October 20, 2013

Genetically modified food labels on Washington ballot

Voters are facing a ballot issue that would require labeling of all genetically modified foods.

By Rob Hotakainen
Mcclatchy Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — Running for president in 2007, Barack Obama vowed to push for labels on genetically modified food, saying, “Americans should know what they’re buying.”

click image to enlarge

Labeling genetically modified foods has become a hot-button issue with some voters, but opponents of new labeling laws argue that the science does not support anti-GMO claims. This photo was taken in Los Angeles last year during one of many worldwide “March Against Monsanto” protests.

Reuters

But post-election, Obama didn’t follow up on his promise, showing a reluctance that now appears to be shared by many. The Food and Drug Administration has done nothing to advance the cause. A national labeling bill has languished in Congress. California voters rejected the idea last year.

Now the focus is on Washington state, which might break the national logjam with a vote Nov. 5 on I-522, a ballot initiative that would require labeling of all genetically modified foods. If the measure is approved, it would be the first of its kind in the nation.

The importance of the vote is clear: Out-of-state agribusiness opponents such as Monsanto have been pouring millions of dollar into the statewide fight.

“Official Washington is waiting to take its cue from the states,” said Scott Faber, the executive director of Just Label It, a national group that wants to label all foods that contain GMOs – genetically modified organisms. He’s also the senior vice president of government affairs at Environmental Working Group, a health research and advocacy group.

'THE BIG DOMONO'

For labeling backers, winning in Washington state – which some call “the big domino” – is the first step in a national strategy. Under their plan, other states would quickly follow suit, upping the pressure on Congress and the Obama administration to pass a uniform standard as a way to avoid the confusion that would result from a patchwork of state laws.

“The last thing we want is some states labeling and others not,” Faber said. “The wisest and easiest course for the Obama administration would be to make good on the 2007 promise to require labeling. … We’re living in an era where people want to know more about their food than ever before. They want to know who made it, how it was made, where it was made.”

If the measure passes, Washington would be the first state to pass a mandatory GMO food-labeling law with no strings attached. Labeling bills for GMO foods were introduced in 26 states this year, including Alaska, Florida, Illinois, Missouri, New York, North Carolina and Pennsylvania. So far, legislators have approved labeling bills in only two states – Connecticut and Maine – and their laws won’t take effect unless neighboring states also decide to require labeling.

Opponents say if they can’t defeat the ballot measure in Washington state, they want Congress to pass a law that would pre-empt states’ ability to act on their own.

But first, they’re concentrating on Washington state, relying on economic and scientific arguments. On the economics front, they say passing the measure would add nearly $500 a year to the grocery bill of an average family of four in the state, though labeling proponents have been quick to dispute that.

They also say there’s no scientific reason to add thousands of new food labels in thousands of grocery stores across the state, since 70 to 80 percent of the products they sell already contain genetically engineered ingredients that the federal government has deemed safe.

Mike LaPlant, the president of the Washington State Farm Bureau, which represents 42,000 farmers and ranchers, said passing the initiative would create an “unnecessary, badly written law” that would hurt farmers and food companies alike while making the state’s consumers the only ones in the nation who were forced to pay the extra costs.

Dana Bieber, a spokeswoman for the No on 522 Coalition, which is leading the opposition, said the labeling law would create “a regulatory and litigation” climate that would leave thousands of farmers in the state vulnerable to lawsuits.

(Continued on page 2)

Were you interviewed for this story? If so, please fill out our accuracy form

Send question/comment to the editors




Further Discussion

Here at PressHerald.com we value our readers and are committed to growing our community by encouraging you to add to the discussion. To ensure conscientious dialogue we have implemented a strict no-bullying policy. To participate, you must follow our Terms of Use.

Questions about the article? Add them below and we’ll try to answer them or do a follow-up post as soon as we can. Technical problems? Email them to us with an exact description of the problem. Make sure to include:
  • Type of computer or mobile device your are using
  • Exact operating system and browser you are viewing the site on (TIP: You can easily determine your operating system here.)