Your browser does not support modern web standards implemented on our site
Therefore the page you accessed might not appear as it should.
See www.webstandards.org/upgrade for more information.

Whatcom Watch Bird Logo


Past Issues


Whatcom Watch Online
Labeling GMO Foods: Facts and Fiction About Initiative 522


October-November 2013

Editorial

Labeling GMO Foods: Facts and Fiction About Initiative 522

by Richard Jehn

Every household in Washington is receiving glossy flyers from the “No 522” campaign. The flagrant misrepresentation of the content of initiative 522 (I-522) in these flyers must be related to the principal funders of the campaign: Monsanto ($4.8 million), DuPont Pioneer ($3.4 million), and the Grocery Manufacturers Association ($2.2 million).1

Three claims from these flyers stand out and not one of them is accurate.

• Your groceries will cost more because of I-522.

• Misleading labeling will result from passing I-522.

• A new bureaucracy will be created to administer the provisions of I-522.

The fundamental provision of I-522 is that foods which are already labeled for ingredients will need to list GMO ingredients if they are used in the product. For example, if the cake mix contains wheat that is actually GMO wheat, it will have to say so in the ingredients list. The initiative is that simple.

For the “No 522” campaign to claim that costs will dramatically increase is ludicrous. These food manufacturing companies already have to label their products with ingredients lists and nutrition facts. To add the single abbreviation indicating that an ingredient is a GMO substance is trivial and adds no cost to the product.

The misleading labeling and exemptions that the “No 522” folks talk about refers only to products that do not currently require ingredients labeling. New labeling will be required only for products that ARE actually GMO. One example of new labeling would be GMO farmed salmon, which the FDA has recently recommended for approval.

Dan Newhouse, a former director at the Washington Department of Agriculture, says, “I-522 would require a new state government bureaucracy to monitor and enforce new labeling requirements on thousands of products in thousands of stores statewide, costing taxpayers millions.” This statement is ridiculous – the structure already exists to monitor the labeling of products for their ingredients and nutrition facts. The proposed new law requires only that an abbreviation be added to the list of ingredients. The claim that we need a multi-million dollar bureaucracy to confirm the addition of the one abbreviation is not believable.

The statements by the “No 522” campaign are blatant lies. Please do your own research about this initiative and put those glossy flyers where they belong – in the recycling bin.

To learn more about this important issue: Read the initiative (only 9 pages) at the Washington Secretary of State’s website; for an unbiased recitation of facts, pro and con, about I-522, visit BallotPedia.org; the Bellingham Community Co-op is running information sessions about I-522 through October to educate the public; and the “Yes on 522” campaign has a more detailed document about the claims coming from the “No 522” campaign.

Endnotes

1. By comparison, the top funding source for the “Yes on 522” campaign is Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps ($1.5 million), with all other funders providing much less than $1 million each.


Back to Top of Story