Given that they basically conceded that they were breaking the law, can the SLAPP ruling be appealed?

The Clorox Company? God forbid I should have my undershorts GMO bleached!

a lot of truly amazing things will come from genetically modified organisms (including food items): replacement parts against human diseases, single cell sources for future foods (like culture grown 'meat'), biofuels, and possibly even ways to ameliorate green-house gases in the atmosphere. yet all these positive things are dragged down by some (understandably re-told) very bad things which were concocted by ruthless corporations rushing to profits.

please don't blindly lurch toward some anti-technological (anti-science~sarah-palin-esque) view-point just because our governmental regulatory agencies have been hamstrung since Reagan and republicans. but rather: promote governmental agencies to reign in the corporate mad-scientists; without attempting to do regulation at the libertarian/individual level with a silly patchwork of labels where it's each consumer and each state for themselves.

(we now return you to "why shouldn't i know everything possible about my food including its TGCCATATC... ?" already in progress)

@1: No, because the publicity-hound-but-incompetent lawyer for the plaintiffs (Knoll Lowney) screwed up, inviting a SLAPP lawsuit that cost his clients thousands of dollars. (The Attorney General had to be given the chance to file suit first, which he did, to his credit, and won.)

@4: Thanks for the intel.

The AG didn't win in court, there has been no court date. The GMA said it would disclose the names.

I'm voting No because the onus should be on the nonGMO products to advertise to the consumers interested in purchasing them. Also, like @3 states, it's silly to create a patchwork of different label laws by individual states via some wackjob's initiative process. If the label said what the GMO component was and was anywhere near the ingredients list, that would be one thing, but slapping a label of Genetically Engineered on the front of the package is some paranoid, science-is-dangerous shit.

Hrm, $3k from the "Cajun injector" company ? I'm surprised they have that to spare.
http://www.brucefoods.com/

FYI, here's the release from the Elway poll. It's not perfect crosstabs, but I think they'd make Slog pay to get those and this came from the Seattle Times.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/…

I'm gonna stick with yes. Not because I'm afraid of eating GMOs, but because I don't want to throw money at companies that helped create the new lack of crop biodiversity for some big staples, the development of super resistant pests, pesticide runoff that creates huge ocean dead zones and toxic algal blooms (which cause marine bird species to die off in mass in of hypothermia after their natural protective oils were stripped), honey bees, making it more difficult for organic farms to exist...

If there is a time when the developers of these crops actually give a flying fuck about it's impacts on the environment we depend on, then I'll reconsider. But that time is not now.

@ 6 - You're voting no because you're a shill. The sky didn't fall when the wine industry was required to put Contains Sulfites on the label because they use potassium metabisulfite in the production (even though dried fruits, bacon and a plethora of other foods use the same thing without having to put it on the label). The sky won't fall when food producers have to put May Contain GMOs on their labels either.

@9 That is an issue with cultivation, not with selectively inserting novel genes into a plant genome. Those were issues in the past, and they continue to be issues today even with non-gmo crops.

@11 Stop calling people who disagree with you shills. tThere's no need for it, and it's a terrible argument to make.

@11, for the non-seeds, there are only three label phrases that are permissible by 522.

genetically engineered, partially produced with genetic engineering, or may be partially produced with genetic engineering

@13 - Since you seem to be new to relatively new (7/5/13) to Slog, let me educate you to the fact that some commenters here are paid by outside forces to "push" public opinion. Really. Honest. It happens. They're called shills. And considering that a *very* high percentage of your comment history shows you to be discussing the GMO debate, I would have to look at you suspiciously (shills defend one another). As I do Chef Joe., who pretty much cemented my belief that he is a paid GMO-industry shill with his NRA-like tactic of dodging the essence of my comment by stating that I had phrased it incorrectly.

So Chef Joe, the food industry will not have the sky fall down and go Boom! when they are requiring to put [May Be Partially Produced With Genetic Engineering] on the label. There. Is that better?

@11 A great analogy, but not in favor of your argument:

Wine is labeled as containing sulfites (and ALL wine, from everywhere in the world, contains sulfites) because neo-prohibitionist groups lobbied congress in the 80's to make alcohol labeling scarier. Lead by Strom Thurman, sulfite warnings on wine was as far as they got. Just like I522, the label was not designed to inform, but to frighten.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-…

For what it's worth though, sulfites are an allergen, and you could probably make a better argument for labeling products containing sulfites than GMO.

That's more accurate a representation of the post-522 label @15. If anyone in "the industry" would like to pay me for my beliefs, please get in touch. I wouldn't mind some extra scotch money.

"May Contain GMOs" would be too simple and short. A nice long phrase like "May Be Partially Produced With Genetic Engineering" is carefully crafted to be long enough to be difficult to not see and help those who don't understand the science to think it could modify their genome somehow (like those people claiming roundup ready corn made the bacteria in their intestines learn to make roundup herbicide in their body... completely misunderstanding how the gene works).

@15 "Nuh UH!!" is also a terrible argument.

You neglect other hypotheses such as, "this guy spent years studying biology and has plenty of laboratory and research experience, along with several years in food safety and has something to say about the topic" or "he was sick and tired of all the people who never bothered to take a science class spreading bullshit about a topic they clearly don't understand".

Maybe if you had taken a science class or two, you'd understand the concept of "alternative hypotheses" or "falsifiability". If you did, you would already understand why accusing someone of "being a shill" sucks as an argument.

Deal with the arguments as presented instead of accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being dishonest.

I admit I was leaning toward yes, but since I now see that Pepsi, Nestlé and Coke are bravely spending their hard-earned cash to stop world hunger, I will side with them.

@18 - Actually I have a degree in science, not genetic biology mind you, but I have a complete understanding of scientific theory vs. alternate hypothesis. Proving what isn't in science is just as hard as proving what is, and I see no reason that we shouldn't have GMOs disclosed as we disclose potential allergens like nuts, sulfites, etc. It's really all about consumers having the *right* to know what is going into their food. I for one will not hesitate to buy a product containing GMOs, as I don't consider it to be a big deal. Others may find that to be a big deal however, and they have a right to know if it matters to them.

Do you think GMO disclosure needs to be on the front of the package and, while you have a right to know (except in restaurants), the disclosure should not actually tell you what ingredient was GE or what change was done to the ingredient ?

The Seattle area has a lot of biotech. In addition to ad influence, could part of the no vote be people who work with GMOs, know that we've been consuming food and meds from GMOs for decades, and don't see the need for 522?

@20 - As a scientist, you would also need to understand why a label simply saying "Contains GMOs" would provide no information of any value to either consumers or researchers. It tells you nothing whatsoever about exactly what the product might contain.

Furthermore, those who want to avoid GMOs already have a well-established voluntary labeling scheme to rely upon - namely, organic certification.

Science says that agriculture has to be sustainable to feed the world population. Almost all GMO crops are industrial scale monoculture drenched in herbicide, i.e. they aren't sustainable. GMO pushers are anti-science.

@24 - In addition - The reason that Monsanto pushes GMO crops is all about collecting licensing fees for their seeds. It has nothing to do with trying to alleviate hunger and helping people.

So, bpinsea, if I really wanted to avoid anything that could have been sprayed with glufosinate (libertylink crops) but was ok with the crops that were innoculated with a coat protein of a virus to protect them from getting the full virus (ring spot papaya virus or plum pox virus, for example), how would 522 help that ? My by reading, all 522 would tell me is "genetically engineered" and I'd just have to look at an ingredients list and guess ? How is that knowing ?

@20 If you understand the sciences, then why are you making an unfalsifiable argument? I cannot prove to you nor anyone else if I'm being paid off or not, and I could just as easily claim that you're being paid off as well. It's not a useful line of argument. Additionally, my earnest belief is that this initiative won't really change anything other than dredging up a whole lot of crazy people who are scared of genes.

@24 Again, the way these crops are grown has little to do with the fact that someone in a lab inserted a novel gene into their genome. BT GMOs don't require a "drowning in chemicals", neither does golden rice. On the other hand, non-GMO potatoes are grown with insane amounts of chemicals. This is a problem with the practices of big-ag, not the techniques of genetic modification.

Additionally, if the environmentalist/sustainable development groups weren't so frightened of a particular method of altering genetic code, they would be advocating for publicly funded GMO research. It would result in GMOs designed with our goals in mind rather than Monsanto's.

There are some amazing things done to improve crops through GMOs. Which is why I'm a supporter of continuing to research GMO crops to improve food sources here and throughout the world.

There are also plenty of ways that companies have abused what can be done with GMOs and the lagging patent laws in our country. This leads to farmers having to live under the thumb of corporations like Monsanto, or get sued into bankruptcy because a neighbor's Monsanto seeds got onto their property.

The argument that it is harmful to know more about the food we eat is ridiculous. In fact, I don't think I-522 goes far enough, but passing it is a great first step. What I would like to see next is the label detailing which modifications have been done to the crops in the food.

I'm not going to stop eating food just because it is GMO, but I sure as hell want to know if it is and what those modifications are.

"This leads to farmers having to live under the thumb of corporations like Monsanto"

This is what we call the "farmers are stupid" fallacy. Farmers do not have to buy their seeds from Monsanto, they choose to. You see the fact that they do as as evidence that these country hicks are being fooled or manipulated by the big evil corporation. Please go back to sipping lattes and tending to your 5ft2 vegetable patch and leave real farming decisions to the professionals.

Oh, and please give us examples where a farmer has been "sued into bankruptcy because a neighbor's Monsanto seeds got onto their property."