Both sides of GMO fight appear at Senate hearing

February 14, 2013 @ 4:33 pm

YAKIMA, Wash. (AP) - Supporters argued that an initiative requiring genetically engineered foods to be labeled gives consumers information they need to make informed choices at the grocery store. Opponents countered that the move is unnecessary: These foods are perfectly healthy, and if consumers don't want them, they can buy organic.

Lawmakers heard both sides of the debate Thursday in Olympia, during a public hearing for Initiative 522. The ballot measure would require food and seeds produced entirely or partly through genetic engineering and sold in Washington to be labeled as such, beginning July 1, 2015. Raw foods that are not packaged separately would have to be labeled on retail shelves.

A similar initiative failed narrowly with voters in California last year.

More than 60 countries require such foods to be labeled, but the U.S. isn't one of them. Only Alaska has enacted legislation requiring the labeling of genetically engineered fish and shellfish products.

Supporters of the Washington initiative pointed to the growing global agreement about genetic engineering and genetically modified organisms, noting that other countries have recognized concerns about new allergens and changes in nutrition levels, among other things.

Yet the U.S. government leaves it to the corporations developing the technology to determine their products' safety _ self-regulation that most Americans, if they understood it, would be uncomfortable with, said Ken Cook of the nonprofit Environmental Working Group.

"If big, corporate agribusiness were so convinced there were no health risks to GMOs, they would be more than willing to label them," said Patricia Michael, who spoke in support of the measure. "Instead, they want to hide them from us."

And for good reason, she added.

"We were told that DDT was harmless, that saccharin was harmless," she said. "We have a right to know what we're eating."

Opponents argued that the requirement is likely to raise food prices and that labeling should only be required at the federal level.

Most, if not all, foods have been modified in some way with no required labels, according to Martina McLoughlin, director of the University of California's Biotechnology Research and Education Program.

In addition, genetically engineered products have been on the market for almost two decades, and billions of people worldwide have eaten the products safely, she said.

Genetic engineering also has had overwhelming positive impacts, she said, including reduction of fuel, pesticide and water use on farms. And abandoning the scientific method will slow or destroy technological advances, limiting potential for "improving nutrition, quality and sustainability in a world where we have massively increasing population, dwindling resources and a changing climate," McLoughlin said.

Some wheat growers, in particular, raised concerns that genetically modified wheat could destroy their exports to the Pacific Rim. Roughly 85 percent of all Washington state wheat is exported.

"I farmed all these years just fine without any GMOs. But I cannot farm without my markets," said Tom Stahl, 58, a wheat grower in Douglas County, who favors the initiative.

However, the Washington Association of Wheat Growers opposes the initiative.

Genetically engineered wheat is seven to 10 years away from being introduced to the market, so any fear about lost export markets is premature, said the group's Eric Maier, a Ritzville wheat grower.

"Labeling as genetically engineered would infer there is a difference in those products when none actually exists," he said.

Lawmakers have the option to vote on the initiative, take no action and send it to the November ballot, or recommend an alternative measure that will appear on the ballot with it.


(Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)
More Local News
Top Stories
MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (15)


  • Add A Comment

  • hpitantso wrote...
    Required to label
    January 3, 2013 5:42 am
    You would have to be getting your food from unknow sources if oppose this law,the reasons California voters rejected this must come from off the planet,I was always told you are what you eat.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • daveismenotyou wrote...
    GMOs
    January 3, 2013 1:22 pm
    People are so afraid of eating GMOs. Let me set the record straight, GMOs do not affect you one way or the other. That is not how genetics or GMOs work. You will not grow a third arm, promise.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mo Gaud wrote...
    Well then
    January 3, 2013 5:01 pm
    feel free to eat mine.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • black_bart wrote...
    well, that is that.....
    January 3, 2013 6:59 pm
    GMO's are safe, daveismenotyou says so. That's good enough for me. I really don't understand why people are so dead set against informing the consumers what is in the food they eat. A few years ago, the same debate raged over labeling trans-fats. They are now required to label those, and the world didn't end, and farmers didn't go out of business. I think companies like Monsanto are just afraid, and rightfully so, that consumers won't eat their garbage, if they have to label it as such.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • daveismenotyou wrote...
    I am against more and more regulation
    January 4, 2013 10:33 am
    Tell me one GMO that hurt anybody please.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Mo Gaud wrote...
    A 10 year study
    January 4, 2013 4:35 pm
    commpleted in Norway (independant of Monsanto)in 2012 concluded that animals fed an exclusive diet of GMO corn had significant changes to their major organs (liver, kidneys, pancreas, etc.) and were less able to digest proteins. Less protein digested means less amino acid production. Amino acids are necessary for proper cell growth and function. Like I said before, feel free to eat all the GMO's you want, but please educate yourself if you care at all about your body.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • daveismenotyou wrote...
    I know that study
    January 8, 2013 12:38 pm
    and it was bunk! Go educate yourself about you being so gullible
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Snout wrote...
    Hey, to quote Andrew Zimmern,
    January 3, 2013 3:53 pm
    "If it looks good eat it!"
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cg5611 wrote...
    Label foods that are GMO
    January 3, 2013 4:28 pm
    If GMO foods are so safe why do 50 countries require labeling or out right ban them? What most Americans do not know; studies done in Canada, France and other countries show the herbicides and pesticides inserted genetically into foods has shown up in human blood and mother milk. Further, exposeure to GMO foods has caused thinning of the intestinal wall in some individuals. This thinning has lead to some serious health issues. Monsanto is a HUGE company with plenty of money to influence the media. From an economic standpoint agricultural products grown and packaged for export made no longer be allowed outside the shores of our country. This could have a serious econmomic impact, we export alot of food and if others don't want GMO foods we have have just shot ourselves in the foot. Finally I think consumers have a right to be able to EASILY know what they are eating. Personally I'm real tired of hunting around a package trying to determione if it contains GMO foods. I don't eat GMO stuff.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • daveismenotyou wrote...
    Because people are stupid
    January 4, 2013 10:28 am
    and fear the unknown.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Forrest wrote...
    If GMO food is so safe...
    January 3, 2013 6:20 pm
    why are the corporations who make it so opposed to labeling it?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • daveismenotyou wrote...
    Because of more regulation
    January 4, 2013 10:30 am
    and more cost. Also, there is a negative connotation that is unfounded.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • hpitantso wrote...
    GMOs do not affect you one way or the other. ..
    January 3, 2013 10:39 pm
    This state still had laws against growing pot a plant GOD created,a recent law passed to legalize marijuana which includes genetically engineered marijuana the effect will affect just like food.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Moondoggie wrote...
    The anti-science crowd
    February 14, 2013 5:14 pm
    is fanning the fears over GMO. Sorry lefties, but that horse left the barn 20 years ago.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Hayduke wrote...
    I trust Corporate America to look out for our best interests. Haven't they always?
    February 14, 2013 8:53 pm
    I mean golly, what possible reason would they have to mislead us? Havent they always done right by their customers?

    BTW,daveismenotyou, in response to your comment, "Because of more regulation and more cost. Also, there is a negative connotation that is unfounded."

    Tell me, how much could it possibly cost to print the words "This food contains GMO's" on a package? They already overpackage everything anyway, why would that hurt their bottom line?

    And as for the "negative connotation," they have plenty of industry front groups cranking out their talking points that GMO's are harmless.

    Think about it this way, if you went to a party, and someone handed you a pill and said, "Take this, it's great stuff!" Wouldn't you want to know what's in it?

    How does having more information about what we ingest harm anyone? Or do you not trust Americans to make that decision for themselves?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }