Even if Washington state voters reject a genetically modified labelling law in November, some U.S. state or states will soon enact similar legislation, says Ken Roseboro, a journalist who tracks issues related to GM foods.
Connecticut and Maine have already passed legislation requiring labelling of GM foods, but the laws won’t take effect until a sufficient number of states in the U.S. Northeast enact similar legislation.
“It looks like Vermont will pass a bill… and 26 other states (have) introduced bills,” said Roseboro, editor of The Organic & Non-GMO Report.
Read Also
Agriculture ministers agree to AgriStability changes
federal government proposed several months ago to increase the compensation rate from 80 to 90 per cent and double the maximum payment from $3 million to $6 million
“Labelling looks like it’s going to be inevitable, even if 522 doesn’t pass. There’s such a rising consumer demand for it.”
On Nov. 5, Washington residents will vote on Initiative 522, a ballot measure requiring the labelling of GM foods in the state by July 2015.
As noted on the Vote No on 522 website, the law would require a GM label on processed foods, the packages of raw agricultural commodities, seed and seed stock and retail signage for unpackaged products.
Commodities like cheese, meat, milk and eggs are exempt. Food sold in restaurants is also exempt. The law has a GM content threshold of 0.9 percent on processed foods. That threshold drops to zero in 2019.
“It’s a poorly written law. Beef doesn’t make it. Dairy doesn’t make it…. Animals are fed GMO commodities, of course,” said Eric Maier, a farmer and wheat grower in Ritzville, Washington.
Public opinion polling in September suggested that 66 percent of Washingtonians supported the labelling of GM Foods, but that survey was done before the debate over Initiative 522 heated up.
Since then, state farm groups have lined up against GM labelling and newspaper editorials in Seattle, Tacoma and Yakima have denounced the proposed law as misleading, extreme and unnecessary.
For instance, proponents claim that Washington wheat growers will benefit from the law because a substantial portion of the state’s wheat crop is exported to Japan.
Maier said that is nonsense.
“If my number one customer is Japan and they say they don’t want it (GM wheat), of course I’m not going to grow it,” said Maier, Washington Association of Wheat Growers past-president.
“It’s kind of a non-issue because there isn’t a GM cultivar out there that is commercially produced.”
Maier is also concerned about the legal ramifications of the legislation.
“The one that really makes me nervous is the litigation comes all the way back to the farm, if there is a contamination (of a crop) coming off my farm…. That’s very unnerving to me.”
While Washington’s farm community is vocally opposing Initiative 522, others aren’t speaking as loudly, Roseboro said.
During California’s debate over GM labelling last fall, major food processors like Kellogg’s, General Mills and PepsiCo campaigned on the no side of Proposition 37.
“You’re not seeing that this year. I think they’re funnelling their money through the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association because they saw a backlash last year,” Roseboro said, from his office in Fairfield, Iowa. “I think a lot of people supporting labelling complained to those companies and there were boycotts organized.”
On top of states introducing legislation on GM labelling, the U.S. food industry is beginning to realize that consumers want it, Roseboro said.
For instance, the chief executive officer of General Mills said in September that he would like to see a national solution for GM labelling, rather than state-by-state legislation.
“It’s definitely on the radar for the big food companies,” Roseboro said. “The food companies don’t want different labelling standards in so many states. These state initiatives are putting pressure on the FDA to address this issue nationally.”
