The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
Washington Voting Down Initiative 522 to Label GMO Foods
Washington state voters on Tuesday appear to have rejected an initiative that would have required foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to be labeled.
The vote was 54.8 percent opposed to labeling and 45.2 percent in favor of it, USA Today reported. The figures represent about a quarter of the state’s 3.9 million registered voters, but not all of the votes have been counted, Politico reported this morning.
Washington is a mail-in ballot state, and it will count any ballots postmarked by Nov. 5, even if those ballots arrive at the end of the week. As a result, the tally on election night often only reflects about 60 percent of the votes that ultimately will be received, Brian Zylstra, a spokesman for Washington’s Office of the Secretary of State, told Politico.
Initiative 522 would have made the state the first in the nation to require such labeling.
Opponents of the measure, backed by Monsanto and other large agribusinesses, outspent proponents by a ratio of nearly 3-to-1, making the initiative campaign the costliest in state history. The No on 522 campaign brought in $22 million in donations, and the top five contributors were the Grocery Manufacturers Association, Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Dow AgroSciences and Bayer CropScience.
The largest donor to the pro-labeling campaign were California-based Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps and the Center for Food Safety in Washington, D.C. However the initiative garnered almost 30 percent of its funding from individuals in Washington state, the Seattle Times reported.
Rep. Cary Condotta (R-East Wenatchee) and a co-chair of the “Yes” campaign, told the Seattle Times there is an upside to the election—90 percent of Washington residents now know what genetically engineered foods are. “The movement continues,” he said.
Consumers have a right to know what’s in their food, supporters contend.
"Sooner or later, one of these is going to pass. It's only a matter of time. At some point the industry is going to get tired of pouring this kind of money into these campaigns," Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition at New York University, told USA Today.
She said she doesn't believe there's anything dangerous about genetically engineered foods but is concerned about corporate control of the food supply.
The Food and Drug Administration does not require foods containing genetically engineered ingredients to be labeled because it considers them "functionally equivalent" to conventionally grown crops.
Visit EcoWatch’s GMO page for more related news on this topic.
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
The Centers for Disease Control has emphasized that washing hands with soap and water is one of the most effective measures we can take in preventing the spread of COVID-19. However, millions of Americans in some of the most vulnerable communities face the prospect of having their water shut off during the lockdowns, according to The Guardian.
Aerial photos of the Sierra Nevada — the long mountain range stretching down the spine of California — showed rust-colored swathes following the state's record-breaking five-year drought that ended in 2016. The 100 million dead trees were one of the most visible examples of the ecological toll the drought had wrought.
Now, a few years later, we're starting to learn about how smaller, less noticeable species were affected.
Natthawat / Moment / Getty Images
Disinfectants and cleaners claiming to sanitize against the novel coronavirus have started to flood the market, raising concerns for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which threatened legal recourse against retailers selling unregistered products, according to The New York Times.
The global coronavirus pandemic has thrown our daily routine into disarray. Billions are housebound, social contact is off-limits and an invisible virus makes up look at the outside world with suspicion. No surprise, then, that sustainability and the climate movement aren't exactly a priority for many these days.
By Molly Matthews Multedo
Livestock farming contributes to global warming, so eating less meat can be better for the climate.