GMO labeling law defeated.
Is it a matter of time before someone puts a law like this in place?
Washington state voters defeated a proposal that would have required foods containing GMOs genetically modified crops to be labeled.
The provision, known as I-522, was defeated with 55 percent of nearly 1 million people voting against the labeling measure. The vote was being closely watched in more than two dozen other states that are proposing to mandate labeling or ban genetically engineered foods.
Just like 27 million voters in California and Oregon, Washington voters saw how this burdensome and deceptive labeling scheme would have created more state bureaucracy, imposed new costs and burdens on local farmers and businesses, and increased food prices for Washington families, said Jim Greenwood, head of the Biotechnology Industry Organization.
Cathleen Enright, executive vice president of food and agriculture with the BIO, said the group was bracing for more food labeling efforts in 2014 efforts the group will continue to oppose. She acknowledged that BIO and other groups that favor Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) need to do a better job sharing their message with consumers.
We have to do a better job at communicating about how our food is grown. We have to demystify and take the unknown out of GMOs, Enright said. That is going to be critical to moving the nation beyond the current conversation.
Similar statewide ballot provisions have been received with mixed results.
A referendum to require labeling was narrowly defeated in California last November. Connecticut passed a law earlier this year to require labeling, making it the first state to do so. Maine passed a similar bill but it has yet to be signed into law by the states governor.The Connecticut and Maine measures include a stipulation saying those laws cant be implemented until a specific number of other states -- each law requires a different number -- also pass labeling bills. At least one of the other states must be a border state.
Efforts to label foods have been opposed by food and major agribusiness companies including Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, PepsiCo and General Mills. They have significantly outspent backers of the bills. In Washington, opponents of the measure spent $22 million compared to $7.7 million by backers, according to MapLight, a nonprofit that tracks money in politics.
Genetically modified seeds -- which contain DNA thats been modified to express a trait such as resistance to a pest, an environmental condition or a chemical -- are common in many foods. In the United States, up to 80 percent of packaged foods contain ingredients that have been genetically modified, according to the Grocery Manufacturers Association.
Those in favor of labeling say consumers have a right to know what is in their foods. And they say, there is still no proof that long-term consumption of biotech crops wont harm people. A series of studies from various groups, including the Food and Drug Administration, have shown the foods are safe.
Opponents point to the safety studies, and say labeling would unnecessarily scare consumers. They also contend that if several states approve their own labeling bills each measure could have different requirements, which would slow movement of foods and lead to higher costs for consumers.
Is it a matter of time before someone puts a law like this in place?
Washington state voters defeated a proposal that would have required foods containing GMOs genetically modified crops to be labeled.
The provision, known as I-522, was defeated with 55 percent of nearly 1 million people voting against the labeling measure. The vote was being closely watched in more than two dozen other states that are proposing to mandate labeling or ban genetically engineered foods.
Just like 27 million voters in California and Oregon, Washington voters saw how this burdensome and deceptive labeling scheme would have created more state bureaucracy, imposed new costs and burdens on local farmers and businesses, and increased food prices for Washington families, said Jim Greenwood, head of the Biotechnology Industry Organization.
Cathleen Enright, executive vice president of food and agriculture with the BIO, said the group was bracing for more food labeling efforts in 2014 efforts the group will continue to oppose. She acknowledged that BIO and other groups that favor Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) need to do a better job sharing their message with consumers.
We have to do a better job at communicating about how our food is grown. We have to demystify and take the unknown out of GMOs, Enright said. That is going to be critical to moving the nation beyond the current conversation.
Similar statewide ballot provisions have been received with mixed results.
A referendum to require labeling was narrowly defeated in California last November. Connecticut passed a law earlier this year to require labeling, making it the first state to do so. Maine passed a similar bill but it has yet to be signed into law by the states governor.The Connecticut and Maine measures include a stipulation saying those laws cant be implemented until a specific number of other states -- each law requires a different number -- also pass labeling bills. At least one of the other states must be a border state.
Efforts to label foods have been opposed by food and major agribusiness companies including Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, PepsiCo and General Mills. They have significantly outspent backers of the bills. In Washington, opponents of the measure spent $22 million compared to $7.7 million by backers, according to MapLight, a nonprofit that tracks money in politics.
Genetically modified seeds -- which contain DNA thats been modified to express a trait such as resistance to a pest, an environmental condition or a chemical -- are common in many foods. In the United States, up to 80 percent of packaged foods contain ingredients that have been genetically modified, according to the Grocery Manufacturers Association.
Those in favor of labeling say consumers have a right to know what is in their foods. And they say, there is still no proof that long-term consumption of biotech crops wont harm people. A series of studies from various groups, including the Food and Drug Administration, have shown the foods are safe.
Opponents point to the safety studies, and say labeling would unnecessarily scare consumers. They also contend that if several states approve their own labeling bills each measure could have different requirements, which would slow movement of foods and lead to higher costs for consumers.