Everyone has a story. What's yours?
 Linda Thomas
twitter: @TheNewsChick
About Linda
Linda is the morning news anchor and features reporter for KIRO Radio. This is her local news blog, with an emphasis on social media, technology, Northwest companies, education, parenting, and anything else that grabs her attention.

If you have a news tip or story idea, I'd love to hear from you...

To leave a voice message for Linda about any of her stories call toll free 1-855-251-2363

Follow Me on Pinterest


gmo.jpg
Supporters of labeling foods produced with genetically modified organisms say you're eating bacteria, viruses, insect genes, plant genes, and animal genes without knowing it. (Linda Thomas photo)

What's in the food your family eats? New state initiative to force GMO labeling

November 13, 2012 @ 4:57 pm (Updated: 7:14 am - 11/14/12 )

A grassroots effort led to legalizing marijuana in Washington. Here comes the next public initiative and it's one that impacts each of us because it's about the food we eat.

The bread popping out of the toaster contains whole wheat flour, water, sugar, soy lecithin, diglycerides, calcium propionate and other ingredients most of us don't understand.

You're also chomping on "bacteria, viruses, insect genes, plant genes, animal genes, all being combined in ways that cannot occur in nature," according to Trudy Bialic, with Seattle-based PCC Natural Markets.

Bialic, and others supporting the new Initiative 522, have a problem with GMOs - genetically modified organisms.

In your supermarket, most of the produce is free from GMOs except for sweet corn and papaya. Foods in the center of the store - packaged, processed and frozen - are more likely linked to a GMO. Which foods? It's hard to know for sure. The FDA doesn't have a labeling requirement for genetically modified products.

Scientists use genetic engineering to modify foods by literally splicing and combining genes in plants. Grain products have been scientifically altered, in one way or another, for almost two decades.

Those in the biotech industry say plants can be engineered for faster growth, resistance to disease and insects, production of extra nutrients, and other beneficial purposes.

Critics say there haven't been enough studies to know if genetically modified foods are safe.

"You can't see it necessarily on the outside, but there are changes apparently that occur in the animals that consume them (GMOs)," says Bialic. "There's only been one human feeding study and the results of even that one study found things that the biotech industry said would not and could not happen."

Chris McManus is pushing Initiative 522 in Washington. He doesn't want to prohibit or ban GMOs, but "simply" require labels to let consumers know when they're eating a food that somewhere down the line has been genetically modified.

He's approaching this not as a health issue, but a compelling economic one for our state because 60 other countries already require GMO food labels.

"What would happen if Boeing suddenly came back and said we can't sell planes overseas because we can't tell the grade of metal that we're using? What would that do to our state?" he asks. "What's going to happen if our wheat farmers suddenly turn around and say, 'Hey guys we can't sell our wheat to China?'"

"Wheat actually is more important to our state treasury than Microsoft exports. Wheat is number two in exports," Bialic adds. "It's right after Boeing in terms of value to the state. If you can't sell wheat overseas to Japan and Korea, the Philippines and Malaysia, Russia and Saudi Arabia and all the European union nations, our economy is in trouble."

Washington is the third largest exporter of food and agriculture products in the country, according to the U.S. Agriculture Department.

In 2010, Washington exported over 6.1 billion worth of food and agricultural products.

GMO labeling supporters are gathering signatures now for an Initiative that will go to the legislature, and likely for a public vote in 2013 if lawmakers do nothing. That's the same path our state's recently approved marijuana initiative took.

As with other initiatives, those in favor of GMO labels expect the fight will come down to money.

"No one ever will be able to have enough money - ever, anywhere - to go up against the biotech industry," says Bialic. "Unfortunately that is how our political system is shaking out. Those with the most money can virtually buy a result."

The 522 campaign has raised about $190,000 so far for the 2013 effort.

A similar initiative on California's ballot last week failed. Chemical and food companies spent nearly a million dollars a day, for a total of $46 million, to defeat that state's GMO label law.

Opponents successfully argued that the cost of producing a crop, and the cost to consumers, would go up with the new labeling requirement.

One county in Washington went beyond a labeling requirement in last week's election.

San Juan County passed Proposition 2012-4, a ban on genetically modified organisms, with 61 percent of the vote.

Proposed by organic farmers and others, the GMO ban makes it unlawful to grow plants or raise animals in San Juan County that have been genetically modified.

By LINDA THOMAS

More from Linda Thomas

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

  • mnpat wrote...
    Go away and please just leave us alone
    November 14, 2012 5:55 am
    Do whatever you want on the islands.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ten4goodbuddy wrote...
    You're the minority
    November 14, 2012 7:21 am
    and I bet your are fat, dumb and happy, no? Who wouldn't want more information on what you are slamming into your face daily??
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • DJFavorite wrote...
    How does costs go up with label requirement?
    November 14, 2012 6:39 am
    From what I read in this article, it's only requiring foods to be labeled. It doesn't say anything about banning the use, or modifying production. People will have a choice. If they want the non GMO foods, they will pay the higher costs (if they are higher in cost). It's nothing different than when the FDA made label requirement changes. The foods didn't change, just the information on the package. So, unless I missed something, I don't see what the big deal is.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • TheNewsChick wrote...
    Cost argument with California's Prop 37
    November 14, 2012 7:27 am
    Those against labeling in California concluded - and persuaded voters - it would cost taxpayers millions by forcing food products to be repackaged or remade with higher priced ingredients. They said Prop 37 would cost the average California family up to $400 per year in higher grocery costs.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • DJFavorite wrote...
    Thanks
    November 14, 2012 7:50 am
    I can see some initial costs for the 'repackaging'. I wonder how much it cost companies to repackage when the FDA requirements change on packaging of food. The Nutritional panel changed a few years back. I imagine it can't be more than what those changes cost and I didn't see any significant change in my grocery bill. And reformulating products to use non-GMO ingredients will be dictated by the consumers, IMHO. I'll be interested to see how this plays out.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Bloodsurf69 wrote...
    Islands?
    November 14, 2012 10:20 am
    How did this conversation turn from GMOs to islands? I want to know what I'm eating and they say the won't tell you. Not only will they not tell you what your eating but they won't tell you what products have it in them. Why even lable the package then?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    Good job PCC !
    November 14, 2012 11:30 am
    We better expect a fight like in California where the Giant corporations like Monsanto and ADM try to pull a "Co$tco-liquor" ad campaign that gets low-information voters to vote against their self-interest and in favor of FRANKENFOODS. Let's hope WA voters are sharper than California's voters were.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Moondoggie wrote...
    Anti-Science
    November 14, 2012 2:24 pm
    The anti-science crowd is at it again. Sorry folks, but the GMO horse left the barn 20 years ago.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    GMO Horse
    November 14, 2012 3:53 pm
    Ain't nothing "anti-science" about whether to LABEL something in the interests of full disclosure and informed consent.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • 509 wrote...
    Oh, please require ALL students to take BASIC science classes!!
    November 14, 2012 4:26 pm
    "The anti-science crowd is at it again. Sorry folks, but the GMO horse left the barn 20 years ago." Nah, not 20 years ago....more like 150 years ago. Wait, that's when we "discovered" genetics....more like 3,000 years. Idiots running our governments.....scientific illiterates.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • roomtemp wrote...
    Monsanto will crush them like bugs...
    November 14, 2012 3:53 pm
    Millions of dollars, an army of lawyers, and a mass media campaign will see that you don't have a clue what you're eating.

    Pass the toxic corn and some tomatofish salad with round up dressing...mmmm

    It's hip to be sterile and tumors are great fun! :-

    If the 522 people want to win they better start making some good election style fear campaign ads that go viral. --Something like a mom grabbing a familiar looking bottle of pesticide and tossing a few squirts in little Johnny's baby bottle before handing it to him.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Snout wrote...
    Yes, that can of pork and beans will kill us all.
    November 14, 2012 4:30 pm
    Hey, if you can prove beyond a doubt that what I'm eating will kill me, I'll stop eating it. Otherwise, take your opinions and half-baked (pun intended) studies and shove them. I like shopping at a regular stores and paying less than the suckers who line up at other places for tasteless and discolored organic produce and other items that fund some hippie's alternative lifestyle.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    @Snout
    November 14, 2012 5:57 pm
    You want to be a guinea pig for corporate profits, be our guest!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Ten-shi1 wrote...
    It's just PACKAGING!
    November 20, 2012 9:34 am
    Making a change to food packaging is cheap. In a worst-case scenario, the manufacturer can slap a sticker on the package that declared the food to contain GMO products (or not, as the case may be). In CA, the big kicker was the requirement to NOT label food as "natural" if it contained any GMO products. Remove that requirement or address it as a separate issue and there is no problem with packaging costs driving up food costs. Monsanto et al are using the cost of revised packaging and attendant rise in food prices as a means to get this kind of requirement to look scary, yet all it does is offer the consumer information that they should legitimately have.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • GMO and GE Free wrote...
    GMO and GE Free
    November 20, 2012 11:03 am
    Monsanto and Big Poison http://www.noprop37.com/donors here in California lie and cheat, quite overtly, to protect their huge market profit - and prevent simple labeling of GMO and GE ingredients. If the people of Washington want labeling to fly, be forewarned that Monsanto and the above mentioned other BigFoodCorpse have no compunction about winning ugly - at the expense of your health and right to choose. Expect bribery, disinformation, shills, outright fraud and disguised "news" from the anti-labeling corporations. Meanwhile boycott the above-linked companies - if you value your health.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }