While consumer advocates are lobbying in Washington state for guidelines that would require labeling for foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs), there’s a question over whether such measures would be effective in ridding the food supply of GMOs altogether.
Currently, 64 countries around the world require GMO labeling, including Australia, France and Germany. While products containing GMOs are still sold in these countries, consumers are able to reference a label that identifies whether or not the product contains genetically modified ingredients.
Washington state is the latest to push for GMO labeling. Next week, its residents will vote on ballot measure 522, an opportunity for the state to become the first to pass a labeling vote.
A victory would surely be cause for celebration for advocates who have carried the cause, yet it wouldn’t necessarily pave the way to a state free of genetically modified foods.
As noted in Politico, if the measure passes, most of the food in Washington’s grocery stores would be required to carry that GMO label. The question now is whether consumers will care — and how much it would cost food manufacturers to make the adjustment.
Major food and beverage companies have poured in money to the campaign to defeat the ballot measure. Coca-Cola and PepsiCo are among the top donors, which collectively have spent $21.4 million on their campaign, according to Politico. Companies did the same thing in 2012 to defeat California’s ballot initiative, raising more than $40 million.
The anti-labeling campaign launched by the food and beverage industry seems to be working. In one month, support for labeling initiatives fell drastically. According to an independent Seattle poll, support for labeling was at 66 percent in September. Now it’s down to 46 percent.
At the forefront of their campaign is the message that new labeling initiatives would lead to increased grocery costs not only for Washington state consumers, but for everyone throughout the United States. Labeling products in Washington would likely lead to labeling in other states, as the cost of creating Washington-only GMO labels would be a costly venture for companies operating across the country.
In a recovering economy, the threat of a hefty grocery bill is enough to cause consumers to think twice. It might also be enough to cause consumers to buy GMO products even if the labeling measures passed.
That’s unfortunate for pro-labeling advocates. Yet if they get their way, it’s likely they’ll continue their campaign to inform consumers on the benefits of opting out of GMO products — not just for the health of their families, but for the health of the local farming industries.
Many genetically modified seeds are designed to absorb exorbitant amounts of pesticides; while the chemicals kill surrounding pests and weeds, the seeds themselves thrive. This is where consumer advocates are taking issue, as the harvested food has been grown with a heavy dosage of pesticide.
Citing a Beyond Pesticides report, the Yes522 campaign argues that an average of 57.6 out of every 100,000 farmers experience a form of pesticide poisoning each year.