Transgenic Food Labeling Ballot Initiative In Washington State Hits Threshold, Moves To State House

[hatrack]

A legislative initiative that would require companies to label genetically engineered foods has received enough signatures to move forward, the Secretary of State’s Office said Friday.

Initiative 522, sponsored by Chris McManus, owner of a small advertising firm in Tacoma, has been forwarded to the Legislature.

Unlike voter initiatives, legislative initiatives go first to the Legislature, which either can do nothing, enact them or modify them. Lawmakers typically do not enact initiatives directly.

If the Legislature does nothing, which is common, I-522 will go on the November ballot for a public vote. If the Legislature modifies the measure, then both the original and the modified version will appear on the ballot.

EDIT

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020268424_gmoinitiativexml.html

[Buzz Clik]

1. It's a good move forward.

However, enforcing this will be difficult.

Just as with organic foods, it is far easier and more meaningful for those who want organic food to label the food clearly as Organic rather than forcing non-organic food producers to put "non-organic" on their food.

Of course, the motivations are totally different. Producers of organic food profit quite nicely from their distinction. Labeling of transgenic food is being forced with the unspoken motivation of driving GMOs out of the market. When you combine baseless fear with the stigma of labeling, there will be an impact.

[Nihil]

2. "When you combine baseless fear with the stigma of labeling ..."

"baseless fear"?

All GM food should be clearly labelled as "Not yet tested on humans" as there have
been NO long-term tests (unless you count the commercial one currently in progress
that uses the deliberate lack of labelling to ensure that the target audience keeps
consuming the product).

The only reason why "enforcing this will be difficult" is, as you imply, "motivations are
totally different" ... the motivations of the pro-GM crowd are most certainly different
from the anti-GM people ...

[Buzz Clik]

3. I am curious to know:

Do you demand that every food product that has not been tested on humans have a label stating such?

In terms of Bt corn, was the first time that Bt "toxins" were used in association with corn was in the GMOs?

[Nihil]

4. If the organism is artificial then yes.

I do understand that enforcement will remain full of holes (e.g., I'm pretty sure that
melamine isn't supposed to be used as a "protein enhancer&quot but the principle is
sound and I find it sad that people are prepared to fight so that the general population
remain ignorant "alpha testers" of profitable doctored food products.

Just my opinion - YMMV (and obvously does).

[Buzz Clik]

5. You're comparing the Bt corn (not an artificial organism) to melamine?

Melamine was derived from coal tar.

I just needed to know your level of understanding of the food that scares you so much.

[Nihil]

6. You are the one who is repeatedly focussing on Bt corn alone. How about the principle?

I am against all genetically modified foodstuffs, as you should have been able to
determine from my first post on the subject upthread:

>> All GM food should be clearly labelled as "Not yet tested on humans" as there have
>> been NO long-term tests (unless you count the commercial one currently in progress
>> that uses the deliberate lack of labelling to ensure that the target audience keeps
>> consuming the product).

My concern started back in the late 1990s when I learned that a long known capability
of gene transfer between organisms had been commercialised for *foodstuffs* (not just
tobacco) that were then placed on the market for general sale alongside the standard foods
with no information provided to the public about these innovations.

I found out that the first GM plant only dated back to the early 1980s (tobacco) yet the
US FDA had no qualms about letting the public do blind testing on such new technology.
Welcome to the Reagan/Bush/Clinton corporatocracy.

I am fortunate in that I have enough money to ensure that I and my family are outside
the target market for such testing - I can (and do) choose organic and/or local produce
that is from GM-free sources for as much of my diet as possible. It costs more but it is
the right thing to do in the circumstances.

I protest the issue because I *know* that I am in the minority - the ones who have
enough history of the issue and the scientific background to recognise the advantages
as well as the disadvantages and also have the financial luxury to have a choice between
good & bad sources food (for now) - but I do not believe that it is morally correct to
say "I'm alright Jack, fuck you", much less to actively profit from the situation.

Like I say, YMMV.

[Buzz Clik]

7. Substitute any GM food in place of Bt corn -- the comparison to melamine is bogus.

I am glad that you are avoiding GM foods. It really is not hard to do.

I am curious, though -- how many of the foods you eat have truly been tested on humans in the kind of study you suggest? Very few.

The really amazing thing about the fear of GMOs is the ignorance and inconsistency. Crop scientists recognized the need to use fewer synthetic insecticides, so they incorporated the Bt gene into corn -- a natural defense against corn "predators". Not a synthetic poison (as we have heard on other threads), but a natural defense used by organic farmers. Kinda funny, isn't it? Spray your crops with Bacillus thuringiensis, and you're an organic farmer. Put the Bt gene into corn, and you're an evil scientist who just created a frankenfood that is slowly killing the world. It really is funny when you think about it.

Anyway, have a good one. Enjoy your organic foods. (By the way -- organic foods have been tested thoroughly for nutritional value, and they fare no better than non-organic.)

[Nihil]

8. The comparison to melamine was to show that even when good rules exist, not everyone obeys them ...

... but without the rules in place, the consumer is always the loser.

> I am glad that you are avoiding GM foods. It really is not hard to do.

It's easier to do in the UK & Europe than in the US but could be easier still,
e.g., with improved labelling.


> how many of the foods you eat have truly been tested on humans in the kind of study you suggest? Very few.

On the contrary, just about every food that I eat has been "tested" in the same way that the GM foods are
currently being tested - putting them in front of consumers to see what happens - but over a far greater
range of time than GM foods have even existed. (And, if you want to be pedantic, most have been tested
on rats over the years too!)


> The really amazing thing about the fear of GMOs is the ignorance and inconsistency.

Agreed to a certain extent. My concern on that part is the smoke & mirrors brigade that actively
work to promote the ignorance and accentuate the inconsistency.


> Anyway, have a good one. Enjoy your organic foods.

Same to you (and I will!)


> (By the way -- organic foods have been tested thoroughly for nutritional value, and they fare no better
> than non-organic.)

I haven't claimed anything whatsoever about the "nutritional value", simply about the (lack of) pollutants,
the (lack of) additives, the (improved) farming practices, the (superior) wildlife protection and - for meat
products - the animal welfare issues (must be truly free range, must be fed a natural diet for *that* animal,
must be free from growth hormones and routine use of antibiotics is also prohibited).

As well as being GM-free