, with Monsanto and its allies pouring more than $46 million into their campaign and outspending labeling supporters by five to one. Many prominent organic and natural brands were outed in California by Cornucopia for their opposition to GMO food labeling.

Just recently, the powerful Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) publicly scrubbed its website of its members, a move thought by many to be an effort to mask which corporations/brands helped underwrite the $2.2 million already donated by the GMA against I-522. They haven’t, however, been able to remove this web archive detailing their membership.

“They are obviously trying to hide their membership,” says Trudy Bialic, Director of Public Affairs for PCC Natural Markets, a Seattle-based, member-owned grocery cooperative. PCC has been working on GMO issues since 1994 when rBGH — a genetically engineered growth hormone for dairy cattle — was a contentious issue.

Assessing the dollars fueling both campaigns, Bialic observes that “not one individual is listed as a contributor on the ‘No’ side, while the ‘Yes’ side is being funded by thousands of individuals.” PCC itself has contributed $198,344 in support of I-522.

GMA spokesman Brain Kennedy told Politico, a Washington, DC publication covering politics, that “GMA fully supports the No on 522 Campaign in Washington State, and will continue to support the campaign’s effort to defeat this costly, confusing and unnecessary proposal.”

Mandatory labeling of genetically engineered food at the state level is viewed as a watershed event by many industry observers, given the inaction on the popular proposal at the federal level. Monsanto, its biotech allies, and GMA in particular, have been credited for bottlenecking the federal labeling law.

“Just as we’ve observed in Europe, where labeling of food containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is mandatory, we fully expect that, when given a choice, consumers will choose organic or non-GMO products,” said Mark A. Kastel, Codirector of the Wisconsin-based Cornucopia. “And the industrial food lobby is fully cognizant of this — that’s why they’re fighting like hell against this grassroots effort.”

One leading organic manufacturer that has been actively promoting and funding a “yes on I-522″ vote is Nutiva. “We support I-522 because everyone has a right to know what’s in our food,” says John W Roulac, Nutiva’s Founder and CEO. Roulac has been working hard to convince other corporate executives to step up as well. He has committed Nutiva to donating $75,000.

Other prominent commercial backers of state citizen initiatives, viewed as heroes in the organic movement, include Nature’s Path, the prominent cereal manufacturer, and the soap manufacturer, Dr. Bronner’s. Additional organizations throwing their financial weight behind the consumer’s right to know include the health website Mercola.com and the Organic Consumers Association.

The biggest single donor to the “No” campaign is Monsanto. The biotech giant has contributed $4.8 million — an amount greater than all of the funds collected by the right-to-know forces.

“Consumers are increasingly interested in ‘voting with their forks,’ and many want to support companies that share their values,” notes Jason Cole, a researcher for Cornucopia who compiled the data for the infographic. “We know that many organic and ‘natural’ brands, owned by corporate agribusiness, fought the California food labeling effort. We believe, until it is shown otherwise, that many of these same companies are likely clandestinely supporting a defeat of the Washington state effort by funneling their dollars through the Grocery Manufacturers Association. ”

MORE:

Other “Yes” vote campaign donors include Organic Consumer’s Fund, Health Resources, Presence Marketing, Food and Water Watch, Center for Food Safety, WashPIRG, GFA/Boulder Brands, Annie’s, Food Democracy Now, Amy’s Kitchen, Lundberg Family Farms, Clif Bar, CROPP Cooperative (Organic Valley), UNFI, Inc., Wehan Farms, Stonyfield Farm, Whole Foods, Diamond Foods, Earthbound Farms, Turtle Mountain, Environmental Working Group, Institute for Responsible Technology, Freeland Foods/Go Raw, Jimbo’s Natural Family Inc., Brad’s Raw Chips, Suja Life LLC, Van’s International Foods, Vital Choice Wild Seafood and Organics, Jobbertown Media, Wallaby Yogurt, Eden Foods, Attune Foods, Back to Nature, Barney and Co, Dale and Thomas Popcorn, Guayaki Sustainable Rainforest Products, Califia Farms LP, Mamma Chia, Mary’s Gone Crackers, Organic Foods Express, Wholesome Sweeteners, Good Earth Natural Foods, Straus Family Creamery, Full Circle Farm, Skagit Valley Food Coop, Springfield Creamery, Earth Island, Equal Exchange, The Natural Grocery, Traditional Medicinals, Nutritional Therapy Association, Rhythm Superfoods, Marlene’s Market and Deli, Café Press, Raw Foods International, Nature’s Best, Ben and Jerry’s, Intellicomp/Seasnax, Skagit Valley Food Co-op, Wisdom Natural Brands, Bragg Live Foods, Turtle Island, Good Karma, Organically Grown Company, FoodState Inc., Park Slope Food Coop, Endangered Species Chocolate, Sky Valley Foods, Glutino, Northbest Natural Products, Wild Brine, Ocean Beach Organic Food Coop, The Food Coop (Port Townsend, WA), Essential Living Foods, Scratch and Peck Feeds, Raven’s Journey, and Experience Health.

Major opponents of Washington’s food labeling initiative also include Bayer CropScience ($591,654), DuPont ($3,420,189), and Dow AgroSciences ($29,531).

[via Cornucopia]

Yes on 522 Campaign Raises $3.5 Million in Cash and Pledges to Date; 66% of Washington State Voters Favor GMO Labeling Bill

With 66% of Washington State voters surveyed in favor of GMO labeling, the Yes on 522 campaign has raised more than $3.5 million in cash and pledges to date, and is set to withstand significant opposition and spending by biotech and mainstream food interests. 

by Steven Hoffman, on behalf of Yes on 522 to label GMOs in Washington State

Seattle, WA (August 8, 2013) - In what is becoming a major battleground in the campaign to label genetically engineered foods in the U.S., 66% of Washington State voters indicated they are in favor of I-522, the state initiative to label GMOs in foods, while just 22% oppose it. The GMO labeling bill will appear on the November statewide ballot and in early voting, after more than 350,000 signatures were submitted to the state legislature in January.

Also, a recent voter survey found that support in the state for GMO labeling is broad and deep, as significant majorities of Democrats, Independents and Republicans support labeling, as do majorities of every age group and every region of the state. And while overall support is at the two-thirds mark, 48 percent of respondents said they "strongly support" the Yes on 522 measure, while only 13% of voters are strongly in the No on 522 camp.

The findings are based on a survey of 1,200 likely voters conducted June 18-23 by GBA Strategies, Washington, DC. The survey used live dialers and reached voters on cell phones and landlines. The results are subject to a margin of error of plus-or-minus 2.8% at the 95% confidence level.

Bracing for the Opposition

Notably, the poll found that support for labeling could withstand a barrage of opposition attacks. After voters hear one message in favor of labeling and six messages against, support for I-522 holds at 64%, while opposition only increases to 29%, says the poll.

Does this mean that the Yes on 522 bill can withstand being outspent six to one and still achieve victory on Election Day? Yes, say campaign leaders, however, they assert that this assumption holds true only if the campaign continues to raise the resources it needs to mount an effective television, radio, Internet and social media campaign.

Additionally, those funds are needed now in order for the campaign to act this summer to reserve the best media placements for the fall at optimal rates.

______________________________

"The bottom line is that we will lose like we lost Prop. 37 if we don't step up and give I-522 the ammunition it needs to win the air war." 

                                               - David Bronner, Yes on 522 Finance Chair

______________________________

A similar measure in California in 2012 also enjoyed more than 60% support early in the campaign, but lost by less than 3 percentage points after an onslaught of ads by Prop. 37 opponents, who spent $46 million with heavy donations from the biotech, agribusiness and mainstream food sectors.

But proponents of the GMO labeling bill say things may be different now in the Evergreen state. To date, the Yes on 522 campaign has raised more than $2.5 million with another $1 million in hard pledges committed, and has spent less than $350,000.

Industry Leaders Top “Yes on 522” Donor List

Major Yes on 522 donors include: Dr. Bonner’s Magic Soaps ($700,000); Mercola.com Health Resources ($200,000); Organic Consumers Fund ($380,000); Presence Marketing/Dynamic Presence ($200,000) and Presence founder Bill Weiland ($50,000); Center for Food Safety Action Fund ($100,000); Nature’s Path Foods USA Inc. ($100,000); Annie’s Inc. ($50,000); PCC Natural Markets ($50,000); Mark Squire, cofounder of Good Earth Grocery ($50,000); Karen Swift, cofounder of the BioSafety Alliance ($35,000); Clif Bar & Co. ($25,000); Boulder Brands ($25,000); UNFI ($25,000); Lundberg Family Farms ($25,000); Stonyfield Farm ($20,000); Turtle Mountain ($15,000); Amy’s Kitchen ($12,500); and Freeland Foods/Go Raw ($10,000). There are a total of 628 donors to Yes on 522 to date. For a complete list of donors, click here.

GMA Provides Cover for “No on 522” Donors

However, the “No on 522” campaign committee, which opposes GMO labeling, has reported raising nearly $1 million to date from just five pro-biotech interests, including major pesticide companies, and mainstream food companies via the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA). The GMA - a trade group representing mainstream food producers - has so far donated $472,500 to defeat Yes on 522; Monsanto has donated $242,156.25 to date; followed by DuPont Pioneer ($171,281.25), Bayer Cropscience ($29,531.25), and Dow Agrosciences LLC ($29,531.25). To see the list of No on 522 donors, click here.

Notable, too, is that the “No on 522” group has committed about $110,000 to retain Santa Monica, CA-based Winner & Mandabach Campaigns, which has a track record of three big and recent wins in Washington. Brad Shannon, political writer for the Daily Olympian in Olympia, WA, said on July 14 that Winner & Mandabach has a “track record of winning high stakes campaigns.”

“A Shot at Winning”

“Nobody is calling it ‘Little GMO’ after California’s ‘Big GMO’ yet, but Initiative 522 in Washington State looks like it is on the same track as the Golden State’s ill-fated Proposition 37. Except it has a shot at winning,” reported Dan Flynn on July 16 in Food Safety News.

“The ‘Yes’ campaign is stressing the public’s right to know what is in their food, while generally staying away from claims that GMOs are unsafe to eat,” Flynn wrote. “The ‘No’ campaign will tell Evergreen State voters such labeling will just increase food costs without any benefit basis. Those were familiar refrains in the ‘Big GMO’ campaign,” he said.

In a letter to donors, Yes on 522 finance committee member David Bronner wrote, “Key in-state endorsements continue to line up, including Washington Conservation Voters, Washington Nurses Association, and prominent fishing companies and organizations. Key alliances are being built with wheat farmer, apple grower and salmon fishery spokespeople, and earned media continues to go our way. A perfect storm is brewing with the GMO wheat contamination compromising Washington wheat exports, and imminent FDA approval of GMO salmon galvanizing the fishing sector.

“The Yes on 522 campaign is night and day better than Prop. 37, as we've all collectively learned and improved our game,” Bronner continued. “But the bottom line is that we will lose like we lost Prop. 37 if we don't step up and give I-522 the ammunition it needs to win the air war. Armchair hemming, hawing, complaining or otherwise being complacent about the amazing efforts and progress we are making as a movement is no excuse for not stepping up now in Washington when it counts,” Bronner urged donors.

How to Contribute to Yes on 522

To contribute to support the Yes on 522 campaign, visit Yeson522.com or contact Steven Hoffman, steve@compassnatural.com, tel 303.807.1042. Hoffman, director of Compass Natural Marketing, is working to raise funds and awareness in the natural, organic and sustainable products industry on behalf of the campaign.

This article originally appeared in the July 2013 Newsletter published by Presence Marketing / Dynamic Presence. Copyright 2013.