This week, residents of Washington state rejected a measure that would have added to the ranks of 64 nations around the world that require labeling for food that includes genetically modified ingredients.
Those on the losing end believe the reason behind the defeat is money.
According to Yes on 522, a pro-labeling grassroots organization that lobbied for Initiative 522’s victory, big business contributions to the anti-labeling campaign totaled $21.1 million just days before the vote — with only about $550 donated by area residents. Top donors to the campaign included GMO giant Monsanto, the Grocery Manufacturers Association and DuPont Pioneer.
Those in favor of labeling, which included a diverse coalition of community groups, businesses, environmentalist advocates and medical associations, raised just shy of $8 million — a far cry from the amount their opponents were able to summon.
On Tuesday night, before the final results were issued, those involved with the campaign were optimistic that their cause would win out.
”Food labeling is a new political movement that will not go away,” Washington Sen. Maralyn Chase (D-Shoreline) said to a crowd gathered on Tuesday evening. “We have influenced people. Mothers across this state, and increasingly across America, want to know what’s put into their kids’ food. We won the hearts and minds of the people of this state. We were almost at the point of taking them out. We’ve won the campaign.”
That wasn’t exactly true, yet the campaign did receive significant support.
When the votes were totalled, 45.2 percent of Washington voters had supported the labeling measure, while 54.8 percent did not.
Different state, same tactics
The defeat comes a year after California voters rejected a similar measure. In the lead-up to that referendum, the Grocery Manufacturers Association raised $46 million in its campaign, leading to Proposition 37’s defeat.
The message used by big business in Washington state was similar to the one used in California in 2012. The Grocery Manufacturers Association, which was also at the forefront of the opposition campaign in Washington, warned consumers that requiring labels would lead to higher prices.
Even after the ballot measure’s defeat in Washington, representatives with the Grocery Manufacturers Association continued to employ similar rhetoric, claiming residents made the right decision, in terms of their pocketbook and their health
“We are pleased that the voters of Washington State rejected I-522 by a significant margin. I-522 was a complex and costly proposal that would have misled consumers, raised the price of groceries for Washington families and done nothing to improve food safety,” Pamela G. Bailey, CEO of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, said in a statement.
Bailey went on to claim that the Association would continue its campaign against state-led initiatives, sending other states around the nation a strong message that when it comes to standing up to the nation’s big food industry, the battle isn’t worth it.
“We will continue to oppose individual state efforts to impose mandatory labeling of products made with GMO technology, as well as advocate for the safe and effective use of this important technology to increase the food supply while lowering cost,” Bailey said. “And we will continue to engage in an informative dialogue with our consumers on the safety, prevalence and benefits of that technology.”
Aside from the cost that companies would hand down to consumers for extra labeling guidelines, the association also argued that GMO products are “good for the environment” and pose no health risks.
“The food and beverage industry is committed to providing consumers with a wide array of safe and affordable food and beverage choices,” Bailey said. “Genetically modified food ingredients (GMOs) are safe, good for the environment, reduce the cost of food and help feed a growing global population of seven billion.”
The 45 percent of Washington voters who supported labeling aren’t buying that line. Supporting their argument is the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, which urges all doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets, citing animal studies that provide possible correlations between GMO consumption, infertility, allergies, gastrointestinal and immune system disorders, among other complications.
While the Federal Drug Administration deems GMOs to be safe, opponents say enough testing hasn’t been performed, and point to European nations that have banned GMO crops over health and environmental concerns. For example, many GMO crops are designed to absorb exorbitant amounts of pesticides, killing weeds while allowing the crop to thrive.
Aside from health concerns, those involved with Yes on 522 were mainly fighting for the consumers’ right to know what is in the food they’re purchasing.
“A ‘yes’ vote on Initiative 522 (I-522) would give Washington shoppers more information about what’s in the food they eat and feed their families,” Yes on 522 stated on its website. “Under this initiative, genetically engineered foods, including corn or soy, or foods with genetically engineered ingredients like chips, cold cereals, soft drinks, and candy would be required to be labeled noting that the food or processed food has been genetically engineered. Labeling genetically engineered foods would give shoppers more control over their shopping decisions.”
Who were the big players?
Companies throwing the big bucks into the campaign to defeat the referendum were those who had a stake in the game.
With GMOs included in so many products in the U.S., large grocers and beverage companies fought tooth and nail to keep GMO labels off their products.
“A military phrase, ‘shock and Awe,’ best describes the No on 522 campaign,” a press release issued by Yes on 522 states.
Television ads featuring prominent members of the government, including Dan Newhouse, former director of Washington state’s Department of Agriculture, argued the ‘no’ campaign. In one commercial, Newhouse claimed grocery prices for consumers would go up, arguing the Yes 522 initiative’s campaign was misleading.
PepsiCo donated $2.532 million to the campaign, alongside other big donors Nestle and Coca-Cola, which contributed a combined $3 million. General Mills contributed more than $598,000.
That’s nothing compared with the money that came pouring in from agricultural businesses directly involved in the GMO industry. Monsanto, considered the king of all GMO companies, contributed more than $5 million to the campaign, while DuPont poured in $3.8 million.
But those in favor of labeling were influencing public perception, too. Polls leading up to the vote showed the ‘yes’ campaign in the lead — one Elway Poll issued in October put it ahead 46 to 42 percent.
That lead, however, didn’t last. Just days before the referendum, the Grocery Manufacturers Association contributed another $4 million and the ad campaign went into full swing.
“No on 522 has blanketed the airwaves, dominated new media, and sent out glossy mailings — all on an unprecedented scale,” Joel Connelly wrote in a blog post for the Seattle Times. “Starting in mid-October, polls began to show support for the measure slipping away. The Yes on 522 campaign raised a respectable war chest, but found itself outspent three-to-one.”
In the end, the campaign succeeded on behalf of big business, undeterred by allegations from the state’s attorney general that the Grocery Manufacturers Association had broken state law by not disclosing its top five donors on television ads.
“For big business, it’s a cost of doing business,” Connelly wrote. “Apparently, no moral obligation was felt to follow to follow the transparency requirements of Washington’s voter-approved campaign finance laws.”