On Nov. 5, Washington residents considered a law to label genetically engineered ingredients. The state’s unique voting system means results won’t be in immediately. While consumers led the campaign, food, chemical, and biotechnology companies outside the state have spent over $22 million to convince voters that it’s a bad idea.
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 campaign against labeling. 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 campaign in favor of labeling, noting that thousands of ballots in liberal-leaning King County had not yet been counted. “I’m cautiously optimistic.”
Due to Washington state’s all vote by mail system, the outcome may not be clear until this weekend, but if I-522 passes, Washington will be the first state in the nation to require identification of foods made with genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
Over 60 countries either require labels for GMOs, or ban the technology completely, but similar efforts to identify genetic engineering in the United States have all failed. The most recent attempt came last November with California’s Proposition 37.
The same opponents who spent millions in Washington to defeat I-522—Monsanto, DuPont, PepsiCo, General Millis, and so on—spent over $45 million to sway California voters away from choosing the labeling requirement in Prop 37.
Despite the determination and deep pockets of the competition, Elizabeth Larter, communications director for advocacy group Yes on 522, said she hopes Washington voters will choose to label GMOs.
“We’re getting outspent three to one, but I think things are a little bit easier compared to last year. California at this time was actually down in the polls. We’re up in the latest public polls. It’s close, but it does leave us optimistic for the outcome of I-522,” Larter said.
The campaign to defeat I-522 has become the most expensive anti-initiative effort in Washington’s history, and opponents hoping to defeat the measure have a lot at stake. Companies expect that a GMO label would look like a skull and crossbones to consumer.
Opponents of I-522 hope to convince voters that a new label would hurt them economically.
“The claims in those ads pushing I-522 are very misleading. 522 would require a whole separate labeling system just for our state. That would be unfair and costly to Washington farmers, consumers, and tax payers,” said Dan Newhouse, former director of the Washington Department of Agriculture, in one of several ads designed to squash the initiative.
Anonymous Donors
The Seattle Times and Consumer Reports have both identified false and misleading statements in the No on 522 ads, but the biggest concerns raised against the opposition are about campaign funding.
Food and beverage companies who contributed to the I-522 opposition campaign initially hid their identities behind a trade organization to protect the individual brands from public scrutiny. Company names were revealed only after Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson sued for violations of state campaign disclosure laws.
Ferguson seeks substantial penalties for campaign violations, but the state will not allow him to pursue the matter any further until after the election.
The ads and the scandals gave Washington voters a lot to chew on, but the state’s history of pioneering legislation leaves Larter encouraged. She believes Washington’s progressive and libertarian spirit will prevail.
“This right to know message appears to be resonating with Washington voters. They fundamentally want more information about their groceries,” she said.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
