Washington Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food Measure, Initiative 522 (2013)

Washington Initiative 522
Type	Initiative to the Legislature
Origin	Citizens
Topic	Food and agriculture
Status	Defeated d

The Washington Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food Measure, Initiative 522 was on the November 5, 2013 ballot in Washington as an Initiative to the Legislature. It was defeated.

Had it been approved, the initiative would have required certain foods and seeds for sale to consumers that come from plants or animals which contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to be labeled as such. If these foods were not labeled correctly, a penalty of up to $1,000 per day per mislabeled item could have been assessed on the violator. The stipulations in I-522 would have taken effect on July 1, 2015.

According to the Washington Official Voter Guide 2013, I-522 defined GMOs as foods in which there have been "changes to genetic material produced through techniques that directly insert DNA or RNA into organisms or that use cell fusion techniques to overcome natural barriers to cell multiplication or recombination."

A similar measure, California's Proposition 37, was narrowly defeated on November 6, 2012. Proposition 37 enjoyed a 61% lead in the polls in early September of 2012; roughly $45.6 million was spent to defeat it.

If I-522 had passed, it would have been the first measure of its type in the country to be approved via the ballot.

Election results

Below are the official election results. Washington is a mail-in ballot state and does not have polling places. All ballots postmarked November 5, 2013 were counted. Results were certified on November 26, 2013 by the Secretary of State.

Initiative 522
Result		Votes	Percentage
d No		895,557	51.09%
Yes		857,511	48.91%

These results are from the Washington Office of the Secretary of State (dead link).

Background

Major scientific studies have consistently ruled that genetically modified foods are safe for human consumption. Virtually all major studies have been funded or conducted by the companies promoting and selling such products, however. Opponents have called for independent studies on GMOs, as some smaller independent studies have indicated GMOs may not be safe under all or certain circumstances, such as pregnancy. Some countries have banned the sales of GMOs citing this lack of research done by independent institutions, rather than the companies themselves. GMO labeling is mandated in 64 countries, including the European Union nations, Australia, China, Japan, Brazil and India. Proponents of GMO labeling in the United States are focusing their campaigns not on the safety of GMOs, but on transparency in the food system. In the United States a large proportion of commodity crops are genetically engineered: 97% of the nation's sugar beets, 93% of the soybeans, 90% of the cotton and 90% of the feed corn, according to the 2013 figures from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In the summer of 2013, Maine and Connecticut both passed GMO labeling laws, however the laws will not take effect unless other states follow suit.

March Against Monsanto (MAM) organized protests in fifty-two countries and in over four-hundred cities to happen on October 12, 2013. MAM described their goal as “informing the public, calling into question long-term health risks of genetically modified foods and demanding the GMO products be labeled so that consumers can make informed decisions.” Over 2,000 people participated in a similar march in Seattle on May 25, 2013. MAM and news sources estimated the march in Seattle would be larger due to Initiative 522.

California's Proposition 37

In 2012, voters in California voted on a similar measure, which would have required the labeling of GMOs and prevented foods containing them from being designated as "natural." Prop 37 was defeated by a narrow margin of 51.4 percent to 48.6 percent. Supporters of the measure raised $8,700,000, while the opposition campaign - which, like I-522, received millions of dollars from the biotech corporation Monsanto - raised $45,600,000. Read more about Prop 37 here.

Text of measure

Ballot text

The following was the ballot text on file with the Washington Secretary of State's office and provided by the initiative's supporters:

“

Initiative Measure No. 522 concerns labeling of genetically-engineered foods. This measure would require most raw agricultural commodities, processed foods, and seeds and seed stocks, if produced using genetic engineering as defined, to be labeled as genetically engineered when offered for retail sale. Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ]

”

Summary

The following was the ballot measure summary of the proposal:

"This measure would require foods produced entirely or partly with genetic engineering, as defined, to be labeled as genetically engineered when offered for retail sale in Washington, beginning in July 2015. The labeling requirement would apply generally to raw agricultural commodities, processed foods, and seeds and seed stock, with some exceptions, but would not require that specific genetically-engineered ingredients be identified. The measure would authorize state enforcement and civil penalties, and allow private enforcement actions."

Full text

The full text can be read below:

AN ACT Relating to disclosure of foods produced through genetic engineering; adding a new chapter to Title 70 RCW; and prescribing penalties.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. The people find that:

(1) Polls consistently show that the vast majority of the public, typically more than ninety percent, wants to know if their food was produced using genetic engineering. Without disclosure, consumers of genetically engineered food unknowingly may violate their own dietary and religious restrictions.

(2) Currently, there is no federal or state law that requires food producers to identify whether foods were produced using genetic engineering. At the same time, the United States Food and Drug Administration does not require safety studies of such foods. Unless these foods contain a known allergen, the United States food and drug administration does not require the developers of genetically engineered crops to consult with the agency. Consultations with the United States food and drug administration are entirely voluntary and the developers themselves may decide what information they may wish to provide.

(3) Mandatory identification of foods produced with genetic engineering can provide a critical method for tracking the potential health effects of consuming foods produced through genetic engineering.

(4) Consumers have the right to know whether the foods they purchase were produced with genetic engineering. The genetic engineering of plants and animals is an imprecise process and often causes unintended consequences. Mixing plant, animal, bacterial, and viral genes in combinations that cannot occur in nature produces results that are not always predictable or controllable, and can lead to adverse health or environmental consequences.

(5) United States government scientists have stated that the artificial insertion of genetic material into plants, a technique unique to genetic engineering, can cause a variety of significant problems with plant foods. Such genetic engineering can increase the levels of known toxicants in foods and introduce new toxicants and health concerns.

(6) 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. Many countries have restrictions or bans against foods produced with genetic engineering.

(7) No international agreements prohibit the mandatory identification of foods produced through genetic engineering.

(8) Numerous foreign markets with restrictions against foods produced through genetic engineering have restricted imports of United States crops due to concerns about genetic engineering. Some foreign markets are choosing to purchase agricultural products from countries other than the United States because genetically engineered crops are not identified in the United States, making it impossible for buyers to distinguish what does or does not meet their national labeling laws or restrictions, rendering United States’ products less desirable. Trade losses are estimated at billions of dollars. Mandatory identification of foods produced with genetic engineering can be a critical method for preserving the economic value of exports to markets with restrictions and prohibitions against genetic engineering.

(9) Industry data shows foods identified as produced without genetic engineering, including conventional foods identified this way, are the fastest growing label claim. Consumers have a right to an informed choice at the point of sale.

(10) Farmers from a wheat growing region of the state have gathered more than two thousand six hundred signatures on a petition demanding mandatory disclosure for crops produced with genetic engineering. The farmers are concerned they will lose their wheat export markets if genetically engineered wheat is approved.

(11) Agriculture is Washington’s number one employer and wheat is Washington’s number two export crop, second only to goods and services produced by the Boeing company, and ahead of Microsoft, which ranks third.

(12) Preserving the identity, quality, and reliability of Washington’s agricultural products is of prime importance to our state’s fiscal health.

(13) The cultivation of genetically engineered crops can cause serious impacts to the environment. For example, most genetically engineered crops are designed to withstand weed killing herbicides. As a result, genetically engineered crops have caused hundreds of millions of pounds of additional herbicides to be applied to the nation’s farmland. The massive increase in use of these herbicides has caused emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds, which have infested farm fields and roadsides, complicating weed control for farmers and encouraging use of increasingly toxic and more dangerous herbicides. These toxic herbicides damage the vitality of the soil, contaminate drinking water supplies, and pose health risks to consumers and farmworkers. The public should have the choice to avoid purchasing foods produced in ways that can lead to such harm.

(14) United States department of agriculture data shows Washington state ranks second in the nation for organic farm-gate sales at two hundred eighty-one million dollars per year. While total United States food sales are virtually stagnant, growing less than one percent overall, the organic food industry grew at 7.7 percent according to 2010 data. Sales of organic fruits and vegetables increased eleven and eight-tenths percent, accounting for approximately twelve percent of all United States’ fruit and vegetable sales. Organic dairy, another key industry in Washington state, grew at nine percent and comprises nearly six percent of the total United States dairy market. Organic farmers are prohibited from using genetically engineered seeds or livestock feed.

(15) Trade industry data shows the organic industry is creating jobs at four times the national rate.

(16) Published data shows organic farming is more profitable and economically secure than conventional farming over the long term. This important element of Washington’s economy must be protected.

(17) Conventional farmers have a right to choose what crops they grow and many conventional farmers want to grow traditional crops developed without genetic engineering. Identifying seeds and seed stock produced with genetic engineering would protect farmers’ rights to know what they are purchasing and protect their right to choose what they grow.

(18) The purpose of this chapter is to ensure people are fully informed about whether the food they purchase and eat was produced through genetic engineering so they may choose for themselves whether to purchase and eat such food. Identifying foods produced through genetic engineering also will help protect our state’s export market.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. The definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter unless the context clearly requires otherwise.

(1) “Department” means the Department of Health.

(2) “Enzyme” means a protein that catalyzes chemical reactions of other substances without itself being destroyed or altered upon completion of the reactions.

(3)

(a) “Genetically engineered” means any food that is produced from an organism or organisms in which the genetic material has been changed through the application of: (i) In vitro nucleic acid techniques including recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid techniques and the direct injection of nucleic acid into cells or organelles. In vitro nucleic acid techniques include, but are not limited to, recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid or ribonucleic acid techniques that use vector systems and techniques involving the direct introduction into the organisms of hereditary material prepared outside the organisms, such as micro-injection, macro-injection, chemoporation, electroporation, micro-encapsulation, and liposome fusion; or (ii) fusion of cells, including protoplast fusion, or hybridization techniques that overcome natural physiological, reproductive, or recombination barriers, where the donor cells or protoplasts do not fall within the same taxonomic family, in a way that does not occur by natural multiplication or natural recombination.

(b) For the purposes of (a) of this subsection, “organism” means any biological entity capable of replication, reproduction, or transferring genetic material.

(4) “Processed food” means any food other than a raw agricultural commodity and includes any food produced from a raw agricultural commodity that has been subject to processing such as canning, smoking, pressing, cooking, freezing, dehydration, fermentation, or milling.

(5) “Processing aid” means:

(a) A substance that is added to a food during the processing of the food but is removed in some manner from the food before it is packaged in its finished form;

(b) A substance that is added to a food during processing, is converted into constituents normally present in the food, and does not significantly increase the amount of the constituents naturally found in the food; or

(c) A substance that is added to a food for its technical or functional effects in the processing but is present in the finished food at insignificant levels and does not have any technical or functional effect in that finished food.

(6) “Raw agricultural commodity” has the same meaning as defined by 21 U.S.C. Sec. 321.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. (1) Beginning July 1, 2015, any food offered for retail sale in Washington is misbranded if it is, or may have been, entirely or partly produced with genetic engineering and that fact is not disclosed as follows:

(a) In the case of a raw agricultural commodity, on the package offered for retail sale, with the words “genetically engineered” stated clearly and conspicuously on the front of the package of such a commodity, or in the case of such a commodity that is not separately packaged or labeled, on a label appearing on the retail store shelf or bin where such a commodity is displayed for sale;

(b) In the case of any processed food, on the front of the package of such food produced by a manufacturer, with the words “partially produced with genetic engineering” or “may be partially produced with genetic engineering” stated clearly and conspicuously; and

(c) In the case of any seed or seed stock, on the seed or seed stock container, sales receipt or any other reference to identification, ownership, or possession, with the words “genetically engineered” or “produced with genetic engineering” stated clearly and conspicuously.

(2) Subsections (1) and (3) of this section do not require either the listing or identification of any ingredient or ingredients that were genetically engineered, nor that the term “genetically engineered” be placed immediately preceding any common name or primary product descriptor of a food.

(3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to any of the following:

(a) Food consisting entirely of, or derived entirely from, an animal that has not itself been genetically engineered, regardless of whether the animal has been fed or injected with any food produced with genetic engineering or any drug that has been produced through means of genetic engineering;

(b) A raw agricultural commodity or food that has been grown, raised, produced, or derived without the knowing and intentional use of genetically engineered seed or food. To be included within the exclusion under this subsection, the person supplying a raw agricultural commodity or food must provide a sworn statement that the raw agricultural commodity or food: (i) Has not been knowingly or intentionally produced through genetic engineering; and (ii) has been segregated from, and has not been knowingly or intentionally commingled with, foods that may have been genetically engineered at any time. In providing such a sworn statement, a person may rely on a sworn statement from his or her own supplier that contains such an affirmation;

(c) Any processed food that would be subject to this section solely because one or more processing aids or enzymes were produced or derived with genetic engineering;

(d) Any alcoholic beverage that is subject to regulation under Title 66 RCW;

(e) Until July 1, 2019, any processed food that would be subject to this section solely because it includes one or more materials produced by genetic engineering, provided that the engineered materials in the aggregate do not account for more than nine-tenths of one percent of the total weight of the processed food;

(f) Food that an independent organization has determined has not been knowingly and intentionally produced from or commingled with genetically engineered seed or genetically engineered food, provided that such a determination has been made pursuant to a sampling and testing procedure approved for this purpose in rules adopted by the department. These rules may not approve a sampling and testing procedure unless it is consistent with sampling and testing principles recommended by internationally recognized standards organizations, such as the international standards association and the grain and feed trade association. No testing procedure may be approved by the department unless:

(i) It does not rely on testing processed foods in which no deoxyribonucleic acid is detectable; and

(ii) it is consistent with the most recent “Guidelines on Performance Criteria and Validation of Methods for Detection, Identification and Quantification of Specific DNA Sequences and Specific Proteins in Foods” (CAC/GL 74, 2010) published by the codex alimentarius commission;

(g) Food that has been lawfully certified to be labeled, marketed, and offered for sale as “organic” pursuant to the federal organic foods production act of 1990 and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto by the United States department of agriculture;

(h) Food that is not packaged for retail sale and that either:

(i) Is a processed food prepared and intended for immediate human consumption; or

(ii) is served, sold, or otherwise provided in any restaurant or other food service establishment that is engaged primarily in the sale of food prepared and intended for immediate human consumption; or

(i) Medical food.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. The department may adopt rules necessary to implement this chapter, provided that the department is not authorized to create any exemptions beyond those provided in section 3(3) of this act.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. (1) The department, acting through the attorney general, may bring an action in a court of competent jurisdiction to enjoin any person violating this chapter.

(2) The department may assess a civil penalty against any person violating this chapter in an amount not to exceed one thousand dollars per day. Each day of violation is considered a separate violation.

(3) An action to enjoin a violation of this chapter may be brought in any court of competent jurisdiction by any person in the public interest if the action is commenced more than sixty days after the person has given notice of the alleged violation to the department, the attorney general, and to the alleged violator.

(4) The court may award to a prevailing plaintiff reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in investigating and prosecuting an action to enforce this chapter.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 6. Sections 1 through 5 of this act constitute a new chapter in Title 70 RCW.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 7. If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected.

Fiscal Impact

According to the official statement put out by the Washington Office of Financial Management, "Known state agency implementation costs are estimated at $3,368,000 over six fiscal years. State and local revenue and costs from enforcement activities are indeterminate." Based on state expenditure and cost assumptions, "the total cost of this expenditure over six fiscal years is estimated at $1,200,000." The following table shows Department of Health - the entity that would be responsible for enforcing the measure - estimated costs by fiscal year:

Support

The campaign in support of the measure was run by "Yes on 522.". See here for more campaign videos and ads created in support and in opposition to I-522.

Yes on I 522, GMO Labeling

Supporters

Officials

• State Senator Maralyn Chase (D-32), co-chaired the campaign
• State Representative Cary Condotta (R-12), co-chaired the campaign
• Seattle City Council
• Mike McGinn, Mayor of Seattle
• State Senator Mark Mullet (D-5)
• State Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D-36)
• State Senator Bob Hasegawa (D-11)
• State Senator Sharon Nelson (D-34)
• State Senator Ed Murray (D-43)
• State Senator Paull Shin (D-21)
• State Representative Jim Moeller (D-49)
• State Representative Ruth Kagi (D-32)
• State Representative Larry Seaquist (D-26)
• State Representative Sharon Tomiko Santos (D-37)
• State Representative Joe Fitzgibbon (D-34)
• State Representative Marko Liias (D-21)
• State Representative Cindy Ryu (D-32)
• State Representative Luis Moscoso (D-1)
• State Representative Gerry Pollet (D-46)
• State Representative Roger Freeman (D-30)
• State Representative David Sawyer (D-29)
• Martin Moore, Parks and Recreation Commissioner, City of Federal Way (D)
• Dow Constantine, King County Executive (D)
• Lloyd Hara, King County Assessor (D)
• Marty Campbell, Deputy Mayor of Tacoma (D)
• Ryan Mello, Tacoma City Council (D)
• Tim Leavitt, Mayor of Vancouver (D)
• Ben Stuckart, Spokane City Council President (D)
• Mike Fagan, Spokane City Council (D)
• Derrick Skaug, Pullman City Council (D)
• Nathan Weller, Pullman City Council (D)
• Randy Corman, President, Renton City Council (D)
• Steve Stuart, Clark County Commissioner (D)
• Jim McCune, Pierce County Council (R)
• Jon Culp, Okanogan City Council (D)
• Dwight Pelz, Chair, Washington State Democrats (D)

Yes on 522 — Washington State GMO Labeling

Former officials

• Luke Esser, Former Chair, Washington State Republican Party (R)
• Former State Senator Bill Finkbeiner (R-45)
• Former State Representative Brendan Williams (D-22)

Organizations

• The Alliance for Democracy
• Biodynamic Farming & Gardening Association
• Biosafety Alliance
• Buy Local Clark County
• Center for Food Safety
• Chinook Book Seattle
• Community to Community
• Conservation Northwest
• Credo Action
• Environmental Working Group
• Faith Action Network
• Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance
• Food and Water Watch
• Food Democracy Now!
• Friends of the Earth
• Fuse
• GMO-Free San Juan County
• Good Food World
• Grays Harbor County Democrats
• Green America
• GrowFood.org
• Healthcare Professionals for a Safe & Healthy Sustainable Food Supply
• IBEW 76
• ILWU 52
• Institute for Responsible Technology
• Jefferson County Democrats
• Jefferson County Farmers Market Association
• Just Label It
• King County Democrats
• Kitsap County Democrats
• Lewis County Democrats
• Lopez Locavores
• Mangrove Action Project
• National Young Farmers Association
• Natural Products Association Northwest
• Non-GMO Project
• Nutritional Therapy Association
• Palouse Environmental Sustainability Coalition
• PCC Farmland Trust
• Pesticide Action Network
• Pierce County Democrats
• Occupy Bellingham
• Organic Consumers Association
• Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association
• Quimper Grange 720
• Seattle Tilth
• Sierra Club, Snohomish Chapter
• Slow Food Land and Sea
• Snohomish County Democrats
• Spokane County Democrats
• Sustainable Capitol Hill
• Sustainable Connections
• Tilth Producers of Washington
• United Farm Workers
• United National Products Association
• University of Washington Young Democrats
• Washington Association of Naturopathic Physicians
• Washington Conservation Voters
• Washington East Asian Medicine Association
• Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility
• Washington State Farmers Market Association
• Washington State Nurses Association
• Washington State Senior Citizens Lobby
• Washington Sustainable Food and Farming Network
• Washington Toxics Coalition
• Washington Young Farmers Coalition
• WashPIRG
• Western Washington Physicians for a National Health Program
• Whatcom County Democrats
• Whatcom County Women’s Democratic Club
• Whatcom County Young Democrats

Arguments

The arguments presented in favor of Initiative 522 in the state's official voter guide were constructed by supporters of I-522, including: Judy Huntington, RN, Executive Director, Washington Nurses Association; Seth Williams, Fourth-Generation Wheat Farmer, Eastern Washington; Walt Bowen, President, Washington State Senior Citizens' Lobby; Trudy Bialic, Director of Public Affairs, PCC Natural Markets; Maralyn Chase, State Senator, Democrat, Shoreline; Cary Condotta, State Representative, Republican, Wenatchee. The arguments featured included:

• "Right to know: In America, we have a right to know important information about the food we eat and feed our families - such as sugar and sodium levels, whether flavors are natural or artificial, the country of origin, and if fish are wild or farm-raised. We also should have a right to choose whether we want to buy and eat genetically engineered food. Labels matter. They ensure transparency and preserve the freedom to make our own decisions about the food we eat. I-522 is a step in the right direction. U.S. companies already label genetically engineered foods for markets in the 64 countries that require labeling, including some of Washington’s largest trading partners. Genetically engineered crops, such as wheat, have contaminated conventional crops in the Northwest. Some countries suspended imports from our farmers, putting our economy at risk. Separation and labeling, from the seed level up through the supply chain, helps protect exports to countries that require labeling."

• "Broad support: I-522 was brought to the ballot by more than 350,000 citizens and draws strong support from farmers, fishing families, health care professionals, business owners, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents across our state."

• "Labels let you decide: Voting Yes on I-522 is an important step for more information about your food. You should have the freedom to decide what to eat. Your food decisions should be up to you - not corporations, the government, or special interests. Labels let you decide. Vote for the right to know what’s in your food."

• Rebuttal of argument against: "Powerful chemical corporations that genetically engineer food oppose labeling because they care about their profits, not our right to know. The truth: labels ensure transparency. The government has conducted no independent safety tests and the Washington State Nurses Association endorses labeling to trace health issues. Labeling is easy and it gives us the freedom to decide what to buy. Foods are relabeled frequently. Adding words to a label doesn’t increase costs. Trust yourself to decide."

The Center for Media and Democracy, a self-described “nonprofit watchdog organization,” investigated the opposition’s advertisements and tactics and produced the following criticisms:

• The claim of increased food prices is “unfounded.” It assumed that all food manufacturers in Washington would switch to more expensive organic ingredients.

• No on 522 was funded by large agribusiness companies, but, on their website they didn't include these under “supporters.” Rather, they included individual farmers, ranchers and scientists. No on 522’s strategy is known as “astroturf,” because their campaign attempted to resemble an “authentic” grassroots campaign, “just as astroturf is made to look like actual grass.”

• Many scientists are not convinced GMOs are safe, despite the opposition’s claims. Plant Pathologist Doug Gurian-Sherman pointed out that “biotech companies prohibit any independent testing of their products. That means that the only safety testing ever done on GE foods is done by the companies that profit from them.”

Michael Lipsky of Demos, a public policy and advocacy organization, offered a rebuttal of the price-hike argument made by the Washington Research Council, a business-supported organization. He noted that opponents were relying on an overly simplistic economic analysis. He offered a two-part price analysis based on supply-and-demand:

• “For one thing, if labeling were required, particularly if (and when) the labeling requirement is adopted by other states, demand for non-GMO versions of corn, soybeans, and sugar beets — the basic GMO crops — would increase, production would expand, and prices for non-GMO ingredients would decline. The result would be a new price equilibrium surely less costly for food producers than the cost of current non-GMO ingredients.”
• “For another, if foods with GMO ingredients indeed were cheaper to produce, there would be ongoing demand for the less expensive versions of food products, and some GMO foods would find a market niche at the lower price point.”

Other arguments for the measure included:

• A key argument put forth for mandatory labeling was that such labeling would allow consumers more control over their purchasing decisions. According to initiative sponsor Chris McManus, "Yes, you can steer clear of certain items, but unless you know that they're there, how do you know to steer clear of them? Putting a label on the front of that just informs the consumer a little bit more about what they're buying."

• Supporters said that mandatory labeling would not impact companies' profits because food labels are already routinely updated. They also pointed to the fact that labels are already used for sugar, fat and other ingredients so there would be no extra cost to adding information to genetically engineered food labels.

• Political Science Professor Todd Donovan, an expert on ballot measures, said, “This is not just about what’s going on in Washington state. This reminds of [sic] the beverage tax in that you’ve got some really powerful, well-financed groups that don’t want to see the idea spreading to other states and they’re probably willing to spend a ton of money here to play defense so they don’t have do to this elsewhere.”

• Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition at New York University, stated that the claim that GMOs were "functionally equivalent" to conventional crops was not an adequate reason to avoid labeling them. She labeled that argument as "disingenuous." She said, "There is plenty of precedent for FDA requiring process labeling. Think of 'made from concentrate' or 'previously frozen."

• Kelly Fox, President of Washington State Council of Firefighters, said that labeling would encourage safer work conditions for workers. She stated, "Genetically engineered crops use more toxic chemicals than regular crops, putting the workers tending these farms at greater risk: We stand in support of greater safety at work, and by labeling genetically engineering in food, we can choose to support safer jobs."

• State Senator Mark Mullet (D-5) said, "I support it. This is just trying to make people make more informed decisions. And if enough states start labeling it, then maybe it will all catch on. I got both sides in Olympia. Having lived in Europe for five years, I view this as a very soft thing. This is just letting customers make better choices."

• David Bronner of Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps argued that GMO labeling is an important first step against corporate control of plant genetics. He said, "GMO labeling is just the beginning but it is a crucial step. The seed industry is being bought by chemical companies that produces pesticides inside the plants people eat. Companies are reinforcing unsustainable practices."

Campaign contributions

The "No" campaign outraised the "Yes" campaign by $13,578,632 or 261%. The "No" campaign outspent the "Yes" campaign by $11,895,393 or 244%.

The following data was obtained from the Public Disclosure Commission and was current as of October 30, 2013. The following were committees registered in support of Initiative 522:

PAC info:

PAC	Amount raised	Amount spent
EWG Yes on I-522 Comm	$30,228	$19,570
Farmers & Friends of Initiative 522	$79,883	$57,753
Genetically Modified Organisms Awareness Group	$0	$0
GMO Right to Know	$500	$0
Label It WA	$513,006	$511,817
Organic Consumers Fund Comm to Label GMOs in WA ST	$786,764	$734,214
Yes on I-522 Comm	$7,020,914	$6,914,977
Total	$8,431,294	$8,236,331

Total campaign cash as of October 4, 2013
Support:	$8,431,294
Opposition:	$22,009,926

Top 5 contributors:

Donor	Amount
Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps	$1,750,000
Organic Consumer Fund	$380,000
Mercola.Com Health Resources LLC	$250,000
Organic Consumer Fund to Label GMOs in WA State	$200,000
Presence Marketing Inc.	$200,000

Opposition

The campaign opposing the measure was run by the No on 522 Coalition. See here for all the campaign videos and ads created in support and in opposition to I-522.

No on I 522, GMO Labeling

Opponents

Officials

• Washington State Republican Party
• Republicans of Spokane County
• State Senator Michael Baumgartner (R-6)
• State Senator Janea Holmquist (R-13)
• State Senator Jim Honeyford (R-15)
• State Senator Mark G. Schoesler (R-9)
• State Senator Tim Sheldon (D-35)
• State Representative Gary Alexander (R-2)
• State Representative Vincent Buys (R-42)
• State Representative Bruce Chandler (R-15)
• State Representative Donald Cox (R-9)
• State Representative Larry Crouse (R-4)
• State Representative Cathy Dahlquist (R-31)
• State Representative Susan Fagan (R-9)
• State Representative Larry Haler (R-8)
• State Representative Mike Hewitt (R-16)
• State Representative Norm Johnson (R-15)
• State Representative Brad Klippert (R-8)
• State Representative Linda Kochmar (R-30)
• State Representative Judy Warnick (R-13)
• State Representative Joe Schmick (R-9)
• State Representative Kevin Parker (R-6)
• State Representative Terry R. Nealey (R-16)
• State Representative Dick Muri (R-28)
• State Representative Matt Manweller (R-13)
• State Representative Chad Magendanz (R-5)
• David Condon, Mayor of Spokane (R)
• Steve Young, Mayor of Kennewick (D)
• Micah Cawley, Mayor of Yakima (R)
• Glenn Hull, Mayor of Fife (D)
• Shelly O’Quinn, Spokane County Commissioner (R)
• Todd Mielke, Spokane County Commissioner (R)
• Nancy McLaughlin, Spokane City Council Member (R)
• Ray Campbell, Okanogan County Commissioner (R)
• Jim DeTro, Okanogan County Commissioner (R)
• Brad Peck, Franklin County Commissioner (R)
• Mark Stedman, Lincoln County Commissioner (R)
• Mark Zorica, Newport City Councilman (R)
• William D. Hyslop, Former US Attorney of Eastern District of Washington

EmbedVideo is missing a required parameter. Dan Newhouse Urges NO on 522

Former officials

• Former Governor and US Senator Daniel J. Evans (R)
• Former US Senator Slade Gorton (R)
• Former US Representative George Nethercutt (R)
• Former US Representative Sid Morrison (R)
• Former Secretary of State Sam S. Reed (R)
• Former State Representative Clyde Ballard (R-12)
• Former State Representative John Serben (R-6)
• Former State Senator Brian Murray (R-6)
• Former State Senator Bob Morton, (R-7)
• Former State Senator Jeanine Long, (R-44)
• Mike DeVleming, Former Mayor and City Council Member of Spokane (R)

Organizations

• Association of Washington Business
• Associated Industries
• Northwest Food Processors Association
• Northwest Grocery Association
• Far West Agribusiness Association
• Greater Pasco Area Chamber of Commerce
• Tri-City Regional Chamber of Commerce
• Washington Association of Neighborhood Stores
• Washington Restaurant Association
• Washington Retail Association
• AgVentures NW, LLC
• Backachers Emu Ranch
• Buchholz Farms LLC
• Darren Young Insurance Agency Inc.
• Ekone Oyster Co.
• Eltopia Irrigation
• Henningsen Cold Storage Co.
• LC Farms, Inc.
• Maizena & Sunburst LLC
• McGregor Company
• Northern Oyster Co.
• Skagit Farmers Supply
• Sno-Valley Farms Inc.
• Webley Farms and Cattle
• American Feed Industry Association
• CR Cherries, Inc.
• Greater Spokane Incorporated
• Mainstream Republicans of Washington
• Northwest Automatic Vending Association
• Schorzman Farms Joint Venture
• SunRay Farms

Arguments

The arguments presented in opposition to Initiative 522 in the state's official voter guide were constructed by opponents of I-522, including: R. James Cook, Professor Emeritus, WSU; Member, National Academy of Sciences; Dan Newhouse, Former Director, Washington State Department of Agriculture; Mike LaPlant, President, Washington Farm Bureau; Family Farmer, Grant County; Peter Dunbar, M.D., Former President, Washington State Medical Association; Nicole Berg, Family Farmer; National Conservation Leadership Award Winner; Eric Maier, Past President, Washington Association of Wheat Growers. The arguments featured included:

• "I-522 makes no sense: For decades, agricultural biotechnology has helped improve food crops so they resist disease, require fewer pesticides or are more nutritious. Today, 70-80% of grocery products include ingredients from these foods, and they’re deemed safe by the FDA and major scientific and medical organizations. Yet I-522 would require thousands of these products to have special, new labels - only for Washington - while giving special exemptions to thousands of others, even when they contain "genetically engineered" (GE) ingredients. I-522 requires fruits, vegetables and grain-based products to be labeled, but exempts meat and dairy products from animals fed GE grains. It mandates special labels and signs in supermarkets, but exempts restaurants from providing information about GE ingredients in their foods. Foods from foreign countries would be exempt if manufacturers simply claim they’re exempt. So I-522 wouldn’t even give consumers a reliable way of knowing which foods contain GE ingredients."

• "Higher taxpayer costs, more state bureaucracy and lawsuits: I-522 would require the state to monitor labels on thousands of products in thousands of stores - costing taxpayers millions. It would allow trial lawyers to sue farmers, food producers and grocers over the wording on food labels - encouraging shakedown lawsuits. And, studies show I-522's Washington-only labeling requirements would hurt local farmers and increase an average family’s food costs by hundreds of dollars per year."

• "Washington scientists, farmers and food producers urge no on 522."

• "Rebuttal of argument for: Existing food labels already give consumers the option to choose foods without GE ingredients by choosing products labeled "certified organic." I-522’s complicated, poorly written regulations would put Washington farmers and food producers at a competitive disadvantage, not protect them. I-522 would not protect our export markets or provide consumers with reliable information about our food. But it would increase grocery prices for Washington families and cost taxpayers millions. Vote no on this costly, unnecessary measure."

Other arguments against the measure included:

• On February 18, 2013, the Seattle Times published an editorial written by Thanh Tan saying: "I eat organic or all-natural food as much as possible. I read labels. I buy local. I also choose to believe mainstream, peer-reviewed science — which so far shows genetically engineered (GE or GMO) food is not harmful to our health. Trust me, this is a hard pill for me to swallow. Like so many others, I viewed GMO crops as the unnatural, unregulated creation of a few biotech giants like Monsanto. The narrative was simple: Big Food is the bad guy. Of course, the truth is more nuanced. Hearing and reading a January 2013 speech from former anti-GMO crusader and British environmental activist Mark Lynas has made me question my own personal bias against genetically modified food."

• In an editorial published on February 20, 2013, Tracy Warner, of The Wenatchee World, wrote: "Initiative 522, which is certainly headed to our November ballot, would require all foods containing GMO ingredients wear a special label saying so. This is superficially benign, to be sold as a harmless and good right-to-know measure, but it is far more complex and devious. Essentially the food industry will be ordered to slap warning labels on most processed products sold in Washington, at great expense, so the initiative backers may sell more foods labeled “natural” or something else, foods no more natural and no healthier than any other; to stigmatize the products of science that allows more food to be produced on less land, requiring fewer expenditures and resources and saving wear on the environment, that all credible scientific studies show is perfectly safe."

• According to Heather Hansen, executive director of Washington Friends of Farms and Forests, "We think this is really intended to be a scare tactic, to ultimately scare people away from technology. And it's not providing any meaningful information."

• State Rep. Chad Magendanz said, "I absolutely support warning labels for foods that represent serious health risks for consumers, such as those containing alcohol, tobacco or common ingredients that can trigger severe or life-threatening allergies. However, during our hearing on I-522 this session, I heard no independently verified research showing foods made from genetically modified organisms represents a serious health risk for anyone. In fact, the required label says nothing about what’s actually in the food and instead focuses only on how it was produced. I also have serious concerns with how I-522 would be implemented at the state level,” he said. “Most labeling requirements are determined at the federal level so that farmers, processors and packaging facilities have just one set of rules to follow for the entire country. By adding burdensome packaging requirements that apply just for our state, we’ll drive production costs up, increase exposure to frivolous lawsuits and ultimately drive smaller brands out of our state, and that’s not good for the consumer in an economy where everyone is more price sensitive."

Campaign contributions

As of October 30, 2013, opponents of I-522 raised approximately $22 million, setting the record for the most money ever raised - in support or opposition - for a ballot measure in the state of Washington. This record was previously held by supporters of the 2011 I-1183 - a measure that sought to close state liquor stores and allow for state licensing of private retailers - who raised $20.1 million to support the "yes" campaign. I-1183 was approved on November 8, 2011.

Washington's top five most expensive ballot measure campaigns:

Measure	Position	Amount
Initiative 522 (2013)	Opposition	$22,009,926
Initiative 1183 (2011)	Support	$20,115,326
Initiative 1107 (2010)	Support	$16,042,629
Referendum 74 (2012)	Support	$14,784,287
Initiative 1183 (2011)	Opposition	$12,351,656

The "No" campaign outraised the "Yes" campaign by $13,578,632 or 261%. The "No" campaign outspent the "Yes" campaign by $11,895,393 or 244%.

$550 was contributed from five state residents to No on 522; the rest was donated by out-of-state firms.

The following data was obtained from the Public Disclosure Commission and was current as of October 30, 2013. The following were committees registered in opposition to Initiative 522:

PAC info:

PAC	Amount raised	Amount spent
Grocery Manufacturers Association Against I-522	$11,047,474	11,034,833
NO on 522	$22,009,926	$20,131,724
Total	$22,009,926	$20,131,724

Note: GMA had a PAC as of October 2013 due to an impending lawsuit. However, GMA was not “spending” contributions. Rather, GMA gave their received donations to No on 522 as “donations,” as they did prior to registering as a PAC. However, the continuation of these "donations" may be illegal, according to AG Ferguson. Therefore, total contributions and spendings are based on No on 522.

Top 5 contributors:

Donor	Amount
Monsanto	$5,374,411
DuPont Pioneer	$3,880,159
Pepsi Co	$1,620,899
Bayer CropScience	$1,091,654
Nestle USA	$1,052,742

Media endorsements

See also: Endorsements of Washington ballot measures, 2013

Support

• The Stranger said, "Give consumers a label they might not need (like country of origin or previously frozen), and then let the GMO and processed foods industries defend the health and safety of their products... If GMOs are as safe and beneficial as they say they are, let them run ads selling that message to consumers instead of the anti-522 bullshit they're currently flinging at voters."
• The Inlander publisher and editor, Ted S. McGregor, Jr., wrote, "Americans care about food just as much as all those European nations that have such strict rules; we just don't have a government that looks out for us as much as it should. If we did, measures like I-522 might not be necessary. This is not a vote to ban genetically modified foods; I just want the truth right there on the label so I can decide for myself. I'm voting yes on I-522."

Opposition

• The Spokesman-Review said, "As is so often the case with initiatives, I-522 is a potentially good idea wrapped in very bad law-making. Labeling is already out there for consumers who want it and for producers who want to sell to them. It’s too early to stigmatize a new science like genetic engineering before we understand all its positives and negatives."

• The Yakima Herald-Republic editorialized against Initiative 522 on September 29, 2013. In the editorial, the board wrote, "All in all, the initiative holds the potential to create more problems than it solves — for farmers, manufacturers, retailers and consumers. Food makers and retailers already can use labels to inform consumers if they offer foods free of GMO; if advocates wish to further their cause, they can do so in a market-driven manner, by building demand through publicizing what they offer. In other words, they can build their market organically, and not through a mandate that would result from Initiative 522."

• The Seattle Times called on voters to "be skeptical" of I-522 in an editorial published on February 17, 2013. In the editorial, the board wrote, "People already have the option of buying GMO-free foods from producers who farm organically or who choose to self-label. Organic farms in Washington are responding to the market’s demands. Well-meaning consumers say they want more freedom of choice. With I-522, they may end up with less. Just look at European Union countries where producers are using higher-priced ingredients to avoid even the potential stigma of a mandatory GMO label. Consider their experience a cautionary note for Washington voters."

• The Columbian said, "The "public's right to know" can be a powerful and important selling point for an initiative, but Initiative 522 is a clumsy, clunky effort that diminishes the measure's benefits. The statewide initiative should be rejected by voters in the Nov. 5 election."

• The Olympian said, "When the preponderance of scientific evidence clearly points one way or the other on environmental issues, then we can make informed decisions about GMO regulation. In that regard, I-522 is not helpful. It ultimately fails for purporting to be something it is not. The initiative cloaks a larger political agenda by appealing to our “right to know.” Many defects plague this initiative, but that’s reason enough to vote no on I-522."

• Tri-City Herald said, "Why shouldn't consumers have a right to know what's in the food they eat? That's the sort of simple, direct, emotional appeal that marketers can work with. The arguments against the initiative require a discussion of economics and science... I-522 wouldn't end GMO research but it's a step in the wrong direction, adding costs without bringing benefits. The Herald editorial board recommends voters reject Initiative 522."

• The Longview Daily News said, "To our ears, and to the ears of many others, I-522 seems like more of an effort to scare consumers away from foods containing GMOs than to direct them toward healthier alternatives. After almost two decades, proof has yet to surface that food containing GMOs presents any measurable health risk at all. We think it’s illustrative that major proponents of I-522 include the Whole Foods chain of organic grocery stores and producers of organic meats and produce. Larger grocery chains and organizations representing state farmers and food wholesalers have either taken no position or are opposed."

• The News Tribune said, "I-522 is about a contrived GM panic, not innocent truth-in-packaging. Real information isn’t a purportedly neutral label attached to vague insinuations of peril. The public deserves the whole truth about biotechnology — and spooky innuendo doesn’t tell it."

• The Wenatchee World said, "If the initiative intends to inform consumers, it fails. If it intends to raise rational caution about the use of genetic engineering, it has chosen the wrong medium. Unknown complications, rising expense, heavy regulation, unnecessary fear and stigma, the initiative will bring all that. That is enough to vote no on Initiative 522."

Polls

See also: Polls, 2013 ballot measures

A survey by The Elway Poll conducted September 3-5, 2013, found that 43% would "definitely" vote for the amendment, 23% would "probably" vote for it, 21% would vote against it and 13% were undecided. A total of 406 likely voters were polled with margin of error at +/-5%.

As of October 22, 2013 - exactly two weeks before Election Day - according to a KING 5 News poll the gap between support and opposition grew smaller, with enough people undecided to swing the vote either way.

Washington Initiative 522 - Support v. Opposition
Poll	Support	Opposition	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
KING 5 News Poll October 22, 2013	45%	38%	16%	+/-4.3	546
Elway Poll October 15-17, 2013	46%	42%	12%	+/-5	413
Elway Poll September 3-5, 2013	66%	21%	12%	+/-5	406
AVERAGES	52.33%	33.67%	13.33%	+/-4.77	455
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

On September 10, 2013, The Elway Poll put out the following information regarding the two Washington 2013 Initiatives to the Legislature:

On October 21, 2013, the Elway Poll put out a second poll with the following information, this time regarding just I-522.

The following information was also released with the second Elway Poll on October 21, 2013:

Reports and analyses

Washington State Academy of Science

In March 2013, the state legislative committees dealing with health, agriculture, water and natural resources requested that the Academy of Science develop a committee to analyze some issues regarding genetically modified foods. In early October 2013, the committee published their report on GMOs and Initiative 552. The following is a summary of the report's five sections:

• Section 1: Definitions (Background) - The scientific committee determined that a “genetically modified organism” is produced using advanced technological techniques that involve the addition of specific genes from any organism into another or the elimination of any genes in the organism. Over 90% of corn, soybean and cotton in the United States are genetically modified. Potential GMOs that are of market interest in Washington include apples, potatoes and salmon.
• Section 2: Nutrition - Based on international standards, GMOs are nutritionally “substantially equivalent” to their counterparts.
• Section 3: Food Safety - GMOs have effectively found “safe” for consumers given the current state of knowledge and evidence. Nonetheless, continued surveillance of long-term health effects from genetically modified foods is warranted. No long-term, thorough and case-by-case scientific study has yet been conducted.
• Section 4: Policy and Trade - The lack of uniform standards, known as trade harmonization, and the potential for discriminatory policies is likely to affect trade between states and countries. Because of this, increased prices may be externalized to the consumer, but there is difficulty in predicting how much cost.
• Section 5: Regulation and Enforcement - The responsibility of monitoring compliance would accrue to both the public and private firms. Estimates for the cost of monitoring range from a hundred thousand to millions of dollars per year. Such a wide estimate exists due to the lack of “after the fact” economic data.

To read the full report, see here

Just Label It

Kai Robertson, a business sustainability consultant, conducted an independent study and literature review on behalf of Just Label It, a national consumer advocacy organization. Robertson’s objectives were to determine whether there was a connection between changes to labels by food processors and food prices.

She found that the major variables affecting food prices were demand-oriented factors, such as consumer demographics, rival pricing behavior, market, chain and store characteristics. Changes to product labels by food processors has been a minor variable in pricing considerations. No studies have documented price fluctuations due to product labels.

To read the full report, see here

Related lawsuits

Washington v. Grocery Manufacturers Association

On October 16, 2013, Attorney General Bob Ferguson (D) initiated a lawsuit on behalf of the Washington Public Disclosure Commission against the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), an opponent of Initiative 522. GMA, according to Ferguson, was required to reveal whether or not the organization did a special assessment - asking members to donate for the specific cause - in raising $7.2 million for the No on 522 campaign. If so, they needed to register as a political committee and disclose donor names. The GMA refused to say if it did such a special assessment. Ferguson believed that the association was attempting to shield members from scrutiny for opposing the initiative. He said, "This is precisely the conduct our campaign disclosure laws are designed to prevent." He noted that the case could lead to a significant fine.

GMA released a statement in response, which said, "We are looking into the complaint and the specific allegations it contains. GMA takes great care to understand and comply with all state election and campaign finance laws and is surprised to learn that the Washington State authorities viewed the association’s actions as improper."

The lawsuit was filed with the Thurston County Superior Court. However, on October 18, 2013, GMA agreed to create a separate PAC and disclose the donors and the amounts given by each. GMA issued the following statement:

“

In the spirit of continuing cooperation and in an effort to provide Washington voters with full transparency about GMA’s funding for the “No on 522” campaign, the association has voluntarily decided to establish a Washington state political committee and to file reports with the PDC disclosing the source of all funds used in connection with Washington State elections. GMA is taking this action to allow the campaign to focus on the important issues related to the I-522 ballot proposal itself, and to put an end to unnecessary distraction and speculation about sources and amounts of funding. GMA has cooperated fully with the Public Disclosure Commission and the attorney general throughout their investigation, and will continue to engage state authorities in a constructive dialogue in the weeks and months ahead.

”

After GMA's disclosure of donors, Ferguson said, "We believe this is the largest amount of money that’s been concealed of any case we ever brought." He said he would seek penalties against the GMA.

On October 30, 2013, the Office of the Attorney General stated, “Since the Attorney General’s lawsuit was filed, GMA against I-522 has reported additional contributions totaling more than $3.8 million to No on 522. Under RCW 42.17A.442, a state law, a “political committee may make a contribution to another political committee only when the contributing political committee has received contributions of $10 or more each from at least 10 persons registered to vote in Washington state.” Two days prior GMA reported 10 donations from 10 registered voters. The attorney general's office said, “The $3.8 million in contributions from the [GMA] to No on 522 appear to have been collected by the GMA from its members prior to registering the political committee... These subsequent contributions were not reported by the GMA when it submitted its disclosure of contributor members and the value of their contributions on Oct. 18.”

Thurston County Superior Court took up the case against GMA. On March 1, 2017, the court decided that GMA intentionally violated campaign finance disclosure laws and required GMA to pay a $1.1 million fine. The Washington Attorney General's office sought a $44 million penalty, which as eventually set to be $18 million. The GMA appealed the decision and the state supreme court upheld the $18 million penalty on January 20, 2022.

Path to the ballot

See also Initiatives to the Legislature in Washington

In 2013, a total of 246,372 signatures were needed to place a measure before the Washington Legislature. If the legislature does not enact a measure, it is then sent to the ballot. The deadline for the submission of those signatures to the Washington Secretary of State was January 4, 2013.

I-522 signature checker at the Washington Secretary of State's office

In early January 2013, supporters of I-522 stated that they reached their goal of garnering approximately 320,000 signatures - the second highest number of signatures ever collected for an initiative in Washington - in hopes of presenting it to the Washington Legislature. The Washington Secretary of State's office reported that supporters of Initiative 522 had submitted about 19,000 petitions with about 350,000 signatures on January 3, 2013.

On February 1, 2013, the Washington Secretary of State's office reported that enough signatures were obtained to place the measure before legislature. Out of the random sample of 10,762 signatures for I-522, 9,503 were valid and 1,241 were invalid, while there were 18 pairs of duplicate signatures.

The 2013 state legislative session ended on April 28, 2013, with no resolution from the legislature; therefore, the measure went before voters in the November 5, 2013 general election.

Signature collection costs

See also: 2012 ballot measure petition signature costs

• Signatures to qualify I-522 for the ballot were collected by Peoples Petitions LLC, among other groups.

• The CPRS for I-522 - given that $407,747 was spent on signatures versus a minimum requirement of 246,372 signatures - came to $1.66 per required signature.

• In 2012, the average CPRS in Washington was $4.80.

Similar measures

In 2012, California voters pulled their levers on Proposition 37, a measure that would have led to the requirement of labels on many raw or processed foods offered for sale to consumers if the foods were made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways. The measure was defeated, 51.4% to 48.6%.

See also

Suggest a link

• 2013 ballot measures
• Washington 2013 ballot measures
• List of Washington ballot measures

External links

• Yes on 522
• No on 522
• Initiative 522 (text)
• Yes on 522 YouTube account
• No on 522 YouTube account
• 2013 Informed Voter Guide

Additional reading

• KPIU 88.5, "I-522: Looking to the European Union for a Real-Life Example," October 25, 2013
• Seattle Post-Intelligencer, "Pepsi, Coke, Nestle top multi-million-dollar campaign against I-522," October 18, 2013
• Yakima Herald Republic, "Conflicting claims on safety of genetically modified foods," October 13, 2013
• Seattle Globalist, "What Washington should know about GMO’s," July 3, 2013
• Tri-City Herald, "Plenty of food for thought before voting on GMO labeling initiative," June 5, 2013
• Seattle Times, "Initiative 522: a test of what you believe about genetically modified foods," March 12, 2013
• Public Radio International, "Washington activists pushing for new labeling requirements for genetically modified foods," February 5, 2013