Washington state: 'Living wage' measure leads, GMO labeling trails

[alp227]

Source: LA Times

SEATTLE –In the election night count of ballots in Washington state, a "living wage" measure in the small city of SeaTac was ahead in the polls, while a statewide measure to require the labeling of some genetically engineered foods appeared to be lagging.

Because Washington votes entirely by mail, ballot counting will not be completed until later in the week. About half of all mailed ballots are generally completed by the Friday before election day, election officials say, but as long as ballots have a Nov. 5 postmark, they will be counted.

Initiative 522, a food labeling measure that received nationwide attention, mirrored California’s Proposition 37, which lost narrowly a year ago. It was the costliest initiative campaign in Washington history.

With almost a million votes counted Tuesday night, I-522 was behind, with 45% of the voters giving the measure a thumbs-up and 55% saying no. There are 3.9 million registered voters in the state.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-washington-state-living-wage-genetically-altered-foods-measure-20131105,0,665430.story

---

See also:

AP, Wash. state measure on labeling GMO foods failing

Seattle Times, I-522 trails in all but 4 counties

USA Today, Washington state voters reject labeling of GMO foods

Speaking of I-522:



Additionally:

The most prevalent claim is that all GMOs are harmful to health and cause a variety of illnesses: cancer,[28] autism,[29] reproductive problems, infant mortality, liver problems and many other things.[30] These claims are totally false and on the same level as vaccine hysteria. The vast majority of supporting "research" comes from a small group of ideologically motivated cranks.

The scientific consensus says that there are no generic health risks common for all GM food. Any possible harm can only come from a specific engineered trait. This view is shared by the World Health Organization,[31] the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the European Food Safety Agency, the International Council for Science,[32] the U.S. National Academies of Science,[33] and almost all national scientific bodies. All GM traits currently on the market have been tested in animals and found safe.

And as biologist PZ Myers explains:

All of our crops, everyone’s crops, are heavily modified genetically. Wild strawberries are tiny little things. Corn is a hybrid monster shaped by centuries of selection, twisted from a seedy little grass into this weird elaborate conglomeration. Wheat and barley and rye are the product of thousands of years of genetic reshuffling and selection. Walk into the produce section of your grocery store — do you really think all those fruits and vegetables are unshaped by human hands?

This strange unfounded fear of GMOs is unfortunately most strongly expressed in the political left. It’s embarrassing that political progressives are being made to look bad by raging superstition and unscientific claims.

If it's a dumb idea to include "evolution is a theory, not a fact" disclaimers on science textbooks (which really did happen) or accuse vaccines of causing autism in children (thanks a lot, corporate media!) why label genetically modified food if there's no real evidence of adverse effects?

[jtuck004]

1. If anyone wants a lesson in what corporate money can do to an election result, take a look at this

522 fight. I can't remember the last time I saw such a flood of opposition against something - Monsanto and others poured money into that like they were the Fed handing it to banks. They got farmers (who, frankly, if they really are farming, stand as good a chance as the next person of having their ass sued off by Monsanto over GMO crops, whether they plant them or not, or having their plants replaced by those seeds whether they want them to be or not as anyone) to put signs up in front of their "business" proclaiming "NO on I522", constant radio ads, phone call to people's homes, (got two the night before the election).

Not only that, but the little criminals got sued by the state. Apparently they needed to hide what they were doing, and violated state law about disclosing contributions. Sneaky little scumbags.

If their cause was so noble, I wonder why they needed to violate the law to fight it? One would think they would be proud to be on the right side.

One should note, the election was not about whether GMO is safe or not, or even if such crops are grown and sold or not. It was about whether someone who sells you food should have to put a better description on the label, or on a menu. As noted above, there really isn't much substantiated evidence GM crops are indeed harmful to human health, so far, but there is a distinct problem in the lack of biodiversity (and as one who plants various strains of garlic to encourage that, and also prefers heirloom to most varieties, that is a personal concern) which they encourage. And, perhaps more importantly, one should also consider the simple fact that these allow a single corporation to control the food your family can even buy, pushing out other crops, and profiting from every single meal you have.

That's a lot of freedom you give away, with not a lot of benefit, except to those who profit at the top of the food chain.

Frankly, I would always take a position opposite Monsanto's wishes - then again, I never would like being one of the three fifths of a person on their plantation, always subordinate to the personhood of the corporation, which is how I see their supporters. But that's just me.

[pothos]

2. same thing happened here in california

staggering amount of corporate money poured in to defeat the gmo labeling proposition.

[gateley]

6. I really felt bad for Californians when that happened.

Now I really feel bad -- and angry -- for those of us in Washington.

[docgee]

3. The adverse effects of food with genetically included pesticides or

plants tolerant to round-up or other herbicides (meaning you're eating a lot more herbicides) is only part of the problem. That corporations can own patents to all our food seeds is another. Anyone who is basing their vote solely on whether their Doritos is making them sick is an idiot .

[docgee]

4. Also this is another case of that 'free market' thing...

When a regulation is in favor of corporations, they say the free market will take care of any problems, so if people really want to eat the GM food, labeling won't hurt. They're (Monsanto, etc.) just afraid the 'free market' will put them out of business.

[gateley]

5. My fellow Washingtonians disgust me.

I'm so upset by this I can't even think straight.

Fucking Idiots.

[HuckleB]

7. It's an odd thing.

Last edited Wed Nov 6, 2013, 01:46 PM - Edit history (1)

Those who say they want to know, refuse to know what the science actually shows about GE foods. It's a bizarre situation. They're spending so much on something that has no good reason for it. So much true good could come of that time, if they'd only inform themselves instead of fighting for a label that doesn't tell them anything.

[AAO]

8. Because GMO foods are relatively new to humankind

And many people want to have the choice of purchasing or not. What's the big friggen deal of just labeling it?