A Better Solution than Washington's GMO Labeling Initiative 522

Now that the voters of Washington have defeated the GMO-Labeling Initiative 522 the rest of America can scratch its collective head and wonder why some people proposed the GMOs be labeled and why others did not want them labeled. Additionally, we can take a moment to ponder an even better idea than labeling GMOs.

This article is neither an attack on nor a defense of GMO. There are no claims from nameless scientists who say that GMOs are bad for you or good for you. No farmers from either side are quoted here. Only the incentives on both sides of Initiative 522 are presented in this article as a way to try to understand why there are two conflicting opinions on the subject and how they are so evenly balanced.

Is there a way to make both sides happy?

A perfect solution would fulfill the desires of both sides, address the concerns of each. Additionally, a perfect solution will be simple and be easy to implement. In fact, the best possible solution may have already been implemented.

The desires, concerns and arguments of both sides are presented here to show that there can be a perfect solution to this dilemma that is acceptable to both sides. Before we get to what that solution is we should first understand what the arguments are and the people who are making the arguments.

What was the argument for Initiative 522?

These arguments were listed in the state's official voter guide. These arguments were constructed by supporters of I-522.

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.

In short, the argument for is that transparency allows Americans to make food purchasing decisions based on the presence of GMO-derived ingredients. The sentiment is clearly a liberal one, but even the most hardened libertarian will have a hard time arguing against the ability to make educated choices based on labeling.

What are the arguments against I-522?

These arguments are from the same state's official voter guide. These arguments were prepared by the opponents of the initiative.

I-522 mandates costly, misleading food labeling regulations in Washington that don’t exist in any other state.

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.

In short, I-522 is costly, misleading and unnecessary. The message is clearly a conservative one, but even liberals are reluctant to impose more costs and government regulation for little or no benefit.

A compromise that makes everybody happy and costs nothing

There is a simple and cost-effective way to ensure transparency and preserve the freedom to make decisions about food without mandating costly, misleading food labeling regulations. This solution will work automatically in all fifty States and requires no legislation.

Instead of forcing manufacturers to put a label on food packaging that proclaims it has ingredients derived from GMOs, why not allow manufacturers of non-GMO food to label it non-GMO? This shifts the responsibility for labeling and regulation to farmers, manufacturers and grocers who want their products to stand out from the other 70-80% of foods and ingredients.

The perfect solution

Labeling non-GMOs allows consumers to make the exact same educated choices as labeling GMOs. This solution addresses the desires and concerns of of the proponents and addresses the desires and concerns of the opponents. This solutioin does not hurt farmers and manufactures and does not raise the cost of food production.

Update 2020

Wasington's Initiative 522 failed to pass in 2012. Many organizations have already debunked the negative propaganda surrounding GMOs, so that will not be covered here. Instead, this video from Kurzgesagt and this video from a small ABC affiliate station are embedded below to explain why forcing the labeling of GMO products in order to allay irrational fears are embedded below.