Washington Initiative 522 (2012)

Elections in Washington
Federal elections Presidential elections 1892 1896 1900 1904 1908 1912 1916 1920 1924 1928 1932 1936 1940 1944 1948 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 Presidential primaries and caucuses Democratic caucuses 2004 2008 2012 2016 Republican caucuses 2008 2012 2016 Senate elections 1980 1983 S 1986 1988 1992 1994 1998 2000 2004 2006 2010 2012 2016 House of Representatives elections 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
State elections General elections 2010 2012 2014 2016 Gubernatorial elections 1889 1892 1896 1900 1904 1908 1912 1916 1920 1924 1928 1932 1936 1940 1944 1948 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 Attorney General elections 2000 2004 2008 Secretary of State elections 2004 2008 2012 2016 Executive branch elections 2004 2008 2012 State Senate elections 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2016 State House elections 2006 2008 2010 2012 2016 State Supreme Court elections 2004 2006 2008 2012 Other judicial elections 2008
Ballot measures 1972: 276 2004: 872 884 892 297 2295 2005: 912 2006: 920 933 937 4233 2007: 960 957 2008: 1000 1029 2009: 71 2012: 74 502 1185 1240 2013: 517 522 2016: 732
Local elections 2006 2008 2009
Seattle Mayoral elections 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005 2009 2013 2017 Ballot measures Sound Transit 3

Washington Initiative 522 (I-522) "concerns labeling of genetically-engineered foods" and was a 2012 initiative to the Washington State Legislature.^[1] As certified by the Washington Secretary of State, it achieved enough signatures to be forwarded to the legislature for consideration during the 2013 session.^[2] The legislature did not vote on the initiative, so I-522 advanced to the November 5, 2013 general election ballot. If passed into law by voters, I-522 would have taken effect on July 1, 2015. The initiative failed with 51% opposition.^[3]

If approved, I-522 would have required that non-exempt foods and agricultural products offered for retail sale state "clearly and conspicuously" on the front of the package if they were genetically-engineered, contain or might have contained genetically-engineered ingredients.

With more than $17.1 million in donations opposed before September 30, I-522 set a new record for money spent against a state initiative, exceeding the $12.35 million spent in 2011 to oppose Initiative 1183, privatizing liquor sales.^[4] By late October, No On I-522 had set the all-time record for any initiative campaign with $21 million. Combined contributions of $27.7 million are still less than $32.5 million spent by both sides around I-1183.^[5]

Ballot title and summary

As described by the Secretary of State's office, the 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."

According to the official ballot measure summary,

"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 of the measure is available online at the Washington state website.^[6]

Provisions

I-522 is approximately nine pages long and adds a new chapter to Title 70 of the Revised Code of Washington.

Section one includes more than three pages stating various reasons for the initiative, related to consumer choice, religious belief, consumer health concerns, environmental concerns, economic concerns and worldwide trends in consumer labeling laws. This section explains that 49 countries, including many significant US trading partners Japan, South Korea, China, Australia, Russia and the European Union have labeling requirement for genetically engineered foods. This section asserts that labeling will give Washington's foods a share of the multibillion-dollar lost market opportunity in exports to these countries.

Section two establishes various definitions, including section 2(3)(a) which strictly defines "genetically engineered" by specific genetic engineering techniques, and differentiated from selective breeding. These specific genetic engineering techniques include various recombinant DNA and RNA methods such as micro-injection, electroporation, micro-encapsulation, liposome fusion, protoplast fusion or other "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."

Section three requires that "any food offered for retail sale" be labeled "clearly and conspicuously" if it contains genetically-engineered ingredients, with certain exceptions. Exemptions consistent with current federal regulations include prepared foods such as those coming from a restaurant, meat from animals fed genetically engineered feeds, alcoholic beverages and foods processed with GE enzymes.^[7] For non-exempt foods, it would require "on the front of the package" the words "genetically engineered," "produced with genetic engineering," "partially produced with genetic engineering" or "may be partially produced with genetic engineering" stated "clearly and conspicuously."

Section four authorizes the Washington State Department of Health to "adopt rules necessary to implement" the law, with section five authorizing civil penalties for violations, section six noting that I-522 creates a new chapter for RCW Title 70 and section seven a basic severability clause.

Support

Support for the I-522 was coordinated by YES on 522, a group that included food activists, small-scale producers and several food co-operatives such as PCC Natural Markets^[8][9] and natural food stores such as Whole Foods Market.^[10] It was also promoted by the Organic Consumers Association, which called for a boycott on Safeway Inc. unless the grocery store company would withdraw from the Grocery Manufacturers Association and contribute financially to the Yes on 522 campaign.^[11] In addition to being the single largest donor, Dr Bronner's Magic Soaps issued a special label in support of I-522.^[12]

Other support came from labor groups including the Washington State Labor Council.^[13] The Yes on 522 web page for endorsements lists over 350 businesses, 25 seafood groups, 150 farms, more than 100 other groups, 45 elected officials and many individuals.^[14] As of mid-October, 2013, reported campaign donations showed more than 13,000 donors for I-522 giving $6.2 million with a median donation of approximately $25.^[15]

Opposition

Opposition to I-522 came primarily from large chemical corporations (Monsanto Company, DuPont Pioneer, Dow AgroSciences LLC, and Bayer CropScience), and organizations such as Washington Friends of Farms and Forests, Northwest Food Processors, Washington Association of Wheat Growers, the Washington State Farm Bureau and the Grocery Manufacturers Association, who rallied and mounted a $46 million campaign via Nestle SA, General Mills Inc., Coca-Cola Co and PepsiCo Inc to defeat the initiative.^[16][17][18] These large donations have reportedly "shattered" previous fundraising records against any other initiative, a full month ahead of the election.^[19]

Opponents of I-522 cited the editorial boards of fifteen different newspapers as opposing the initiative.^[20] As of mid-October, 2013, reported campaign donations showed ten donors for I-522 giving $17.2 million with a median donation of approximately $545,827.^[15]

Donors

Public records of initiative donations are listed at the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission website.^[21]

Dr Bronner's Magic Soap Company was the largest donor in support, and the only pro-522 donor giving more than $1 million. The largest donation in opposition was $7.2 million of opposition money was identified as coming from the Grocery Manufacturers Association, details of which emerged after Washington state attorney general Bob Ferguson filed charges against them for violation of state campaign-finance laws.^{[22][23][24][25][26]} As of October 25, GMA had reportedly given $11 million in total.^[27][28]

State law requires the top five contributors to be listed. As of October 23 the largest contributors in support of I-522 are Dr Bronner's Magic Soaps, Organic Consumer Fund Committee to Label GMOs in WA State, Mercola.com, Presence Marketing Inc, and Nature’s Path Foods USA. The top five contributors in opposition to I-522 are the Grocery Manufacturers Association, Monsanto Company, DuPont Pioneer, Dow AgroSciences LLC, and Bayer CropScience.

See also

• California Proposition 37 (2012)
• Genetically modified food
• Selective breeding

References

External links

• Yes on 522, campaign for I-522
• No on 522, campaign against I-522
• RCW Title 70 "Public Health and Safety"
• "What Washington Should Know about GMO's"