Proposal would require genetically modified label
YAKIMA, Wash. (AP) - Any food in Washington state made from genetically engineered crops would have to be labeled under an initiative submitted Thursday.
The proposal comes two months after California voters rejected a similar ballot measure in a nearly $55 million advertising war that pitted food safety advocates against agricultural and biotechnology giants.
Opponents of food labeling argue it will raise food prices and hurt farmers. Supporters contend that consumers should have a choice of whether or not to eat genetically engineered products, even though the federal government and major science groups say such foods are safe to eat. The supporters promised to take their fight to the Northwest after the California ballot measure failed last fall.
An initiative to the Washington Legislature requires at least 241,153 valid signatures of registered state voters to be certified, though the secretary of state's office suggests at least 320,000 as a buffer for any duplicate or invalid signatures.
On Thursday, initiative sponsors delivered 350,000 signatures inside an ambulance with a sign reading "Label GMO Food" on the side.
Initiative 522 would require food and seeds produced entirely or partly through genetic engineering and sold in Washington to be labeled as such, beginning July 1, 2015. Under the measure, raw foods that are not packaged separately would have to be labeled on the retail shelf.
Supporters say consumers benefit from having more information.
"Yes, you can steer clear of certain items, but unless you know that they're there, how do you know to steer clear of them?" asked Chris McManus, the initiative sponsor and owner of a small advertising firm. "Putting a label on the front of that just informs the consumer a little bit more about what they're buying."
The nation's food labeling system is already built around giving consumers information about health and safety, countered Heather Hansen, executive director of Washington Friends of Farms and Forests.
"We think this is really intended to be a scare tactic, to ultimately scare people away from technology," she said. "And it's not providing any meaningful information."
Once the initiative goes to the Legislature, lawmakers have the option to vote on it, take no action and send it to the November ballot, or recommend an alternative measure that will appear on the ballot with it.
About 50 countries require genetically modified foods to be labeled, but the U.S. isn't one of them. Only Alaska has enacted legislation at the state level, requiring the labeling of genetically engineered fish and shellfish products.
A bill in the Washington Legislature to require food labeling failed to pass out of committee, despite support from a coalition of local wheat farmers who said they feared their export markets will be hurt if genetically modified wheat gains federal approval.
Biotechnology giant Monsanto Co. has announced plans to begin testing genetically modified wheat, though the product is likely a decade or more from being offered commercially.
The proposal comes two months after California voters rejected a similar ballot measure in a nearly $55 million advertising war that pitted food safety advocates against agricultural and biotechnology giants.
Opponents of food labeling argue it will raise food prices and hurt farmers. Supporters contend that consumers should have a choice of whether or not to eat genetically engineered products, even though the federal government and major science groups say such foods are safe to eat. The supporters promised to take their fight to the Northwest after the California ballot measure failed last fall.
An initiative to the Washington Legislature requires at least 241,153 valid signatures of registered state voters to be certified, though the secretary of state's office suggests at least 320,000 as a buffer for any duplicate or invalid signatures.
On Thursday, initiative sponsors delivered 350,000 signatures inside an ambulance with a sign reading "Label GMO Food" on the side.
Initiative 522 would require food and seeds produced entirely or partly through genetic engineering and sold in Washington to be labeled as such, beginning July 1, 2015. Under the measure, raw foods that are not packaged separately would have to be labeled on the retail shelf.
Supporters say consumers benefit from having more information.
"Yes, you can steer clear of certain items, but unless you know that they're there, how do you know to steer clear of them?" asked Chris McManus, the initiative sponsor and owner of a small advertising firm. "Putting a label on the front of that just informs the consumer a little bit more about what they're buying."
The nation's food labeling system is already built around giving consumers information about health and safety, countered Heather Hansen, executive director of Washington Friends of Farms and Forests.
"We think this is really intended to be a scare tactic, to ultimately scare people away from technology," she said. "And it's not providing any meaningful information."
Once the initiative goes to the Legislature, lawmakers have the option to vote on it, take no action and send it to the November ballot, or recommend an alternative measure that will appear on the ballot with it.
About 50 countries require genetically modified foods to be labeled, but the U.S. isn't one of them. Only Alaska has enacted legislation at the state level, requiring the labeling of genetically engineered fish and shellfish products.
A bill in the Washington Legislature to require food labeling failed to pass out of committee, despite support from a coalition of local wheat farmers who said they feared their export markets will be hurt if genetically modified wheat gains federal approval.
Biotechnology giant Monsanto Co. has announced plans to begin testing genetically modified wheat, though the product is likely a decade or more from being offered commercially.
Our modern version of corn was genetically engineered by the Mayans.
Â
reading many of these posts,that people do not trust the government and science. I totally agree. Funny though how so many believe the government and science on "global warming,climate change " or what ever as we sit here cold. . now how many of you posters are now going to say it is caused by global warming ?  But when you do explain the little ice age ? greenland in the late 1500 and early 1600's being livable raising crops and animals.
 @Maynard G Krebbs GMO's have nothing to do with global warming, or the farce thereof. This is about frankenfoods being forced on the public without their knowledge.
"even though the federal government and major science groups say such foods are safe to eat." And we all know that our federal government wouldn't lie to us.
GMO-FREE is OK but GMO is here to stay and I'd not waste the expense.
I followed the similar initiative in CA and was very disappointed that it didn't pass. This is something I will be voting for if given the opportunity here. I am not going to trust the government or any corporation to "assure me that it's safe." I can decide for myself, thank you.
"Supporters contend that consumers should have a choice of whether or not to eat genetically engineered products, even though the federal government and major science groups say such foods are safe to eat." We're really going to TRUST the federal government and their sponsored "science groups" to tell us what's SAFE to eat? Yea.....o.k. I remember when a "study" came out that said that peanut butter caused cancer. People stopped buying it. Then, AFTER Carter was out of office, peanut butter was SAFE again. Trust the government? I'll pass thank you.
Great blog post from an outspoken former anti-GMO on why he is now pro-GMO:Â http://www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lecture-to-oxford-farming-conference-3-january-2013/
 @Leigh Matheson What a load of crap. He doesn't cite any studies or sources, calls his views the "scientific consensus" with no proof, and his only citation is to an educational institute owned by John Rockefeller, what of the worst elitist a$$holes in the world.
Â
He also makes no mention of studies that have been done that show GMO's are dangerous. I'd say he either got paid off by the biotech industry, or he was threatened with legal action for something he did. Either way, this "blog" post is so erroneous anyone with a shred of objectivity wouldn't take it at face value.
@Leigh Matheson this is more about making informed choices and knowing what is in the food than about weather it is good or bad.
I SUPPORT THIS 100%!!! Â The detractors can say what they want and point out studies after studies and quote anyone they like... Â I want the knowledge!
We have the right to know what we are ingesting, and I"ll definitely be signing this! I vote with my dollar and buy only buying grass fed meats, and locally produced foods, produce, seafood etc. It costs more $ but it's better than paying with your health, I'd rather pay now with money that's replaceable. Good health is not replaceable, I believe in deep nutrition not the mass produced non-food items that corporations stock our grocery store shelves with.
Its about darn time!!! I will sign and vote for this wholeheartedly!
Did you know that EVERY crop we have ever grown has been genetically engineered?
Â
It used to be called "grafting", and farmers would keep the seeds from the "best" part of the crop to replant for next year.
Â
They would also "graft" and "splice" these seeds together in order to "combine favorable traits and get rid of undesireable traits.
Â
This has been going on since before even the Egyptians controlled the Nile River!
Â
Nothing new to see here, move along.
 @RTNavy Genetically Engineered crops are a world apart from Genetically Modified crops.  GE plants care generally considered plants that have been bred together to breed out or breed in a resistance to disease or heartiness.GMO crops can be the mixing of animal genes in with plants to create a new entity not recognized by nature.
Â
Mixing a rose plant with a plum plant to create an edible rose would be a neat greenhouse trick. Â Splicing together an ear of corn and a frog to create a French delicacy would be a nightmare.
 @RTNavy Sorry, but you're misunderstanding the fundamental science behind genetic engineering.Â
Â
Grafting and selective breeding are utterly and completely different from microscopic tinkering with the very building blocks of life itself.
 @TheTruncheon  @RTNavy The same tinkering that viruses have been doing for millions of years?
 @RTNavy Not quite, RT. I think this is the first time in the long history of our planet that genetic material from other species of plants and animals is being introduced into the DNA of our food crops. That's a far cry from grafting an heirloom apple tree.
 @RTNavy you are mistaken ... selective breeding and grafting are indeed genetic plant modifications, however, this bill is directed at those products that have been fundamentally changed at the genetic (DNA) level by large agricultural scientists to enhance resistance to pests (Bt toxin and 'roundup' in soybeans are examples) and studies show that in one case I read that the (cotton) plant 'pest' has now developed a resistance to the (Bt) modification and is free to affect the crops again (excessive antibiotic use in humans is a comparison here).  Another application of GMO is to increase yield (no real studies confirm that any enhancements have had an affect to date) ... I do not think that 'roundup' is appropriate for human consumption, long term studies have not been done to show it is 'harmless' ... so I object to not knowing that a food product for sale contains these GMO soybeans ... that is why I support the labeling legislation.
If you have the time to read labels Try to avoid   MSG( monosodim Glutamate) GMO (Genetically Modified Organism????) and Sodium Nitrate which I have been told in larger amounts than our food is for explosives. Know what your spices are (when it says spices than dont buy it ) for example read the ingredients in a bottle of Tabasco sauce. It tells you exactly what is in it (plan an simple)Â
 @lisank Add corn syrup/sugar or any derivative of it to that list of what not to eat.
Yay! The only Seattle street initiative that I ever signed!
Â
People should remember that the same idiots (scientists and businessmen) who say that GMO food is fine are the same ones who said HFCS was no different that regular sugar.
Â
I'm not saying they're wrong in their chemistry, but they are certainly blind to the massive changes that messing with the American diet has had in the last thirty years.
I'm SO VERY pleased to see this. Not ever knowing, I'm certain that I eat GMO. I try to by buy Organic when ever possible and staying away from all soy and corn and their by products as 95% of these products are GMO on the market. I'd be happy paying more for Non GMO.
 @TheSkyIsFalling I've never understood the arguments against paying for non-GMO food.
Â
First, there is a tangible taste difference.
Â
Second, what's the worst that could happen to Americans if we couldn't afford as much (potentially unhealthy) food? Gee, I wonder.
This comment has been deleted
There is a difference between altered foods (as in selective breeding for traits, grafting, etc) and GMO. With GMO, the genetic DNA of one organism is spliced with the DNA of another completely different one for specific traits. It has been shown to be toxic when consumed in many studies (outside the US, of course), which is why many European countries have banned the sale of GMO foods altogether, and the rest of them require labeling.
This comment has been deleted
 @virtual anomaly  @Susabelle  @ladylib1 Because Monsanto is in the Govs back pocket. Seriously, they should not have blocked it, but because they realized with the growing organic markets, they were going to loose money. I do not want GMO's in my food, the problem is I dont know, and since they have already taken others to court and disallowed the labeling, the next step is to require it. I am not confident that GMO's are safe for us, regardless of what the FDA says........how many fertilizers did they declare safe and now we are finding just how bad they were? Why wait for additional health problems to surface, just label.
 @virtual anomaly  @ladylib1 Because Monsanto blocked it, the companies tried and Monsanto made them stop. Sued the companies putting non GMO labels on foods. So now we as the public need to demand it.Â
 @virtual anomaly Actually, I would be happy to pay a premium for non GMO foods. I'm tired of the Monsanto company literally destroying organic farming and farmers. I think this is the right thing and hope this passes, it is way past time.
This comment has been deleted
 @Droid Ivan  @virtual anomaly Bugger off Droid!
 @virtual anomaly  @alexcrowley Me thinks they are lovers.
@alexcrowley I'm confused, did you and geekboy get together?
 @virtual anomaly  @alexcrowley Virtual:You are partially correct, it is the porcine eating habits of GMO products, grains, HFC, steroids, growth hormones, anti-biotics and myriad other chemicals found in regular dairy, meat etc., that has many Americans resembling bovine critters instead of people. Ya get a couple of points on that one. Most portly people are always hungry because they are nutritionally starved. So, they eat more junk but their bodies are void of any true minerals, or vitamins. They get fat, but are actually void of the most basic of true deep nutrition. Hence tons of fatties. It's a vicious circle.
 @virtual anomaly  @Susabelle Virtual is right, most people buy the junk that stocks the shelves. That's why obesity, heart disease & diabetes are on the rise and won't stop. I for one, buy the "specialty market" items, but I and my loved ones are worth it.
Havenât we been genetically modifying plants for decades or even centuries by splicing one stalk to another to get a more productive plant/Tree? Donât get me wrong I think we need to label foods that have been modified, but I donât claim to know where that line should be for labeling. Relying on the companies to do it without mandates from the government is not going to work. How many companies have currently chosen to label any foods that are genetically modified? If they are not doing it now voluntarily, its unlikely they will start without government intervention.
Thank you to those of you that pointed out that Grafting plants is not considered genetically modifying foods. I had assumed that it was essentially the same thing. I know what they are doing now days is way more in depth and advanced then that. Learn new things all the time.
NO. We have NOT been GENETICALLY MODIFYING them. We have been grafting and selectively breeding for traits--not mixing the DNA of one species with the DNA of another completely different one. Salmon and eels--sound normal to you? GMOs are TOXIC. Hybridized ones aren't.
 @DreamTravler Genetically modifying food plants has been going on for thousands of years. The problem is what they are genetically crossed with. If its just between species, like say crossing a red delicious apple with a yellow transparent is fine. But when they start crossing between different species of plants it starts to become a problem. Even that isn't too bad in most cases but where genetically engineering really goes wrong is with crossing a plant with animal dna or with the introduction of toxic chemicals to the process. It will take some help on the part of our government to help categorize what needs to be clearly marked and what is fine without it.
I'm all for more information to cosnsumers, the more the better. I will vote for this initiative.
@Blindman @DreamTravler "Genetically modifying food plants has been going on for thousands of years."Â
Â
No it hasn't. Selective breeding and isolation breeding is NOT the same as shooting DNA into cells.Â
 @DreamTravler GMO is (from Wikipedia) the direct manipulation of an organism's genome using biotechnology. New DNA may be inserted in the host genome by first isolating and copying the genetic material of interest using molecular cloning methods to generate a DNA sequence, or by synthesizing the DNA, and then inserting this construct into the host organism. Totally different then splicing and breeding for traits.
 @DreamTravler Widespread genetic modification has only been around since the mid 1990's.Â
This would be the best thing that could ever happen to the consumer. GMO's are anything but natural, and very very harmful.Â
Â
Read the truth about GMO's here: http://www.responsibletechnology.org/
Â
That is probably the best and most organized website regarding GMO's and the risk they pose to our health.
It will take massive public demand to change this!! The government is in this up to their eyeballs, incestuous relationships between biotech corporations and government agencies have allowed for GMOs to be unleashed- untested onto unsuspecting public.
Â
In November 2011, President Barack Obama appointed Michael Taylor as Deputy Commissioner for Foods at the FDA. Michael Taylor had been Monsanto's attorney before becoming policy chief at the FDA, Soon after, he became Monsanto's vice president and chief lobbyist. Taylor has been with "Monsanto, FDA, USDA, Monsanto, private sector, university, FDA" and is "a classic example of the 'revolving door.
Â
A Monsanto official told the New York Times that the corporation should not have to take responsibility for the safety of its food products. "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food," said Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications. "Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job.
Â
In order for the FDA to determine if Monsanto's growth hormones were safe or not, Monsanto was required to submit a scientific report on that topic. Margaret Miller, one of Monsanto's researchers put the report together. Shortly before the report submission, Miller left Monsanto and was hired by the FDA. Her first job for the FDA was to determine whether or not to approve the report she wrote for Monsanto. In short, Monsanto approved its own report. Assisting Miller was another former Monsanto researcher, Susan Sechen. Deciding whether or not rBGH-derived milk should be labeled fell under the jurisdiction of another FDA official, Michael Taylor, who previously worked as a lawyer for Monsanto.
Â
It would be nice to think the FDA can be trusted with these matters, but think again. Monsanto has succeeded in insuring that government regulatory agencies let Monsanto do as it wishes. Take a look:
Prior to being the Supreme Court Judge who put GW Bush in office, Clarence Thomas was Monsanto's lawyer
The U.S. Secretary of Agriculture (Anne Veneman) was on the Board of Directors of Monsanto's Calgene Corporation
The U.S. Secretary of Health, Tommy Thompson, received $50,000 in donations from Monsanto during his winning campaign for Wisconsin's governor.
Despite what consumers are told today by Big Agriculture and government agencies - that GM foods are safe and good for you â once secret documents indicate that the experts at FDA were extremely concerned. In memo after memo, these experts "described toxins, new diseases, nutritional deficiencies, and hard-to-detect allergensThey were unyielding in their belief that this radical technology carried "serious health hazards" and called for careful, lengthy research that would include human trials before any genetically modified organisms (GMOs) could safely be released into the food supply. Â
Â
Nearly 20 years ago, when the FDA was putting together GMO policy, agency scientists were certain that gene-sliced foods were greatly different, which could, in turn, lead to "different risks" than those posed by conventional foods. Nevertheless, official FDA policy would declare exactly the opposite, claiming the agency "knew nothing of significant differences, and declared GMOs substantially equivalent. bY 1996, GM foods were showing up on plates in American homes. And over the next nine years, multiple, chronic illnesses in the U.S. nearly doubled, from seven percent to 13 percent, while allergy-related E.R. visits did actually double between 1997 and 2002. Food allergies, especially among kids, skyrocketed as well, the country "witnessed a dramatic rise in asthma, autism, obesity, diabetes, digestive disorders, and certain cancers.  Â
Â
 Dr. P. M. Bhargava, one of the world's top biologists, stated that after reviewing 600 scientific journals, he concluded that the GM foods in the US are largely responsible for the increase in many serious diseases.  Bhargava isn't alone. The Academy of Environmental Medicine also concluded that studies in animals have shown that there is at least a causal relationship between GM foods and infertility, faster aging, poor insulin regulation, changes to major organs and the gastrointestinal system, immune problems (asthma, allergies and inflammation). A report by eight renowned international experts concluded that weak, superficial evaluations of GMOs by regulators and biotech companies alike "systematically overlook the side effects" and greatly underestimate the initial signs of diseases like cancer and diseases of the hormonal, immune, nervous and reproductive systems, among others.
Â
Lots and lots of  biotech money has gone into suppression of the real facts about these Franken-foods, including buying off and infiltrating by way of revolving door positions in our government appointed watch dog agencies!
Â
WAKE UP AMERICA!!!! DEMAND A CHANGE!!
Â
Â
 @SchönLicht That wasn't long enough. Perhaps you ought to start your own news service?
No, it WASN'T long enough!! Most people like you sadly have the attention span of a gnat so they'll go ahead and buy anything that's cheap enough and eat it. Thank the rest of us for caring enough to look out for your sorry butt, and for caring enough to pass on information for those who DO care!
Â
 @ladylib1 Wrong. I have to be completely desperarately hungry AND have had 2-3 terrible days in a row before I will eat fast food of any sort, even the supposedly 'healthy stuff' (because mostly it isn't). I also rarely eat anything that arrives premixed at all.
Â
I do often read lengthy discourses on a wide variety of health topics. However, when I do, it's in the form of a paper with well cited sources, not in a bunch of comments from the peanut gallery where some nut job may feel free to 'edit'.
sooner or later, we will start seeing mutant human race....
 @CIAassassin Ever looked at (don't go here now) peopleofwalmart.com? Don't go there now, Norton just informed me of virus attacks after I went to that website, but it used to safely have some photos that would convince you of the 'sooner' part of your statement.
Frankenfish? Just say NO!
Â
The only people opposed to GMO labeling that I see, are the folks selling us this poison.Â
 @Shelly That's what I'm doing, saying NO. I only buy organic corn, and have stopped drinking soda sweetened with High Fructose Corn Syrup.Â
Â
I'm trying to avoid GMO's as much as possible, but it isn't easy with no labeling. Especially considering how many products contain GMO Soy.
Just try and avoid processed foods as much as possible - they have all kinds of different forms of SOY in them! I have very low tolerance for soy in the first place, and I sure don't want this crap in me, so I don't eat prepared foods like pastas and frozen dinners, packaged cookies, etc. I make all my own from scratch or buy organic. Costs more but what price do you put on your health?