Posted on November 5, 2013 at 7:11 PM
Updated
today at 12:29 PM
SEATTLE -- A Washington state ballot measure requiring mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods is failing in early returns.
The campaign over Initiative 522 has been one of the costliest initiative fights in state history, drawing millions of dollars from out of state.
See complete list of Decision 2013 Results
The measure was failing 45 percent to 55 percent with more than 980,000 ballots counted Tuesday night.
"We're delighted with the vote tonight," said Dana Bieber, a spokeswoman for the No on 522 campaign. Voters "gave a clear message. The more they looked at the initiative the less they liked it.”
But labeling supporters weren't conceding.
"This is far from over and we have several days of vote counting ahead," said Delana Jones, campaign manager for the Yes on 522 campaign, noting that thousands of ballots in liberal-leaning King County had not yet been counted. "I'm cautiously optimistic.”
Voters in Washington, which has a vote-by-mail system, must postmark their ballots by Tuesday so more ballots are left to count.
If voters approve I-522, Washington would be the first state to put in place labeling requirements for genetically modified foods.
Early polling showed voters favored the measure. But a barrage of TV and radio spots financed by a food industry group and five biotechnology companies has helped narrow the gap. The opposition outspent supporters about 3 to 1.
The opposition has raised $22 million to defeat I-522 and had spent much of that by Election Day. Hefty contributions came from Monsanto Co., DuPont Pioneer and the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which collected millions in donations from the nation's top food companies, including Nestle SA, General Mills Inc., Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo Inc.
Many of those companies mounted a $46 million defense to defeat a similar food-labeling measure in California last year.
Supporters of I-522 have raised about $7.9 million, backed by Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps, natural food companies and consumer groups.
Only about 6 percent of the roughly $30 million raised by both sides has come from within Washington state, according to campaign finance reports.
Supporters say consumers have the right to know what's in the food they buy, while opponents say the measure would lead to higher food costs.
Under I-522, seeds or foods containing GMO ingredients offered for retail sale would require a label starting in 2015. Some foods are exempt, including restaurant food, alcohol, certified organic food and medicine.
Most GMO crops such as field corn and soybean are used for animal feed or as ingredients in processed foods including breakfast cereal, potato chips, baked goods and sodas.
Washington state voters reject labeling of GMO foods
Washington state voters on Tuesday rejected an initiative that would have required foods containing genetically engineered ingredients to be labeled.The vote was 54.8% opposed to labeling and 45.2% in favor of it.
Had it passed, Initiative 522 would have made the state the first in the nation to require such labeling.
The initiative was the most expensive in state history, though it was largely fought by out-of-state interests.
The No on 522 campaign set a record for fundraising, bringing in $22 million in donations according to The Seattle Times. Just $550 came from Washington residents, according to the newspaper. The top five contributors were the Grocery Manufacturers Association, Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Dow AgroSciences and Bayer CropScience.
The largest donor to the pro-labeling campaign were California-based Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps and the Center for Food Safety in Washington, D.C. However the initiative garnered almost 30% of its funding from individuals in Washington state, the Times reported.
Food industry ads claimed that the initiative would raise food prices. Labels would mislead consumers into thinking that products that contain genetically engineered ingredients are "somehow different, unsafe or unhealthy," said Brian Kennedy of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a food industry group based in Washington, D.C.
The Yes on 522 campaigns emphasized consumers right to know what's in their food.
The Washington initiative was part of an ongoing national fight by those opposed to genetically engineered crops to push for labeling. A similar,bruising $37 million battle in California in 2012 went against labeling advocates. The final vote was 51.4% opposed and 48.6% in favor.
"Sooner or later, one of these is going to pass. It's only a matter of time. At some point the industry is going to get tired of pouring this kind of money into these campaigns," said Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition at New York University.
She said she doesn't believe there's anything dangerous about genetically engineered foods but is concerned about corporate control of the food supply.
Genetically engineered crops have a gene from another plant inserted into them to give them some ability they didn't have before.
There are two common genetic modifications. One is for herbicide tolerance: Plants are given a gene that protects them from harm when a farmer sprays them with herbicides to kill weeds. The other is a gene from a soil bacteria called Bacillus thuringiensis that allows plants to produce their own insecticide.
A huge proportion of commodity crops grown by U.S. farmers are genetically engineered: 97% of the nation's sugar beets, 93% of the soybeans, 90% of the cotton and 90% of the feed corn for animals, according to the 2013 figures from the Department of Agriculture.
About 60% of the papaya grown in the United States, all in Hawaii, has been genetically engineered to allow it to withstand the ringspot virus, which virtually wiped out papaya production in the islands in the 1980s, according to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications.
Very small amounts of genetically engineered zucchini, yellow squash and sweet corn are also sold in the United States.
The Food and Drug Administration does not require foods containing genetically engineered ingredients to be labeled because it considers them "functionally equivalent" to conventionally grown crops.
How much of our crops are genetically altered?
A
large proportion of commodity crops grown by U.S. farmers are
genetically engineered. Genetically engineered crops have a gene from
another plant inserted into them to give them some ability they didn't
have before. They have been widely adopted by farmers because they save
them time and money. Here's a quick look at some of the major crops that
are now modified.
Source: USA TODAY research
By nearly ten points, voters in Washington State rejected a ballot
initiative that would have required labels on foods containing
genetically-engineered ingredients.
Initiative 522 failed at the polls on Tuesday, with 54.8 percent of voters in the Evergreen State voting no and 45.2 percent in favor, according to a tally by USA Today. Had it passed, Washington would have been the first state in the nation to require labeling of genetically-modified foods.
The campaign against the initiative drew $22 million in fundraising — mostly from the Grocery Manufacturers Association and agricultural sciences companies such as Dow AgroSciences and Bayer CropScience, who outspent supporters 3 to 1, according to the Associated Press. Ads from food industry groups said that the initiative would have raised food prices.
A similar initiative failed in California last year.
[USA Today]
Initiative 522 failed at the polls on Tuesday, with 54.8 percent of voters in the Evergreen State voting no and 45.2 percent in favor, according to a tally by USA Today. Had it passed, Washington would have been the first state in the nation to require labeling of genetically-modified foods.
The campaign against the initiative drew $22 million in fundraising — mostly from the Grocery Manufacturers Association and agricultural sciences companies such as Dow AgroSciences and Bayer CropScience, who outspent supporters 3 to 1, according to the Associated Press. Ads from food industry groups said that the initiative would have raised food prices.
A similar initiative failed in California last year.
[USA Today]
No comments:
Post a Comment