Lacking a scientific basis for GMOs being suspect, the labeling campaign is going with inciting vague mistrust of corporations. This suit is a just a part of that strategy. I expect their approach will work.

Just who are these "Moms for Labeling" ? How about we "label" the members of this secretive cabal ?

http://momsforlabeling.wordpress.com/abo…
Moms for Labeling is a group of mothers that has come together to stop the concealment of Genetically Modified Organisms (“GMO’s”) in our families’ food.

Frankly I couldn't care less which "direction" it goes. Though I have an innate dislike for any political group with "moms" in the name. If they have good evidence for their suit and the law is behind them, then they should win. If not, then fuck em and fine em.

But fuck this initiative. I'd be fine with a normal food labeling requirement, like there is for allergens or ingredients, but requiring it be prominently displayed on the front is stupid and reactionary.

http://www.biofortified.org/2013/02/anal…

@1, damned right I mistrust corporations. If their product is safe, why not spend that campaign money educating the public beforehand? GMO science may be sound, but I'd rather not hand over control of our food source to Monsanto and friends, since their tactic is to overspend on elections while remaining silent on their actual products. Please label it so I can avoid supporting the Roundup-Ready fucks (sadly, I can't afford to buy all organic). What's wrong with transparency? In the food that we eat? I'm really surprised that SLOG commenters are so pro-corporate on this issue.

The MFL suit is about ensuring that election laws be followed. Regardless of which side of the issue you fall on, all sides should follow election laws, and if they don't, they should be held accountable. Sounds to me like big food and grocery was acting as a PAC, and just because they say "that's not what we are" doesn't make it true.

@4 I'm not pro-corporate. I'm pro science. The "GMO's are dangerous" crowd is no different than climate change deniers, anti-vaccine nuts, or creationists.

So, uh, just out of curiosity...

Where's the web site I can visit that clearly, completely, and unambiguously identifies all of the donors to the entity that titles itself "Moms for Labelling" ?

Are the donors all "moms"? And if not, then who's contributing to this PAC? And is The Stranger even remotely interested in answering this sort of question?

Yeah, Monsanto, kraft, all the biggest companies foods are totally safe and have shown no I'll health or environmental effects like obesity, heart disease, cancer, polluted fish, pesticide resistant pests, herbicide resistant weeds, bee colony collapse etc... You just need more exercise.

Comments 1, 2, 3, 7.. Calm down, Monsanto and grocery millionaires are spending millions more than the mom group to buy I mean educate the voters. The pro-pesticide voice is paid for with plenty of wealth and power. But good on you for getting behind the bully and protecting the money machine from... Gulp... Mothers!

I'm still confused about who determines what groceries need to be labelled. Last I checked food has been genetically modified since the earliest farmers learned to save the seeds from the heartiest plants. This whole thing reeks of a boondoggle on par with the waterfront tunnel.

@10, according to 522 we need to label any product that comes from targeted scientific manipulation of the organism via DNA/RNA. All the products derived from breeding with other plants exposed to mutagens or irradiated seeds are just hunky dory.

I'm not "pro-Corporate", I'm "pro-Science" and "anti-discrimination/demonization of perfectly healthy foods".

“Genetically engineered” means any food that is produced from an organism or organisms in which the genetic material has been changed through the application of: (i) In vitro nucleic acid techniques including recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid techniques and the direct injection of nucleic acid into cells or organelles. In vitro nucleic acid techniques include, but are not limited to, recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid or ribonucleic acid techniques that use vector systems and techniques involving the direct introduction into the organisms of hereditary material prepared outside the organisms, such as micro-injection, macro-injection, chemoporation, electroporation, micro-encapsulation, and liposome fusion; or (ii) fusion of cells, including protoplast fusion, or 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.

@6 - "The "GMO's are dangerous" crowd is no different than climate change deniers, anti-vaccine nuts, or creationists."

The GMOs-will-save-the-world crowd are no better than corporate tools who regurgitate Monsanto propaganda. They are anti-science because industrial scale monocultures drenched in herbicide aren't sustainable.

People who think GMO is great should support the law since it will let them pick foods that have been perfected by advanced science.

I see most labeling laws as neutral. I'd like to know whether my apples are coming from Wenatchee, Hendersonville, or Tucuman, not because I hate North Carolina or Argentina, but because it's interesting to know how far fruit is travelling to get to my table.

I'm pro-science, not pro-Monsanto. If the labels were useful, I'd be in favor. If they told me something about pesticide usage, excess active nitrogen runoff, net CO2, water usage, etc, then I would be in favor. "No GMO" does not equal sustainable. Please don't confuse the two.

@12 If we use too much herbicide and pesticide then lets regulate the use of herbicide and pesticide. If monsanto are dicks let's force them to not be dicks by reforming the patent system.

@14&15

Today, the overwhelming majority of GMO crops are industrial scale monocrop drenched in herbicide with all that it entails for fossil fuel and water uses, emissions and sustainability. Most agricultural experts do not believe that prioritizing GMO tech will result into "feeding the world" as shown by the IAASTD report (UN panel of 1000's of agricultural science and development experts). Instead it will destroy what is left of community scale control over food production and predictably result into food shortages (millions of former Mexican corn farmers say 'hello'), while almost all increases in crop yield today are due to more conventional breeding methods and farming improvement. If it takes labeling a product to let people choose the world they live in, so be it.

I just don't buy the argument that there is something dangerous to society about me knowing if these ingredients are in the food I eat. Please explain to me why it is dangerous for me to know and be able to factor it into my own individual buying decisions.

This isn't like public health and vaccines where where being wrong about the science and refusing vaccines actually kills people.

repeat what @12 said: "The GMOs-will-save-the-world crowd are no better than corporate tools who regurgitate Monsanto propaganda. They are anti-science because industrial scale monocultures drenched in herbicide aren't sustainable."

Have you heard about the starving nations rejecting food aid with GMO corn because they were told by activists it was poison ? Zambia was one. Labelling GM products and not focusing on GMO-free labels demonizes them and perpetuates the notion that they're bad..

@16 it sounds like industrial scale agriculture is the real culprit. I would agree with that statement. Give me a label that identifies the scale of the agriculture. Not all large, harmful agriculture is GMO, nor is all GMO large scale. Using GMO as a proxy perpetuates the idea that GMO is the problem. Why use a proxy anyway? We have data on agriculture scale-- probably more accurate than the data on genetic makeup.

Just make them label their fucking product and let ME decide what I eat.

What's so difficult or unjust or ANYTHING about that?

@18 If we're all pro-science here, then let's label everything as is useful (those with a pro-science bias would seemingly be in favor of more information/data) and if we need to not "perpetuate the notion that they're bad", let's science and have nice clean studies to that effect. In addition to labeling.

"according to 522 we need to label any product that comes from targeted scientific manipulation of the organism via DNA/RNA. All the products derived from breeding with other plants exposed to mutagens or irradiated seeds are just hunky dory."

This is great. I'm imagining we should pass a law to label all butter that is churned mechanically, because who knows what the health effects of that could be? Better to be safe. Farmers churning butter by hand is natural.

I want a law saying what pesticides or herbicides were used during the production of each ingredient, and one saying what the farm's yield per acre was to obtain this crop. My corn needs to breathe.

The problem with 522 lies in this language:  “clearly and conspicuously”.   It isn't good enough to have it denoted in the ingredient list, or next to the calorie information. No, this bill would require it to be conspicuous. You can't just argue for "we want the info". You have to argue for "conspicuous" labeling. 

@20, nobody is saying you don't have a right to know. Of course you do. I'm saying that 522 isn't asking for *just* information. Those labels are a particular medium, and conspicuous mandatory package labels (today) are exclusively used for things that are potentially harmful (like things that cause cancer or can cause allergic reactions). That is how the GMO label would be interpreted, and there's simply not the science to support that.

Bloody hell, read the actual bill. It would not label ingredients. It would not tell you if a chicken ate nothing but GMO corn. It would not tell if you genetically modified enzymes made the cheese. It wouldn't label any prepared foods. All alcohol is exempt.

The bill offers herbicide use as its only scientific rationale. It's a good reason for a label (although not necessarily a conspicuous label)... except using pesticides for animal feed is exempted. Considering how much agriculture is for animal feed, exempting it really does defeat the purpose.

It's just not a good bill. If you want to label GMOs, label all of them. If you want to make it a conspicuous label, you need a better argument.
http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/init…

@19 - Industrial scale agriculture is integral to existing GM crops insofar the technology and its application are so expensive that only only large scale operations can afford it over the long term. Subsistence farming cannot survive the generalization of current GM tech regulations (intellectual rights).

wxPDx : When my kid eats GMOs his allergic reactions get worse ( to other foods) and when he stops eating GMOs , if he has that other food by accident, his allergies are drastically reduced. He stomach heals and his immune system improves when he does not eat GMOs.
What science is there to prove or disprove that? NONE because you beloved GMO manufacturers won't allow testing and won't allow labeling for us to be able to determine what the science is.
MOMS SEE the results, WE see our kids get better when they get off GMOS. We also see kid dying from allergic reactions.
I don't give a damn how labels are interpreted, just have some integrity, label your food and let Moms decide what they want to feed their kids. SHAME ON YOU for suggesting anything else.

@"Moms" - all GMOs or a specific one causes the allergy ? You do realize there's a "rainbow" of different GMOs out there that are all very different.

How do you avoid all GMOs? Does your kid never eat papaya, cheese, sugar, soy, high-fructose corn syrup, or eat any food prepared outside the home - the majority of which contain GMOs ?

Your clinical trial of 1 is touching, but not well controlled.

The current scientific risk assessments methods for GMO are not valid, incomplete and with a lot of error. This is why it needs tracking and labeling

@ chefJoe no my daughter can not eat anything made at restaurant, she can't eat food at friends houses or have cake at birthday party's. she can't enjoy the snacks that the other kids are eating because 98% have GMO's which almost took her from us when she was only a few weeks old and put us through almost a year of terrifying episodes where her vocal cords would paralyzing shut, making it so she couldn't breath. It was moms on the Internet that saved her life not all the specialist pediatric doctors at children's in Seattle that tried but could not figure out what was going on. GMO's are dangerous! They have serious allergies and are hidden and not labeled. They need to be labeled!!

@ 10 and anyone else who is confused about what a GMO is. GMOs are not something that can happen naturally in nature. So saving the best seeds or cross pollinating two of the same plants (like tomatoes) to make a hybrid does not make them a GMO. One of the first GMO's that was available for us to buy was the flavor savor tomato. They took fish genes and put them in the tomato genes. (These tomatoes are not available anymore) to grow a new type of plant. One big problem with this is that when you go to the grocerie store and you are severely allergic to fish would you think twice about buying a tomato? Salsa? Spaghetti sauce? That is one BIG reason that GMO's need to be labeled! They also do the same thing with virus and bacteria genes. The sad truth is that the majority of the kids being born right now have problems with food. Unfortunately it will take some of you to have a family member or a friends family member who gets really sick or dies before you start to understand... I thought I was feeding my kids what I ate as a child. But the truth is the food we are eating today was not even around 25 years ago, and is banned or strongly regulated in most countries in the world.

It is really frustrating to see the anti-labeling vitriol distracting from the point of this article.

The GMA (Grocery Manufacturers Association) is donating millions to fight a ballot initiative. They are not disclosing which companies contributed. A volunteer organization sued them to say that they need to disclose who their donors are. In response, the campaign who is fighting the ballot initiative counter sued that volunteer organization.

Whether you are for labeling of gmo/ge foods as presented in 522 or against, you should be angry that there is this countersuit. Financial contribution disclosure is the foundation of any democracy, especially is this inane post-Citizens United vs. FEC era.

And please remember, labeling GMO/GE foods is not a ban. It's not anti-science, it's pro-consumer rights. The GMO/GE foods available to us have been on the market less than 20 years. They are not put through independent long-term rigorous testing. The FDA does not test them. The companies that profit from their sale prove their safety through a short-term animal study. That is it. 64 countries throughout the world have enacted labeling laws: Australia, China, Russia, India, Brazil, Germany, France, Great Britain, just to name a few. There are no reports of increased grocery costs. The same multi-national companies that are donating to the No on 522 Campaign, accommodate labeling in all of these countries.

Pro-labeling is not anti-science. It's pro-informed consent. Yes it would be nice if the bill required more information. But as in a democracy, it's one step at a time.

@31,
the "Flavor Savor" tomato used antisense DNA to inhibit the softening. No need for a fish gene.

The fish gene tomato you speak of was something that was tested, a natural anti-freeze protein found in flounder, and never commercialized. Unless you were involved with "Big Ag" you never could have eaten one (but don't tell Cyndi Lauper that... she thinks american tomatos taste like fish).

Also, most people with an allergy are allergic to a certain component that is avoided. People allergic to fish aren't allergic to every fish gene/protein the same way people allergic to shellfish are typically allergic to the tropomyosin protein.

@32, when you have concerned people claim that "all GMOs make my kid sick" with no effort to actually identify which thing it is, then, yes, labelling with just "Genetically Engineered" comes across rather arbitrary. Anyone with a clue as to what a GMO really is and how they're made (like those doctors) would shun the notion that eating only "nonGMO" foods a real identification of an allergy.

@chefjoe It is obvious that you are a paid troll. Thanks for your "pro-industry" comments. We are moms. We want labels on the food we feed our families. And, regarding the food allergies, there are hundreds of stories from moms. Not just one. Mothers have a right to know exactly what they are feeding their children. End of story. Now, go eat your GMOs. We don't. Ever. Signed, A Mom.

@35, that's funny. I oppose the SoDo arena and am accused of being a paid shill for the port of seattle and a part of "lesser seattle". I oppose the non-scientific basis for GMO labeling initiatives and now I'm obviously a paid shill for Monsanto. I'm an opinionated Slogger.

What's obvious is that you and many of the rest of the 522 "moms" are a part of some activist group that are recruited into this no-longer-on-the-slog-frontpage thread and probably don't even live in WA state.

ChefJoe,

So, why are eight out of thirty-six comments written by you? You are opinionated all right, and those opinions just happen to agree exactly with the propaganda from corporations that want to hide the truth from us .... hmnnnn interesting coincidence, "Chef."

Wow there are a lot of ignorant comments on this webpage. Mom's for labeling is fighting for your right to know what's in your food and you think they're idiots and the corporation is cool? The reason you're all fat, bald and ugly behind your computers is because your "food" has been poisoned. Cheers.

Agreed, there are a LOT of ignorant comments on here. I think most people don't have a clue what a GMO is!!! Or where their food comes from, or who Monsanto is. Sixty-one countries require GE food labelling http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issue… The U.S. is far behind. One of the reasons is that huge corporations like Monsanto (the biggest producer of GMO seeds) has a giant economic presence here in the U.S. Also, there is a revolving door between Monsanto and the government agencies that are supposed to regulate food safety, the environment and protect consumers. http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto…
These huge corporations (Monsanto, Dupont, etc.) don't care about people's health, they care about profits!!! They also don't give a crap about farmers. Monsanto has initiated (and won) hundreds of lawsuits against farmers who were supposedly "saving seed" (something which farmers have traditionally done for hundreds of years. Of course, now Monsanto OWNS those seeds because they are genetically modified and patented. Monsanto owns over 11,000 patents. Farmers can buy Monsanto's seed, but they have to buy it every year. Many farmers have had all of their savings wiped out because of these lawsuits. Another problem is that farmers who are trying to grow non-GMO crops partly for export to other countries are encountering contamination of their crops by genetically modified crops (cross pollination and drift). Because of this, countries that have banned certain genetically modified crops will no longer buy these crops. This has recently led to another lawsuit initiated by the Pacific Northwest wheat farmers and the Center For Food Safety. This is a class action lawsuit against Monsanto, but in this case, the GMO contamination was from genetically engineered crops produced by Monsanto but not approved for production or sale in the United States. http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press…
Genetic engineering involves taking the DNA from a bacteria and splicing it into the DNA of a particular plant (corn for example). It is then commonly activated with a virus. Bt corn, for example, contains the DNA from the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis. This turns the corn into an insecticide - when ingested by insects, the Bt toxin in the corn causes the breakdown of the gut wall in the insect which eventually kills them. GM crops like Bt corn are also designed to require use of pesticide (they are called Round-Up ready crops, Round-Up is ALSO manufactured and sold by Monsanto!) regularly, even immediately after planting. The glyphosate in Round-Up has been linked to diseases including cancer, and obviously to environmental contamination and the increasing decline in the bee population. But the EPA could give a crap about any of that (see revolving door part above again). http://now.msn.com/monsanto-can-raise-gl…
Genetically engineered foods do create health problems. Many people are allergic to them. They have been linked with accelerated aging, tumor growth and infertility just to name some problems. http://foodmatters.tv/articles-1/the-tru…
Recent research found that the DNA from genetically engineered food is transferred to gut bacteria in humans which means that the GMO protein continues to be produced in the human body long after eating that GMO food.
Many farmers have found that their livestock become quite sick and unhealthy (requiring a lot of antibiotics) if they are fed GMO feed. Farmers who have switched their livestock to a non-GMO feed report greatly improved health of those animals.
The bottom line is this: I don't want to eat food that is laced with pesticides, classified as an insecticide, has DNA that transfers to, and stays in, my body, altering the function of my gut bacteria. I also don't want to feed that to my children. I don't support Monsanto, I don't think seeds should be patented, I don't think they should get protection from the government (Monsanto Protection Act), and I don't want to continue to see the environmental damage done by pesticide contamination. I want to KNOW if the food I am buying is genetically modified because only then can I make a choice about whether or not to buy it.

Agreed, there are a LOT of ignorant comments on here. I think most people don't have a clue what a GMO is!!! Or where their food comes from, or who Monsanto is. Sixty-one countries require GE food labelling http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issue… The U.S. is far behind. One of the reasons is that huge corporations like Monsanto (the biggest producer of GMO seeds) has a giant economic presence here in the U.S. Also, there is a revolving door between Monsanto and the government agencies that are supposed to regulate food safety, the environment and protect consumers. http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto…
These huge corporations (Monsanto, Dupont, etc.) don't care about people's health, they care about profits!!! They also don't give a crap about farmers. Monsanto has initiated (and won) hundreds of lawsuits against farmers who were supposedly "saving seed" (something which farmers have traditionally done for hundreds of years. Of course, now Monsanto OWNS those seeds because they are genetically modified and patented. Monsanto owns over 11,000 patents. Farmers can buy Monsanto's seed, but they have to buy it every year. Many farmers have had all of their savings wiped out because of these lawsuits. Another problem is that farmers who are trying to grow non-GMO crops partly for export to other countries are encountering contamination of their crops by genetically modified crops (cross pollination and drift). Because of this, countries that have banned certain genetically modified crops will no longer buy these crops. This has recently led to another lawsuit initiated by the Pacific Northwest wheat farmers and the Center For Food Safety. This is a class action lawsuit against Monsanto, but in this case, the GMO contamination was from genetically engineered crops produced by Monsanto but not approved for production or sale in the United States. http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press…
Genetic engineering involves taking the DNA from a bacteria and splicing it into the DNA of a particular plant (corn for example). It is then commonly activated with a virus. Bt corn, for example, contains the DNA from the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis. This turns the corn into an insecticide - when ingested by insects, the Bt toxin in the corn causes the breakdown of the gut wall in the insect which eventually kills them. GM crops like Bt corn are also designed to require use of pesticide (they are called Round-Up ready crops, Round-Up is ALSO manufactured and sold by Monsanto!) regularly, even immediately after planting. The glyphosate in Round-Up has been linked to diseases including cancer, and obviously to environmental contamination and the increasing decline in the bee population. But the EPA could give a crap about any of that (see revolving door part above again). http://now.msn.com/monsanto-can-raise-gl…
Genetically engineered foods do create health problems. Many people are allergic to them. They have been linked with accelerated aging, tumor growth and infertility just to name some problems. http://foodmatters.tv/articles-1/the-tru…
Recent research found that the DNA from genetically engineered food is transferred to gut bacteria in humans which means that the GMO protein continues to be produced in the human body long after eating that GMO food.
Many farmers have found that their livestock become quite sick and unhealthy (requiring a lot of antibiotics) if they are fed GMO feed. Farmers who have switched their livestock to a non-GMO feed report greatly improved health of those animals.
The bottom line is this: I don't want to eat food that is laced with pesticides, classified as an insecticide, has DNA that transfers to, and stays in, my body, altering the function of my gut bacteria. I also don't want to feed that to my children. I don't support Monsanto, I don't think seeds should be patented, I don't think they should get protection from the government (Monsanto Protection Act), and I don't want to continue to see the environmental damage done by pesticide contamination. I want to KNOW if the food I am buying is genetically modified because only then can I make a choice about whether or not to buy it.

If any of you feel that GMO'S are good for you, I would advise you to look at the following.
Drmercola.com
many or all of the nations of Europe have found that GMO'S are detrimental to your health
and have banned them from being imported to their countries. They have also found that
while GMO'S were being used in their countries that the honeybees were dying off. Since
they have banned them the GMO'S, the honeybees are coming back. Honeybees are one of
the essential insects needed to pollinate the fruits and vegetables so they bare fruit that we
as humans might continue to exist.
Japan has just recently would not let an American ship unload it's wheat cargo because it contained some GMO wheat. They also stated that any more ships laden ed with GMO
contaminated grain would not be allowed to unload in Japan.
Grain sold to foreign countries has in the past, helped to balance our import export trade
deficit.