open i

The campaign surrounding the Washington State measure 522 vote on genetically engineered food must have had considerable promotional value for the food industry. (490 words)

This fall over US$30 million was spent on campaigns promoting and opposing Washington State Measure No. 522 concerning labeling of genetically-engineered foods. The voter’s guide elaborated on the measure

"This measure would require most raw agricultural commodities, processed foods, and seeds and seed stocks, if produced using genetic engineering, as defined, to be labeled as genetically engineered when offered for retail sale. "

While $30 million might not be much in general and nationwide US politics, for a rather narrow issue in a limited geographic context it probably is an eye brow raiser for most people.

It is also evident that the campaign might have been a rather meaningless one in terms of its impact if not its intent.

In the first place there is some doubt as to whether Washington has the constitutional authority to implement the measure. The voters guide provided by the state indicated that "Washington law regulates the safety and quality of food produced and sold within the state" without reference to genetic engineering.

But there must be doubt after twenty years of genetically modified food consumption, without any documented evidence of "safety or quality" issues, as opposed to personal preferences, over genetically modified foods of such.

The Washington legislature did not vote on this measure which may suggest that they were not certain of their ability to legislate on its implementation.

Further it is not entirely evident that major food companies oppose labeling of genetically modified foods. For instance the public position on this issues of Nestle, a major contributor of funding opposing the measure, is summarized on their website at http://www.nestle.com as follows:

"Concerning governments’ implementation of genetically modified organism (GMO) disclosure regulations, including labelling, we favour systems that are science-based and serve the interests of consumers."

It would seem that the food industry could almost certainly have saved itself considerable cost by opposing the measure in the courts. A further advantage of this strategy would have been the precedent being in place in terms of further debate in the other 49 states, even if the opposition to the labeling is real.

So why did the likes of Nestles, Pepsi, Coke, General Mills oppose the Washington measure that seems unlikely to have been implemented even if it had passed, and which they do not in any event appear to oppose.

Regardless of whether or not the proposition was ill founded, failure to oppose it might have been seen as indicating that there was a reason for concern. But probably more importantly the circus surrounding the vote was too good a promotional opportunity generally for the food industry and specifically for the value of the technology it was applying to improve "safety and quality", amongst other things. And the narrow win might encourage other such proposition in other states.

The lesson for the eco-terrorists is surely that open warfare of the nature seen this fall in Washington does little to further their interest in opposing the likes of Monsanto.

David Walker
December 9, 2013