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]

The Power of Labeling: Preserving & Building a Non-GMO Food Supply

When California Proposition 37 failed to pass at the polls last November, all of us who advocate for the right to know were profoundly disappointed. However, the measure, which would have mandated labeling of foods containing genetically engineered ingredients, garnered more than 6 million votes, and was actually a great case of "losing forward." Despite outspending of nearly 5 to 1, the initiative lost by just 2 percentage points and attracted a significant amount of national media attention.

Inspired by California's effort, nearly 40 states are now working on mandatory labeling of GMOs (genetically modified organisms). In June, Connecticut and Maine became the first states to pass mandatory GMO labeling -- though in both cases additional states need to pass similar measures in order for the laws to take effect.

This November, voters in Washington State will have a chance to pass I-522, a similar but improved version of the Prop 37 legislation. Since January, organizers in California have been sharing lessons learned with their peers in Washington, giving I-522 a solid foundation for success. As a state with an economy focused on exports--a lot of which go to countries with GMO bans--Washington is uniquely concerned about GMO contamination. With the looming threat of genetically engineered apples, salmon, and wheat--all quintessential Washington crops--even conventional farmers in the state are becoming concerned about the economic impact of GMOs.

The non-GMO movement is, at its core, about the right to know. Because GMOs are unstable and experimental, they are subject to mandatory labeling in more than 60 countries around the world, including Australia, Japan, Russia, China, and all of the European Union. More research is needed to understand the long-term health and environmental implications of genetic engineering, but in the United States that research is essentially being conducted on the public, without consent.

Despite biotechnology industry promises, none of the GMO traits currently on the market offers increased yield, drought tolerance, enhanced nutrition, or any consumer benefit. Meanwhile, a growing body of evidence connecting GMOs to health problems and environmental damage has triggered a massive public backlash.

At the federal level, the Just Label It campaign has collected more than 1.3 million signatures on a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) petition demanding mandatory GMO labeling. Although the FDA has yet to respond, this is more than twice as many signatures as have ever been received on any food petition in the agency's history.

Americans are also voting in record numbers with their wallets. The Non-GMO Project--a nonprofit organization that oversees North America's only third-party non-GMO verification, including ongoing ingredient testing--has quickly seen its label become the fastest growing in the natural products industry. With annual sales of well over $3.5 billion, Non-GMO Project Verified products are now found everywhere from independent food co-ops to big-box retailers.

When the Non-GMO Project was founded in 2007, mandatory labeling efforts had almost completely stalled. In that void, the project's strategy was to leverage the power of the marketplace, using supply and demand principles to preserve and build a non-GMO food supply. When it began, skeptics far outweighed supporters; many said it would be impossible to get a critical mass of food companies to voluntarily adopt such rigorous standards. Six years later, the progress is astonishing. More than 1,000 brands are now enrolled in the Non-GMO Project's Product Verification Program, and more than 14,000 products have successfully earned the verification.

This market demand and the corresponding rekindling of mandatory labeling efforts clearly show Americans are not willing to remain in the dark when it comes to the food we're eating and feeding to our loved ones. The momentum will continue until we have the same right to know about GMOs in our food as our peers around the world.

Would GMO Labeling Jack Up Food Prices?

The push to require labels for genetically modified food, which flared up in California before drowning under a flood of industry cash last year, is now underway in Washington state. Predictably, agrichemical and organic interests are pouring money into, respectively, defeating and supporting a ballot initiative called I-522, which would require foods containing GMO ingredients to bear labels. Just as predictably, the agribusiness interests are garnering much more money to kill the effort than their organic peers are in supporting it—outspending them $17.1 million to $4.6 million, the Spokane-Review reported.

Meanwhile, in a development that broke late Wednesday, the Washington state attorney general has filed a complaint alleging that the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a trade group that donated $2 million to the effort to defeat California's labeling initiative, violated state campaign laws and "spent more than $7 million while shielding the identity of its contributors," according to its press release.

As in California, the effect on food prices is emerging as a point of contention. Opponents of labeling, pointing to a 2012 study prepared during the California fight by Northbridge Environmental Management Consultants, say that the new rules would cost consumers $350 to $400 annually per household. The Northbridge paper, though, was funded by the industry-dominated campaign to stop Prop 37, as the California initiative was known. Campaign records show that Northridge received a total of $97,371 in five payments during 2012.

Supporters of the Washington initiative, in turn, point to a rival 2012 study, this one prepared by Joanna M. Shepherd of Emory University School of Law, which found that "food prices [are] likely to remain unchanged for consumers." That study was commissioned by the Alliance for Natural Health, a group that advocates for "the right of natural-health practitioners to practice and the right of consumers to choose the healthcare options they prefer."

So which is right? Over at Grist, Michael Lipsky, a distinguished senior fellow at the progressive think tank Demos, argues that labeling wouldn't likely cost consumers much at all. The cost of changing labels would be trivial, he writes—food manufacturers "do it all the time." Ever seen the words "new and improved" on some boxed delicacy?

The Northbridge study, he shows, is based on the assumption that, in order to avoid having to declare that their products contain GMOs, food manufactures will rapidly switch over to non-GMO ingredients, which would cost more to procure. That's because upwards of 80 percent of US corn, soybeans, and sugar beets are genetically modified—and iterations of these three crops suffuse US processed foods, providing sweeteners (high-fructose corn syrup and beet sugar), fats (corn and soy oil), and a litany of ingredients like various thickeners. For food manufacturers to get non-GMO versions of these substances, they'd have to pay a premium in the marketplace—hence higher ingredient costs that they'd want to pass on to consumers.

But that effect wouldn't last long, Lipsky argues. "If labeling were required, particularly if (and when) the labeling requirement is adopted by other states, demand for non-GMO versions of corn, soybeans, and sugar beets—the basic GMO crops—would increase, production would expand, and prices for non-GMO ingredients would decline," he writes. That makes good sense: basic supply and demand.

And here's something Lipsky didn't get to: Even in the short term, the effect on retail prices would likely be small. That's because ingredients make up a tiny portion of the expenses incurred by manufactures to process food and move it to grocery store shelves. Transportation, marketing, processing—all of these things cost more than the actual food in the box of cereal or frozen dinner at Walmart.

How tiny are the costs of ingredients? Consider a box of corn flakes—which are presumably made largely of GMO corn (it's impossible to know for sure, because no US state requires labeling). In this 2008 report (currently available online because it has been republished on a non-government server) on the effect of ethanol on food prices, a US Department of Agriculture researcher crunched the numbers (pun fully intended) on the how much money companies spend on corn to make your cereal:

[A]n 18-ounce box of corn flakes contains about 12.9 ounces of milled field corn. When field corn is priced at $2.28 per bushel (the 20-year average), the actual value of corn represented in the box of corn flakes is about 3.3 cents.

And what happened after the corn ethanol program pushed corn prices up to $3.49 per bushel—a 49 percent jump? The total cost of corn in the cereal box rose to 4.9 cents. In other words, paying a 49 percent premium pushed up the corn cost in a box of corn flakes a grand total of 1.6 cents. An 18-ounce box of corn flakes contains 18 servings—meaning that much-pricier corn translated to an increase of less than 0.1 cents per bowl. For a family of four that consumes four bowls of flakes every day, that's about $1.46 extra for the year.

So even if manufacturers had to pay a hefty premium for non-GMO corn, the retail price of food would barely budge. Whatever you think about GMO labeling, the concern that it would significantly jack up food prices is probably specious.

[via Mother Jones]

8 Foods Even The Experts Won’t Eat

Food scientists are shedding light on items loaded with toxins and chemicals–and simple swaps for a cleaner diet and supersized health. Experts from different areas of specialty explain why they won’t eat these eight foods.

Clean eating means choosing fruits, vegetables, and meats that are raised, grown, and sold with minimal processing. Often they’re organic, and rarely (if ever) should they contain additives. But in some cases, the methods of today’s food producers are neither clean nor sustainable. The result is damage to our health, the environment, or both. So we decided to take a fresh look at food through the eyes of the people who spend their lives uncovering what’s safe–or not–to eat. ” Their answers don’t necessarily make up a “banned foods” list. But reaching for the suggested alternatives might bring you better health–and peace of mind.

1. The Endocrinologist Won’t Eat: Canned Tomatoes

Fredrick Vom Saal, is an endocrinologist at the University of Missouri who studies bisphenol-A.

The problem: The resin linings of tin cans contain bisphenol-A, a synthetic estrogen that has been linked to ailments ranging from reproductive problems to heart disease, diabetes, and obesity. Unfortunately, acidity (a prominent characteristic of tomatoes) causes BPA to leach into your food. Studies show that the BPA in most people’s body exceeds the amount that suppresses sperm production or causes chromosomal damage to the eggs of animals. “You can get 50 mcg of BPA per liter out of a tomato can, and that’s a level that is going to impact people, particularly the young,” says vom Saal. “I won’t go near canned tomatoes.”

The solution: Choose tomatoes in glass bottles (which do not need resin linings), such as the brands Bionaturae and Coluccio. You can also get several types in Tetra Pak boxes, like Trader Joe’s and Pomi. Exposure to BPA Causes Permanent Damage In OffSpring

2. The Farmer Won’t Eat: Corn-Fed Beef

Joel Salatin is co-owner of Polyface Farms and author of half a dozen books on sustainable farming.

The problem: Cattle evolved to eat grass, not grains. But farmers today feed their animals corn and soybeans, which fatten up the animals faster for slaughter. But more money for cattle farmers (and lower prices at the grocery store) means a lot less nutrition for us. A recent comprehensive study conducted by the USDA and researchers from Clemson University found that compared with corn-fed beef, grass-fed beef is higher in beta-carotene, vitamin E, omega-3s, conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), calcium, magnesium, and potassium; lower in inflammatory omega-6s; and lower in saturated fats that have been linked to heart disease. “We need to respect the fact that cows are herbivores, and that does not mean feeding them corn and chicken manure,” says Salatin.

The solution: Buy grass-fed beef, which can be found at specialty grocers, farmers markets, and nationally at Whole Foods. It’s usually labeled because it demands a premium, but if you don’t see it, ask your butcher.

3. The Toxicologist Won’t Eat: Microwave Popcorn

Olga Naidenko, is a senior scientist for the Environmental Working Group.

The problem: Chemicals, including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), in the lining of the bag, are part of a class of compounds that may be linked to infertility in humans, according to a recent study from UCLA. In animal testing, the chemicals cause liver, testicular, and pancreatic cancer. Studies show that microwaving causes the chemicals to vaporize–and migrate into your popcorn. “They stay in your body for years and accumulate there,” says Naidenko, which is why researchers worry that levels in humans could approach the amounts causing cancers in laboratory animals. DuPont and other manufacturers have promised to phase out PFOA by 2015 under a voluntary EPA plan, but millions of bags of popcorn will be sold between now and then.

The solution: Pop organic kernels the old-fashioned way: in a skillet. For flavorings, you can add real butter or dried seasonings, such as dillweed, vegetable flakes, or soup mix. Make it organic and use coconut oil. If You’re Still Eating Microwave Popcorn, You’re Not Fully Grasping The Health Consequences

4. The Farm Director Won’t Eat: Non-Organic Potatoes

Jeffrey Moyer is the chair of the National Organic Standards Board.

The problem: Root vegetables absorb herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides that wind up in soil. In the case of potatoes–the nation’s most popular vegetable–they’re treated with fungicides during the growing season, then sprayed with herbicides to kill off the fibrous vines before harvesting. After they’re dug up, the potatoes are treated yet again to prevent them from sprouting. “Try this experiment: Buy a conventional potato in a store, and try to get it to sprout. It won’t,” says Moyer, who is also farm director of the Rodale Institute (also owned by Rodale Inc., the publisher of Prevention). “I’ve talked with potato growers who say point-blank they would never eat the potatoes they sell. They have separate plots where they grow potatoes for themselves without all the chemicals.”

The solution: Buy organic potatoes. Washing isn’t good enough if you’re trying to remove chemicals that have been absorbed into the flesh.  Budget tip: Organic potatoes are only $1 to $2 a pound, slightly more expensive than conventional spuds.

5. The Fisheries Expert Won’t Eat: Farmed Salmon

Dr. David Carpenter, director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany, published a major study in the journal Science on contamination in fish.

The problem: Nature didn’t intend for salmon to be crammed into pens and fed soy, poultry litter, and hydrolyzed chicken feathers. As a result, farmed salmon is lower in vitamin D and higher in contaminants, including carcinogens, PCBs, brominated flame retardants, and pesticides such as dioxin and DDT. According to Carpenter, the most contaminated fish come from Northern Europe, which can be found on American menus. “You could eat one of these salmon dinners every 5 months without increasing your risk of cancer,” says Carpenter, whose 2004 fish contamination study got broad media attention. “It’s that bad.” Preliminary science has also linked DDT to diabetes and obesity, but some nutritionists believe the benefits of omega-3s outweigh the risks. There is also concern about the high level of antibiotics and pesticides used to treat these fish. When you eat farmed salmon, you get dosed with the same drugs and chemicals.

The solution: Switch to wild-caught Alaska salmon. If the package says fresh Atlantic, it’s farmed. There are no commercial fisheries left for wild Atlantic salmon.

6. The Cancer Researcher Won’t Drink: Milk Produced With Artificial Hormones

Rick North is project director of the Campaign for Safe Food at the Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility and former CEO of the Oregon division of the American Cancer Society.

The problem: Milk producers treat their dairy cattle with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH or rBST, as it is also known) to boost milk production. But rBGH also increases udder infections and even pus in the milk. It also leads to higher levels of a hormone called insulin-like growth factor in milk. In people, high levels of IGF-1 may contribute to breast, prostate, and colon cancers. “When the government approved rBGH, it was thought that IGF-1 from milk would be broken down in the human digestive tract,” says North. “There’s not 100 percent proof that this is increasing cancer in humans,” admits North. “However, it’s banned in most industrialized countries.”

The solution: Buy raw milk or check labels for rBGH-free, rBST-free, produced without artificial hormones, or organic milk. These phrases indicate rBGH-free products. The Sour Facts About Milk.

7. The Biotech Specialist Who Won’t Eat Conventional Soy: GMO Unfermented Soy

Michael Harris is biotech specialist who has directed several projects within the biotech sector including those for genetically engineered food. He has been a consultant, manager and director for companies such as Xenon Pharmaceuticals and Genon Corporation.

The problem: Genetically engineered food is a cause of great concern due to the manipulation of DNA and genetic code including transfers from one species to another. Fermented soy is the only soy food fit for human consumption and since almost 90% of soy in the world is genetically modified, if you are not ensuring sources are organic, long-term health problems are inevitable, especially since soy has been found to affect hormonal balance and even cause cancer.

The solution: Check labels to ensure soy is Non-GMO or organic and never consume unfermented sources. If possible contact the company to find out exactly where the Non-GMO soy was obtained.

8. The Organic-Foods Expert Won’t Eat: Conventional Apples

Mark Kastel, a former executive for agribusiness, is co-director of the Cornucopia Institute, a farm-policy research group that supports organic foods.

The problem: If fall fruits held a “most doused in pesticides contest,” apples would win. Why? They are individually grafted (descended from a single tree) so that each variety maintains its distinctive flavor. As such, apples don’t develop resistance to pests and are sprayed frequently. The industry maintains that these residues are not harmful. But Kastel counters that it’s just common sense to minimize exposure by avoiding the most doused produce, like apples. “Farm workers have higher rates of many cancers,” he says. And increasing numbers of studies are starting to link a higher body burden of pesticides (from all sources) with Parkinson’s disease.

The solution: Buy organic apples or apples from a farmer that you trust!

[via Eat Local Grown]

Top Five Reasons to Label GMO Food

October has been designated Non-GMO Month, the month to focus on why we need to regulate genetically modified organisms (GMOs) closely. To further understand what GMOs are, go to www.nongmoproject.org.  Here are my five top reasons for why we must label GMO food!

1) The research proving the safety of GMOs is flawed. First, the only research being considered is done by the companies that created the products and profit by them and the pesticides that are necessary to grow them. Take the famous golden rice. As Rachel Parent pointed out, a person needs to eat 23 cups of rice a day to get the Vitamin A recommended dietary allowance. There are so many conflicting facts about GMOs and GMO research that 64 countries in the world refuse to allow GMO agriculture. Another way to look at it is these countries are refusing to be lab rats for flawed GMO research.

2) GMO agriculture increases the use of pesticides and water in farming. While we keep hearing that GMOs will reduce the use of water and pesticides, the opposite is the truth. A study by Washington State University concluded that the use of pesticides has increased by more than 7% because of GMO-intensive agriculture. Pesticides are water intensive. While conventional agriculture was using a billion pounds of pesticides a year, our GMO agriculture is responsible for increasing that

usage to 1.2 billion pounds annually without increasing the food supply. The patent for Roundup Ready® (RR) corn and soy beans has coincidentally expired as roundup has also lost its efficacy. RR leaves a legacy as it is responsible for increasing superweeds across the globe. The new replacement for RR will be a cocktail, much more potent and will include dicamba or 2,4- D, used as an ingredient in Agent Orange in the Vietnam war, well studied and identified with birth defects and cancer. Dicamba corn patent is currently going through USDA approval process.

3) GMO food has no benefits and will not feed the world. The most profitable corporations use World Hunger to maintain their domination in the market place. Currently, evidence is strong – we produce enough food in the world today for 10 billion people. Why are 2 billion people on our planet hungry and/or starving? It is not lack of food worldwide or even distribution, though better distribution can help. Social justice is the first place to find the real reason for hunger and starvation. Poor people cannot afford to buy food and their ability to feed themselves has been compromised. Global domination of our food by the very corporations that say they will feed the world is not the answer, it is the problem. Go to Google and search “suicides of cotton farmers in India” for a shocking peek into a tragic GMO failure. If we look at the big GMO foods in farm production today, it is mostly livestock feed – corn and soy beans – or inedible cotton. Livestock, by the way, are much happier and make higher omega milk on pasture and forage, not corn and soy. GMO ag does not lower the price of food nor produce more food. There is no known advantage to humans while there is evidence of emerging health issues and some devastating cultural issues.

4) The biotech industries – Monsanto, Cargill and DuPont – are examples of American corporations undermining democracy and abusing their power for short term domination and profits. William James, the father of American Psychology said in the late 1800s, “The most significant characteristic of modern civilization is the sacrifice of the future for the present.” Add “present profits” and we have the situation. Many citizens today wonder about the new face of democracy as we watch special interests put their agenda before what is good for all. Those following the issues sprung by a Supreme Court ruling called Citizens United, which gives corporations the status of personhood are asking “How do we get our government back?” Powerful corporations as cited above get special treatment in the government. The best way to say it is “corporate corruption.”

5) Seed ownership has consolidated and biotech owns almost all of our seed stock. Number 5 but perhaps the most important point – who owns our seeds? Weak anti-trust laws and blatant favoritism toward biotech on the Supreme Court level has allowed the consolidation of our seeds into the hands of bottom line corporations. Just two years ago, biotech owned over 65% of our seed stock2. I had the pleasure of connecting with a few Organic Seed Alliance staff members at a conference a few days ago and had to ask them how many of our seeds are controlled by biotech now and they answer was frightening:  90% of all commercial seeds are owned by 5 corporations. The questions of who should own our genetics is one that deserves a well vetted public debate. Does it bother anyone that biotech is using the human genome in its experiments? We should all be concerned about the ethics of genetic ownership and manipulation. Seed ownership needs to be in the public trust and not owned by profit-benefiting corporations.

We have to take action and advocate for our right to know. Now that I’ve given you my top five, here are five things YOU can do to help:

• Lend your voice to stop the Monsanto Protection Act
• Join the Just Label It campaign
• Support Washington 522
• Stop 2,4-D corn
• Check out the Superweed FrogTV episode and send it to unsuspecting friends and family

[via Root Stock]

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]

Who’s paying for GMO-labeling initiative campaigns?

Groups opposed to labeling genetically modified food outspent those in favor 5 to 1 last year when Californians voted on a labeling ballot measure. But the tables are turned in the run-up to an initiative vote in Washington state. So far, pro-labeling groups have spent more than $4 for every $1 spent by those opposed, according to an analysis by MapLight.

Contributions in support of Washington Ballot Initiative 522 (“The People’s Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act”) add up to nearly $4 million $3.5 million, while the opposition has raised about $950,000. The big money comes from the same interests that ponied during the California campaign, as you can see in this chart.

That chart only shows the biggest contributors. Pro-labeling contributions come from a broader base; the money supporting the initiative comes from 5,698 supporters, compared to just 12 contributors in opposition.

The relative weight of contributions, however, is likely to shift rapidly as the Washington initiative approaches its Nov. 5 moment of truth at the ballot box. Last year, the campaign against the California proposition spent $42 million in the six weeks before the vote. That proposition failed, with 6.4 million “no” votes, and 6.1 million votes in favor.

After that vote, both sides promised to fight just as vigorously in future campaigns. There are dozens of bills currently making their way through statehouses that would require the labeling of GM foods.

Editor’s Note and Correction: This story includes a chart from MapLight showing supporters of 1-522 had given $3,869,078. The correct number is $3,489,078.13, according to a MapLight correction.

MapLight has issued this update: “A previous version of MapLight’s analysis cited the total amount raised in support of I-522 as $3,869,078, including two contributions that were disclosed by the Washington Public Disclosure Commission as having been made by ‘ORGANIC CONSUMER FUND’ when in fact they were made by ‘ORGANIC CONSUMER FUND COMMITTEE TO LABEL GMOS IN WA STATE.’ As a committee that is supporting I-522, contributions from ORGANIC CONSUMER FUND COMMITTEE TO LABEL GMOS IN WA STATE to other committees supporting I-522 should be excluded from the total amount raised in support of this measure, making the correct total $3,489,078.13.”

[via grist]

Who wouldn't want GMO labeling in the U.S.?

One thing true about the GMO movement is that not everyone is convinced genetically modified food is dangerous or bad to eat. It's important, though, to keep the scope of the question in focus.

We are not debating whether GM food is good or bad.

What we are debating is whether American consumers have a right to know the GM status of the food they put in their bodies.

Why then, in this nation of "transparency" and "individual freedom," does there seem to be something out there that wants to keep grocery stores' doors as frosted and opaque as possible? Who wouldn't want consumers to know—that they might make their own decision?

Dave Murphy, executive director of Food Democracy Now!, a grassroots movement of more than 650,000 farmers and citizens, offers a somewhat sobering answer to that question. Upon hearing that major food producers were meeting to discuss GMO labeling at the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) in Washington in mid-July, he offered this in a press release widely circulated around Facebook:

“American consumers have a right to know what’s in their food, and it's time that Monsanto and the GMA stop hiding those facts and America’s large food manufacturers endorse the labeling of genetically engineered foods.

Polls have consistently shown that more than 90 percent of Americans support GMO labeling. It’s time for the hypocrisy on genetically engineered foods to end in the land of the free and the home of the brave and we urge the Grocery Manufacturers Association to stop opposing GMO-labeling nationwide.”

—Dave Murphy, executive director of Food Democracy Now!

NewHope360.com caught up with Murphy after the meeting and asked him what he thought the results of the conference were, and what would happen next. Here is what he said:

"The Grocery Manufacturers Association is moving forward with their efforts to kill GMO labeling in the U.S.," Murphy said. "Rather than heed the calls of millions of American consumers to offer basic transparency in the market place, the GMA is encouraging their members to spend millions of dollars to defeat a citizen-led ballot initiative in Washington state, like they did with Prop 37 in California."

Officially at least, big biotech companies like Monsanto are promising to be more transparent. As The New York Times reported on July 28, companies are pledging to create a website that will answer "virtually any question posed by consumers about genetically engineered crops."

The site, GMOAnswers.com, will be run by the Council for Biotechnology Information, which includes Dow Chemical, DuPont, Syngenta, Bayer CropScience and BASF.

According to the Times, most of the corn, soybeans, cotton, canola and sugar beets grown in the United States contain bacterial genes that make the crops resistant to an herbicide, insects or both. The Food and Drug Administration has said that such genetic engineering does not make these foods materially different in a way that would require labeling.

To anti-GMO activists, this is not enough. In May, thousands of people in cities around the world "marched against Monsanto" and against GMO-friendly laws. Dave Murphy, the leader of Food Democracy Now! believes change will first have to come at the state level. In a quick sit-down, this is what he had to say:

newhope360: What is at risk for food manufacturing companies?

Dave Murphy: By joining with the likes of pesticide and biotech companies such as Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta, food companies like Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Kraft, Kellogg’s and General Mills are jeopardizing the future of their brands as millions of Americans wake up to the fact these companies have willfully spent millions of dollars to deceive them about the contents in their food and deny them their basic democratic rights.

Any food company that does not support mandatory state and federal labeling of genetically engineered foods is increasingly placing their brand at risk of public exposure. If they want to deny us our rights, we will deny them their profits.

newhope360: What comes next in this battle or debate?

DM: Right now, activists across the country are working to pass Washington state's Yes on 522 ballot initiative to label GMOs, and follow up on the successes in Connecticut and Maine with bills in more than 20 other states.

Labeling of genetically engineered food is going to happen in the U.S.; this movement is not going away until we have a strong national GMO labeling bill. Giant food companies and politicians have to ask themselves if they're willing to risk their profits, reputations and careers to protect an industry that already labels food products with every major U.S. trading partner.

It's time for America to join the rest of the civilized world and allow reasonable and common sense GMO labeling bills to become the law of the land.

Who is padding the pockets of the Grocery Manufacturers Association?

• In 2012, Monsanto was the top contributor to the GMA’s campaign to defeat GMO labeling and Prop 37 last year, contributing over $8.1 million dollars in 2012.
• Other top contributors include Pepsi Co. at $2.48 million dollars in 2012.
• Kraft Foods at $2 million dollars in 2012.
• Coca-Cola at $1.7 million dollars in 2012.
• This year, 26 states have introduced legislation to label genetically engineered foods, with GMO labeling bills recently passing in Connecticut and Maine.
• A GMO labeling bill also passed the Vermont House this spring and awaits passage as early as next January in the Vermont Senate.
• Similar legislation has been introduced in Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Monsanto and the GMA have expressed fears over the passage of the upcoming ballot initiative in Washington State this fall, similar to the one in California, which places the issue of labeling genetically engineered foods before a popular statewide vote.

-- Statistics by Food Democracy Now!

[via newhope360.com]

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.