Protesters outside the offices of agriculture giant Monsanto who were rallying as part of a "national day of solidarity." Credit: Daniel Lobo/cc by 2.0

By Matthew Charles Cardinale
SEATTLE, Washington, U.S., Oct 17 2013 (IPS)

The northwestern state of Washington could become the first in the U.S. to require labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on foods and food packages, after a similar measure in California failed last year.

Over 353,000 Washingtonians signed on to a petition creating Initiative 522, which will appear on the Nov. 5 ballot statewide. It notes that such labeling is fast becoming the international norm."The 'no' side has corporations that are all bankrolling their campaign." -- Elizabeth Larter of Yes on 522

“Forty-nine countries, including Japan, South Korea, China, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, Russia, the European Union member states, and other key United States trading partners, have laws mandating disclosure of genetically engineered foods on food labels,” the text of the initiative states. “Many countries have restrictions or bans against foods produced with genetic engineering.”

Last year, Washington and Colorado voted to legalise marijuana altogether. Washington also legalised same-sex marriage.

“We have a history of leading on issues. We were first to label fish if they’re farm-raised,” Elizabeth Larter, a spokeswoman for Yes on 522, told IPS. “We really like to have the freedom to do what we want to do, when we want to do it. We believe in having those freedoms.”

Since the initiative was written, the number of countries with GMO labeling has grown to 64. Some are now bypassing U.S. markets because of concerns about genetic engineering, supporters of the measure warn.

However, Dana Bieber of the No on 522 campaign told IPS there are several differences between the initiative and GMO labeling requirements overseas.

“Proponents are talking about entire countries or continents,” she said. “With 522, it’s one-fiftieth of the country. Under 522 our farmers [in Washington] would have to live under a regulatory system and in a litigation climate that no other farmer in the entire U.S. would have to comply with – that puts them at a huge competitive disadvantage.”

While gridlock on the issue continues at the federal level, states are increasingly becoming more independent in terms of public policy.

The Yes on 522 campaign is seeing widespread support, with over 12,000 donors and hundreds of volunteers making phone calls every week. Donations are averaging 25 dollars each.

Support for the initiative has come from across the state, not only the progressive city of Seattle, Larter said. “This is a bipartisan effort,” she said.

However, the labeling campaign faces the same challenge that California did: millions of dollars in corporate money to pay for advertising aiming at convincing voters to reject the measure.

Corporate opposition

Corporations spent 46 million dollars last year to defeat California’s labeling referendum. So far, they have raised 17.1 million to defeat I-522 in Washington.

“The ‘no’ side has… corporations that are all bankrolling their campaign. Washingtonians… don’t want to be kept in the dark by these… out of state corporations,” Larter said.

The biggest donor to the No on 522 campaign is the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which includes such members as Coca-Cola, General Mills, Kellogg’s, Kraft, McDonald’s, Pepsi, and Starbucks. It is not immediately clear which of these companies are funneling money through the GMA to the campaign.

The Yes on 522 campaign also has some smaller corporate donors, including Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, Organic Consumer Fund Committee to Label GMOs in WA State, Mercola.com Health Resources LLC, Presence Marketing Inc, and Nature’s Path Foods USA Inc.

“The ‘no’ side is desperate right now, in a desperate scramble to raise funds. The GMA plowed in five million dollars,” Dave Murphy, founder of Food Democracy Now, and a member of the Yes on 522 steering committee, told IPS.

“They have to drown us out with negative ads to add to voter confusion on the issue. They’re really concerned how this is impacting their brand now,” Murphy said.

He expects the measure to pass in Washington, noting that it is a smaller media market than California, and thus easier for the Yes on 522 campaign to deal with. He notes that agriculture and fishing are important to the economy, and that GMO wheat recently mysteriously appeared in nearby Oregon, causing damage to some of the region’s main exports.

Pending applications for GMO apples and salmon have increased public alarm, he notes.

Additionally, Larter notes that the popular health food market Whole Foods has pledged to phase in a GMO labeling requirement at its stores, further raising public awareness.

The most recent poll shows 66 percent of likely voters in Washington support the measure, 21 percent against, and 13 percent undecided, according to Murphy.

“We had high numbers last year [in California]. The other side knows – this really is a marketing campaign. They know labeling, agriculture, and genetic engineering is a complex issue. They’re spending millions of dollars to confuse voters about what’s really at stake,” Murphy said.

Bieber told IPS that  even though I-522 only requires labeling and does not ban GMOs outright, the stigma will force companies to switch from GMOs to what she says are more expensive natural ingredients, thus causing consumers’ grocery bills to go up by hundreds of dollars.

Murphy says the No campaign is lying. He notes that this increase did not happen in other countries where labeling has been required.

The No campaign also argues the bill is poorly written and confusing, and that it unfairly exempts meat from animals who consumed GMOs from having to be labeled.

Larter says it’s not a loophole. She says that an animal which consumes a GMO is not a GMO.

“I think ultimately the ‘no’ side is false in their claims. They’re completely misleading voters. They need to do that in order to be successful,” Larter said.

A new act will require the USDA to issue temporary permits allowing farmers to continue planting genetically modified organisms. Credit: Peter Blanchard/CC by 2.0

By Matthew Charles Cardinale
ATLANTA, Georgia, Apr 28 2013 (IPS)

Food safety advocates are outraged over revelations that U.S. Congress and President Barack Obama approved an act that includes a provision purporting to strip federal courts of the ability to prevent the spread of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

The provision in the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013 requires the U.S. Department of Agriculture to issue temporary permits allowing the continued planting of GMOs by farmers, even when a court rules that the agency erred in its environmental impact review of the GMOs.

The provision, which activists call the Monsanto Protection Act, is one for which the multinational corporation Monsanto has been lobbying Congress for at least a year. The legislation passed the U.S. House of Representatives on Mar. 6, 2013 and the Senate on Mar. 21, with Obama signing the legislation five days later on Mar. 26.

Revelations of the provision, which was buried in the 587-page spending bill (HR 933, under Division A, Title VI, Section 735), have increased public awareness and interest in the issue of GMOs in the United States.

The provision states that if “a determination of non-regulated status…is or has been invalidated or vacated, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon request by a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer, immediately grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part”.

Industry control

U.S. Senator Jon Tester, a Democrat from Montana and one of the only family farmers in Congress, spoke out against the provision on the floor on the Senate. Once again, agribusiness multinational corporations [are] putting farmers as serfs

“The United States Congress is telling the Agricultural Department that even if a court tells you that you’ve failed to follow the right process and tells you to start over, you must disregard the court’s ruling and allow the crop to be planted anyway,” Tester said.

“Not only does this ignore the constitutional idea of separation of powers, but it also lets genetically modified crops take hold across this country, even when a judge finds it violates the law,” Tester said, describing the issue as “once again, agribusiness multinational corporations putting farmers as serfs”.

Meanwhile, activists are holding Senator Barbara Milkulski, a Democrat from Maryland, partially responsible, as she was the committee chair who allowed the amendment and could have addressed the provision in Congressional hearings

In a statement, Mikulski’s spokeswoman, Rachel MacKnight, defended her. “Senator Mikulski understands the anger over this provision. She didn’t put the language in the bill and doesn’t support it either.”

“As Chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Mikulski’s first responsibility was to prevent a government shutdown. That meant she had to compromise on many of her own priorities to get a bill through the Senate that the House would pass,” MacKnight said.

Because the provision is temporary, it will likely come up for reauthorisation in September 2013, an opportunity for public opposition that activists are relishing.

“The USDA has working mechanisms in place to allow for partial deregulation for those crops,” Colin O’Neil, director of government affairs for the Centre for Food Safety, noted in an interview with IPS.

“At best, it’s unnecessary and duplicative. At worst, it takes oversight away from the USDA and puts it in the hands of the industry,” O’Neil said of the provision.

The centre has concerns about how the USDA has used temporary deregulation in the past, such as with genetically modified sugar beets. Both genetically modified alfalfa and sugar beets have been held up in court in the past over National Environmental Policy Act challenges.

“While we have argued that the USDA isn’t adequately protecting farmers and the environment, the rider will essentially prevent the USDA from safeguarding farmers and the environment because it forces the agency to comply with industry demands,” O’Neil said.

Future benefits

Monsanto has proposals for numerous GMO crops in the pipeline that could be affected by this rider.

“I think the Monsanto Protection Act and how it was passed and how it was slipped into law is just another example of how this company operates, how they manipulate our democracy, and they buy off our elected officials,” Dave Murphy, founder of Food Democracy Now, told IPS.

“This is another example of how…they choose to operate within the rules of a democratic society. They’re like the mafia, they go in and write the rules the way they want them to be,” Murphy said.

“Monsanto really did themselves a major disservice by slipping this into a continuing resolution,” he said.

Monsanto, which does derive benefit from the provision, responded in a statement, saying its critics have an “interesting narrative, worthy of a B grade movie script”.

“Virtually none of the people protesting actually read the provision itself. Those who did, found a surprise: It contains no reference to Monsanto, protection of Monsanto, or benefit to Monsanto. It does seek to protect farmers, and we supported the provision,” Monsanto wrote.

Senator Roy Blunt, a Republican from Missouri, inserted the provision, or “rider”, into the spending bill, according to Politico. Monsanto is based in St. Louis, Missouri.