Initiative 522

Concerns Labeling of Genetically-engineered Foods
Results
Choice Votes % Yes 857,511 48.91% No 895,557 51.09% Total votes 1,753,068 100.00%
County results Yes:   50–60%   60–70% No:   50–60%   60–70%   70–80%   80–90%
Source:Washington Secretary of State[1]

Washington Initiative 522 (I-522) "concerns labeling of genetically-engineered foods" and was a 2012initiative to theWashington State Legislature.^[2] As certified by theWashington Secretary of State, it achieved enough signatures to be forwarded to the legislature for consideration during the2013 session.^[3] The legislature did not vote on the initiative, so I-522 advanced to the November 5, 2013 general election ballot. If passed into law by voters, I-522 would have taken effect on July 1, 2015. The initiative failed with 51% opposition.^[4]

If approved, I-522 would have required that non-exempt foods and agricultural products offered for retail sale state "clearly and conspicuously" on the front of the package if they were genetically-engineered, contain or might have contained genetically-engineered ingredients.

With more than $17.1 million in donations opposed before September 30, I-522 set a new record for money spent against a state initiative, exceeding the $12.35 million spent in 2011 to opposeInitiative 1183, privatizing liquor sales.^[5] By late October, No On I-522 had set the all-time record for any initiative campaign with $21 million. Combined contributions of $27.7 million are still less than $32.5 million spent by both sides around I-1183.^[6]

As described by the Secretary of State's office, the measure "would require most raw agricultural commodities, processed foods, and seeds and seed stocks, if produced using genetic engineering as defined, to be labeled as genetically engineered when offered for retail sale."

According to the official ballot measure summary,

This measure would require foods produced entirely or partly with genetic engineering, as defined, to be labeled as genetically engineered when offered for retail sale in Washington, beginning in July 2015. The labeling requirement would apply generally to raw agricultural commodities, processed foods, and seeds and seed stock, with some exceptions, but would not require that specific genetically-engineered ingredients be identified. The measure would authorize state enforcement and civil penalties, and allow private enforcement actions.

Full text of the measure is available online at the Washington state website.^[7]

I-522 is approximately nine pages long and adds a new chapter to Title 70 of theRevised Code of Washington.

Section one includes more than three pages stating various reasons for the initiative, related to consumer choice, religious belief, consumer health concerns, environmental concerns, economic concerns and worldwide trends in consumer labeling laws. This section explains that 49 countries, including many significant US trading partnersJapan,South Korea,China,Australia,Russia and theEuropean Union have labeling requirement for genetically engineered foods. This section asserts that labeling will give Washington's foods a share of the multibillion-dollar lost market opportunity in exports to these countries.

Section two establishes various definitions, including section 2(3)(a) which strictly defines "genetically engineered" by specificgenetic engineering techniques, and differentiated fromselective breeding. These specific genetic engineering techniques include variousrecombinant DNA and RNA methods such asmicro-injection,electroporation,micro-encapsulation,liposome fusion,protoplast fusion or other "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."

Section three requires that "any food offered for retail sale" be labeled "clearly and conspicuously" if it contains genetically-engineered ingredients, with certain exceptions. Exemptions consistent with current federal regulations include prepared foods such as those coming from a restaurant, meat from animals fed genetically engineered feeds, alcoholic beverages and foods processed with GE enzymes.^[8] For non-exempt foods, it would require "on the front of the package" the words "genetically engineered," "produced with genetic engineering," "partially produced with genetic engineering" or "may be partially produced with genetic engineering" stated "clearly and conspicuously."

Section four authorizes theWashington State Department of Health to "adopt rules necessary to implement" the law, with section five authorizing civil penalties for violations, section six noting that I-522 creates a new chapter for RCW Title 70 and section seven a basicseverability clause.

Support for the I-522 was coordinated by YES on 522, a group that included food activists^[who?], small-scale producers and severalfood co-operatives such asPCC Natural Markets^[9][10] andnatural food stores such asWhole Foods Market.^[11] It was also promoted by theOrganic Consumers Association, which called for a boycott onSafeway Inc. unless the grocery store company would withdraw from theGrocery Manufacturers Association and contribute financially to the Yes on 522 campaign.^[12] In addition to being the single largest donor,Dr Bronner's Magic Soaps issued a special label in support of I-522.^[13]

Other support came from labor groups including theWashington State Labor Council.^[14] The Yes on 522 web page for endorsements lists over 350 businesses, 25 seafood groups, 150 farms, more than 100 other groups, 45 elected officials and many individuals.^[15] As of mid-October, 2013, reported campaign donations showed more than 13,000 donors for I-522 giving $6.2 million with a median donation of approximately $25.^[16]

Opposition to I-522 came primarily from large chemical corporations (Monsanto Company,DuPont Pioneer,Dow AgroSciences LLC, andBayer CropScience), and organizations such as Washington Friends of Farms and Forests, Northwest Food Processors, Washington Association of Wheat Growers, theWashington State Farm Bureau and the Grocery Manufacturers Association, who rallied and mounted a $46 million campaign via Nestle SA, General Mills Inc., Coca-Cola Co and PepsiCo Inc to defeat the initiative.^[17][18][19] These large donations have reportedly "shattered" previous fundraising records against any other initiative, a full month ahead of the election.^[20]

Opponents of I-522 cited the editorial boards of fifteen different newspapers as opposing the initiative.^[21] As of mid-October, 2013, reported campaign donations showed ten donors for I-522 giving $17.2 million with a median donation of approximately $545,827.^[16]

Public records of initiative donations are listed at theWashington State Public Disclosure Commission website.^[22]

Dr Bronner's Magic Soap Company was the largest donor in support, and the only pro-522 donor giving more than $1 million. The largest donation in opposition was $7.2 million of opposition money was identified as coming from theGrocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), details of which emerged after Washington state attorney generalBob Ferguson filed charges against them for violation of state campaign-finance laws.^{[23][24][25][26][27]} As of October 25, 2013, GMA had reportedly given $11 million in total.^[28][29]

In 2022, GMA (renamed the Consumer Brands Association) paid $9 million to settle the charges, and apologized for the violations.^[30]

State law requires the top five contributors to be listed. As of October 23, 2013 the largest contributors in support of I-522 areDr Bronner's Magic Soaps,Organic Consumer Fund Committee to Label GMOs in WA State,Joseph Mercola, Presence Marketing Inc, andNature's Path Foods USA. The top five contributors in opposition to I-522 are theGrocery Manufacturers Association,Monsanto Company,DuPont Pioneer,Dow AgroSciences LLC, andBayer CropScience.

Initiative 522 failed with 51% voting against.^[31]

• California Proposition 37 (2012)
• Genetically modified food
• Selective breeding

• Yes on 522, campaign for I-522
• No on 522, campaign against I-522
• RCW Title 70 "Public Health and Safety"
• "What Washington Should Know about GMO's"

• Ecolabelling
• Genetic engineering in the United States
• Initiatives in the United States
• Washington (state) law

• CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list
• Articles with short description
• Short description matches Wikidata
• Pages using sidebar with the child parameter
• All articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases
• Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases from September 2013