Ag Groups Oppose I-522

OLYMPIA - Washing- ton's leading agricultural groups representing tens of thousands of family farmers and food processors throughout the state have announced their strong opposition to Ini- tiative 522, calling it a costly, unfair and misleading food labeling measure.

More than 30 agricultural groups and growers' organi- zations throughout the state, representing thousands of family farmers, have joined a broad coalition that has come together to defeat the measure, which will appear before voters on the Novem- ber 2013 statewide ballot.

"I-522 would force Wash- ington farmers and food companies to implement costly new labeling, packag- ing, distribution and record- keeping requirements that do not exist in any other state," said Mike LaPlant, President of the Washington State Farm Bureau, which represents nearly 42,000 local farmers, ranchers & member fami- lies. "Whether or not they grow genetically engineered foods, all Washington farm- ers would be impacted by this initiative. That's why organi- zations representing family farmers all across the state are opposing I-522."

Agriculture and food industry groups opposing I-522 include the Washington State Farm Bureau, Washington Association of Wheat Grow- ers, Washington Friends of Farms & Forests, Northwest Grocery Association, Wash- ington State Dairy Federation, Washington State Coun- cil of Farmer Cooperatives, Far West Agribusiness Asso- ciation, Washington Cattle- men's Association, Benton County Farm Bureau, Ya- kima County Farm Bureau, Grays Harbor/Pacific County Farm Bureau, Whatcom Farm Friends, Washington Asparagus Council, Northwest Food Processors As- sociation, Spokane County Farm Bureau, Washington Potato & Onion Associa- tion, Yakima Valley Growers & Shippers Association, Washington State Hay Grow- ers Association, Whatcom County Farm Bureau, Sno- homish County Farm Bu- reau, King/Pierce County Farm Bureau, Okanogan County Farm Bureau, Frank- lin County Farm Bureau, Skagit County Farm Bureau and many others. To see a list of other groups opposed to I-522, visit www.Vote- NOon522.com/coalition/.

"Proponents of I-522 are trying to mislead voters about where Washington farmers stand on this misguided initiative," said Eric Maier, Past President and spokesperson for the Washington Asso- ciation of Wheat Growers (WAWG). "The Washington Association of Wheat Grow- ers is strongly opposed to I-522, and we have joined with the Washington State Farm Bureau and dozens of other statewide and local ag- ricultural organizations and growers' groups from across our state as part of the NO on 522 Coalition. This measure would mandate misleading and inconsistent information on food labels for Washing- ton consumers, and it would threaten our vital agricultural economy."

Under I-522, thousands of common grocery products would have to be specially re- labeled in order to be sold in Washington, unless they are remade with higher-priced, specially handled ingredients just for our state. In fact, I-522 would require many common food products to be labeled as "genetically engineered," even if they contain no detectable level of a GE ingredient. At the same time, I-522 gives special exemp- tions to hundreds of other foods - even when they con- tain or are made with genetically engineered ingredients.

"I-522's new require- ments would add millions of dollars in costs for Wash- ington farmers and food companies, driving up gro- cery prices and putting farm- ers in our state at a serious competitive disadvantage," said Dan Newhouse, Former Director of the Washington State Department of Agri- culture. "And I-522 would require state government to monitor the wording on food labels on thousands of products in thousands of stores statewide, costing taxpayers millions."

"Attheendoftheday,I-522 would increase food costs for Washington consumers by hundreds of dollars per year, for what is essentially an unnecessary, badly written law," said LaPlant. "Con- sumers can already choose foods made without geneti- cally engineered ingredients if they prefer, by selecting products labeled 'organic' or 'non-GMO.' I-522 isn't even consistent with these existing national standards."

[Editor's Note, this com- mentary was provided by Brad Harwood of the NO on 522 coalition.]