Background
Recently, supporters of the Washington State initiative I-522 submitted signatures to the
Secretary of the State of Washington. This initiative is designed to “establish mandatory labeling of
foods produced through genetic engineering”. The official web site for the initiative support effort can
be found at: ( labelitwa.org ) and the initiative text can be found at: (I-522 Text ). The author of I-522,
Chris McManus (Chris McManus), is an advertising executive from Tacoma, Washington. When asked
about technical details of the initiative, he reportedly replied “Well, you know, I'm not a scientist. I work
in media. Those kinds of questions I'll have to defer to later in the campaign." (McManus Quote ). One
would think that addressing such issues might be an important consideration before signing the petition,
however, the process has now moved beyond that point.
The effort has strong support from the organic community, with the initiative itself having
several sections devoted specifically to the promotion of organic production methods as well as the
backing of large organic business and consumer interests such as Whole Foods Market Inc. (Wikipedia:
Whole Foods Market & wholefoodsmarket.com ), PCC Natural Markets, the largest certified organic
coop in United States, (Wikipedia: PCC Natural Markets & pccnaturalmarkets.com), and the non-profit
advocacy group, The Organic Consumers Association (Wikipedia: Organic Consumers Association &
organicconsumers.org ). Several other smaller businesses with interests in organic production have also
committed to supporting the measure (see for example Labelitwa Supporters ).
Much of the initiative text is taken, sometimes verbatim, from the earlier 2012 initiative process
in California, Proposition 37 . While the similarity of the two initiatives is substantial, there are
important differences. Proposition 37, for example, contained language intended to regulate the use of
the term “natural”. That component of Proposition 37 was highly contentious and was possibly its
weakest legal aspect (Legal Analysis of Proposition 37 ). Such language has been dropped from I-522.
While the similarities of the Washington State initiative text may present many of the same legal issues
already raised by Proposition 37, I-522 has its own unique language, which may initiate other challenges.
The similarities and differences of these proposals will be addressed as they occur below.
Taking a purely empirical view, labeling of (Genetically modified organisms GMOs) provides little
useful consumer health or safety information. GMO products currently in the marketplace have proven
safe in foods and animal feeds through use and testing. Environmentally, these products can have a
good record of improvement over conventional production methods while maintaining the high yields
and profits necessary for farmers. These facts have been repeatedly demonstrated in the peer reviewed
scientific literature, much of which is from independent sources, despite claims to the contrary (see
http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/ for an extensive list). The widespread
acceptance of genetic engineering in the farming community is further evidence of the unique utility of
these tools. Farmers are not foolish and do not gamble on, or stick with, risky ventures where their
livelihoods are at stake (see for example the opinion of farmer Brian Scott ).
Alternatively, some people may have ethical concerns such as intellectual property rights or
corporate control over food supplies, and these could provide an impetus and societal pressure for
mandating GMO food product labels. The text and labeling process proposed by I-522, however, are ill
suited for informing consumers. The vague labeling requirements of I-522 are designed to scare
consumers away from GMO products, not provide desirable information. Simultaneously, the law
appears designed to strongly promote organic methods as an equal and preferred GMO alternative.
These unfounded biases, as well as the extensive exemptions incorporated into the law, remove any
usefulness the labeling might have to consumers wishing to avoid GMOs.
Executive Summary (TL;DR)
1) The proposed label system is too vague and contains little useful information. The supporting
arguments suggest labeling could help consumers concerned with health, dietary, religious,
environmental, and corporate control issues avoid GM products. The actual labeling, however, does not
guarantee any GM content will be present in the product. The proposed labels are not required to
specify what ingredients may be GM, nor the extent to which they may be present. Consumers wishing
to discern between GM and non-GM products can already do so through existing, non-mandatory
labeling designations provided by USDA Organic certification, or one of several private non-GMO
certification businesses.
2) Too many exemptions are granted to large agricultural and food industries. These exemptions further
reduce any usefulness of the labeling allowing producers and retailers of restaurant foods, animal
products, and alcoholic beverages among many others to serve customers GM products without
informing them.
3) The penalties for noncompliance are onerous, especially for small businesses. The potential
penalties will most likely lead larger national and global food producers to simply apply the most generic
GM label to all their products. They would likely be able to compensate for any negative consumer
reaction to such labeling through their large volume of sales. Smaller local producers, however, would
be left with little choice but to either comply with a designation that has been demonized in the popular
media or pursue costly alternatives such as USDA Organic or private Non-GMO certification. Any
business that intentionally avoids labeling must provide a sworn statements from their suppliers that
their product is non-GMO. For smaller producers and retailers, this paper trail could present a
cumbersome and expensive process to maintain.
4) The State is required to enforce the law without additional resources. The initiative does not
stipulate or mandate additional funding sources for monitoring or enforcing compliance. Given the
current budgetary challenges faced by Washington State, it is unlikely new money will be allocated for
labeling enforcement. This will either entail poor enforcement of the law or a potential reduction of
current Health and Safety services elsewhere in the State system. Because any person may file a
complaint and seek legal damages for alleged labeling violations (without evidence), a further burden
will be placed on State courts and Health and Safety departments. The law could lead to unnecessary
legal actions at the expense of taxpayers and consumers.
5) The labeling law requires the GM designation be conspicuously present on the front of the package
or retailer’s display (for raw produce). In doing so, the GM label would be removed and segregated
from preexisting nutritional and health information. Because GM products have been demonized in the
popular media, this is likely to promote a negative perception to the consumer. Forcing producers and
retailers to prominently display such a label without justification will likely lead to a Constitutional First
Amendment objection regarding compelled speech.
6) The numerous arguments suggesting that Washington State’s organic production and international
trade are threatened by GM production are unfounded. Organic production has successfully coexisted
alongside conventional and GM production for many years in the US. Likewise, international trade in
the presence of GM products has been successfully carried out for many years. It is unlikely that the
multi-million dollar agricultural export industry will require or depend on a state level labeling law that
does not require product testing. The commodity identities referenced in the initiative are already
provided by national USDA Organic and private non-GMO certifications.
The Washington Initiative Process
The State of Washington has two types of initiatives, “Initiatives to the People”, and “Initiatives
to the Legislature”. While the first type of initiative would go directly to a voter ballot, this initiative is of
the second type. That means, once the appropriate number of valid signatures is certified by the
Secretary of the State of Washington (accomplished on 1/31/2013 ), the initiative will be submitted to
the Legislature during their January 2013 session (currently slated for a 2/14/2013 hearing). At that
point, three things can happen (from: http://participedia.net/en/methods/washington-state-initiativeprocess ):
• The Legislature can adopt the initiative as it has been proposed by the public and it then becomes law
without a vote by the people.
• The Legislature can reject the proposed initiative or refuse to act on it and the initiative must be
placed on the ballot for the state’s next general election.
• The Legislature can approve an amended version of the proposed initiative and, in this case, both the
amended and the original versions of the bill will appear on the state’s next general election ballot.
It is not certain which path the State legislature will take, but it is most likely that option one, immediate
acceptance, will not be taken. The Washington legislature recently rejected two GMO labeling attempts
by members, see: Washington Bill 6298 & Washington Bill 2637 . Of the remaining options, the second
is the most probable as it is the common course for legislative initiatives. The third option, however,
would present an interesting circumstance where two similar versions appear on the same ballot and
potentially lead to confusion in the voting booth. It reasonable to assume that I-522 supporters would
want to avoid this vote splitting possibility by preventing amendments to the initiative, although from a
technical, scientific, and potentially legal standpoint, I believe it should be.
I-522 and Comments
Below the initiative is presented, section by section, with some comments and observations on
these faults. Each section is given in bold text and followed by red text indicating its similarity to the
California Proposition 37. In this analysis, the terms genetically engineered (GE), genetically modified
organism (GMO), and genetically modified (GM) are used interchangeably.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. The
people find that:
This section is intended to provide arguments in favor of the initiative and “inform the public”.
As will be seen, the statements here provide poor rationale for mandating labeling and often digress
into promotional material for organic production methods or material meant to scare consumers and
producers away from GMO products.
(1) Polls consistently show that the vast majority of the public, typically
more than ninety percent, wants to know if their food was produced using
genetic engineering. Without disclosure, consumers of genetically engineered
food unknowingly may violate their own dietary and religious restrictions.
Section 1, Part(1) text taken almost verbatim from Proposition 37, Section 1, Parts e and g.
This is true, polls have indicated a large percentage of survey respondents have a preference for
labeling. It is unlikely, however, that “GMO” labeling in I-522 would prevent people from violating their
dietary or religious restrictions. It is also noted that products that might fit these categories, such as
vegetarian, vegan, gluten free, kosher, etc, are already labeled as such voluntarily for marketing reasons.
More to the point, a verified non-GMO designation is already available to any food manufacturers who
desire it (for example, The Non-GMO Project and Genetic ID ). By definition, people concerned with
these issues are already scrutinizing what they are consuming and the products containing GMO
ingredients are already well known. Additionally, organic production in the US prohibits GMO products.
A consumer using the “USDA Organic” label designation can already avoid all GMO products.
Furthermore, even if I-522 labeling was imposed, little information other than “genetically engineered”
or “may be partially produced with genetic engineering” would be provided. Genetic engineering is a
process, not a thing. Many attributes to food products or the systems that produce them can be
addressed through genetic engineering. The initiative, however, does not require the specific type of
modification, or even the specific ingredient that has been modified, to be listed. As written, the
measure would tell the consumer no more about dietary or religious preferences than a label specifying
“Organic” or “Natural”. Hence, the vegetarian or vegan would not be informed whether an animal
protein was incorporated in a product. The Jewish customer would have no additional information
telling them a porcine attribute was present. I-522 does nothing to address dietary or religious
restrictions. It should also be noted that previous mandatory GE labeling efforts for religious reasons
have failed to be upheld by the courts . In addition, the Vatican and Islamic officials have both found no
problems with GM products.
A short note on the effectiveness of labeling: Studies examining existing labels for nutritional
content have shown that they are consistently overlooked or ignored by consumers. Although
participants said they looked at nutritional labels, the same respondents failed to completely do so
while purchasing products (University of Minnesota survey of consumers ). GMO labels are likely to
suffer the same fate. A study from Europe, where GMO labeling is enforced, found consumers typically
bought products labeled GMO, even though they indicated that they would not. The relationship
between personal desire for labeling and the effectiveness of labeling is weak.
(2) Currently, there is no federal or state
law that requires food producers to identify
whether foods were produced using genetic
engineering. At the same time, the United
States Food and Drug Administration does
not require safety studies of such foods.
Unless these foods contain a known allergen,
the United States food and drug administration
does not require the developers of genetically
engineered crops to consult with the agency.
Consultations with the United States food and
drug administration are entirely voluntary
and the developers themselves may decide
what information they may wish to provide.
Much of Section 1, Part (2) text taken from Proposition 37, Section 1, Part d.
This is true, no federal or state law for mandatory labeling of GMOs exists at this time. An effort
to force the FDA to label GMO products through federal law was signed by 1 million people, although
the FDA decided against it (Just Label It ). While this seems substantial, it should be recognized that this
represents only an approximate 0.5% of all eligible voters in the United States (2012) and is not an
immediate mandate for labeling. Additionally, mandatory GMO labeling legislation introduced to the US
Congress by Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) failed to pass the US Senate in
2012 (http://ivn.us/2012/06/21/gmo-labeling-bill-fails-to-pass-senate/ ).
The implication of this I-522 statement regarding the FDA is that no testing of GMOs is required
and that the testing that is done is completely voluntary. This is a misrepresentation of the truth.
While, the FDA itself is not mandated to assess GMO safety, regulation of GE products in the United
States is divided among various agencies and existing federal law:
“The responsibility for regulatory oversight of these products is shared by three Federal agencies: the U.S.
Department of Agriculture' s Animal AND Plant Health Inspection Service(APHIS), the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency(EPA), AND the Department OF Health AND Human Services ' Food AND Drug Administration(FDA ).”
[Emphasis added].
Which agency is involved in the regulation process depends on the intended use of the product.
If food items are in question, the FDA has been involved. During product evaluations, it is standard
assessment protocol to test all intended food items for known allergens. The FDA can and will request
any and all information they deem necessary for assessment. No GM product on the market has passed
through less than two of the mentioned agencies . This position statement by the author(s) of I-522 is
disingenuous at best. While many may view this process as inefficient and incomplete, mandatory
labeling requested by I-522 will do nothing to improve the process nor will it induce the FDA to be
involved in GMO regulation.
It should also be noted here that the safety of crops developed through traditional breeding
methods, is unregulated and completely voluntary, even though these have occasionally shown
problems in the past, (see section (4) below).
(3) Mandatory identification of foods produced with genetic engineering can
provide a critical method for tracking the potential health effects of
consuming foods produced through genetic engineering.
Much of Section 1, Part (3) text taken from Proposition 37, Section 1, Part c.
It is hard to imagine how the labeling provided by I-522 could possibly help track a potential
problem given that: 1) The required labeling has no specific information about the type of modification,
nor the ingredient modified and 2) the extensive product exemptions to the required labeling (listed
below) would severely confound any efforts to track a problem. Because the proposed label is vague on
which ingredient may be included, or even if a modified protein is present in the final processed
product, it has no value for notification of allergic individuals at all. If a known allergenic component
were present, Federal law would already require it to be labeled separately.
Further, any product intended to be consumed in a restaurant, for example, would not require
labeling. By posing the supporting statement in this manner, the author is explicitly suggesting that
GMOs can and will have problems, despite the fact that no health problems have ever been found in the
many years that people and animals around the world have consumed genetically modified food
products. Simply put, the GMO labeling information provided by I-522 cannot help track health
problems.
(4)Consumers have the right to know
whether the foods they purchase were
produced with genetic engineering. The
genetic engineering of plants and animals is
an imprecise process and often causes
unintended consequences. Mixing plant, animal,
bacterial, and viral genes in combinations
that cannot occur in nature produces results
that are not always predictable or
controllable, and can lead to adverse health
or environmental consequences.
Much of Section 1, Part (4) text taken from Proposition 37, Section 1, Part a.
The “right to know” has been a debatable topic in GMO labeling, dependent on perceived costs,
benefits and risks. The implication here, however, is that consumers have this right because the process
of genetic modification is dangerous and uncontrollable. All crop breeding techniques, including those
used prior to GE, can lead to unintended results. Relative to these traditional crop breeding techniques,
however, GE methods are more precise and controlled. Genetic engineering processes are very specific
in the changes made, typically involving only one or two genes. Because specific genes are targeted, the
functional changes are anticipated ahead of time. Traditional techniques, however, may use processes
such as outcrossing of varieties or mutagenesis through irradiation and chemicals. These methods
induce simultaneous multiple changes in the genetic structure that are random in nature with unknown
and unpredictable outcomes. Traditional breeding programs on crop plants such as potato, celery and
kiwi, for example, have resulted in unintended and harmful effects in the past . Admittedly, GE
methodologies, like all breeding methods, may occasionally produce undesirable traits, however, they
are unlikely to reach the marketplace because they are heavily scrutinized and tested for adverse effects
prior to release.
The mixing of plant, animal or viral/bacterial genes is actually quite common in nature. The
complete genome of a bacterium (Wolbachia), for example, has been found nested within the
chromosomes of the common fruit fly, drosophila. Viral components (endogenous retroviruses or ERVs)
are commonly found in many vertebrates and can encompass a large proportion of their genetic code.
Pea aphids have been shown to have acquired fungal genes for coloration as well. Snake genomic
features have also been recently observed in cattle. Such examples of horizontal transfer of genetic
material across phylogenetic categories are numerous and considered by some to be an important
mechanism in the natural process of evolution . There is no reason to expect or suspect that this process
would necessarily create adverse health or environmental consequences more than any other type of
genetic transfer processes .
(5) United States government scientists have
stated that the artificial insertion of genetic material into plants, a
technique unique to genetic engineering, can cause a variety of significant
problems with plant foods. Such genetic engineering can increase the levels
of known toxicants in foods and introduce new toxicants and health concerns.
Much of Section 1, Part (5) text taken from Proposition 37, Section 1, Part b.
Without a reference, it is unclear where this comes from. The United States implements GM
technology more than any other nation and private, academic and US government scientists broadly and
openly support genetic engineering efforts. Over the many years of GMO use, globally and in the US,
scientific investigation into potential toxicants or health concerns have all proved negative or been
exposed in regulatory testing programs. When problems have been identified, development of the
products in question has ceased (see for example the example of Brazil nut genes introduced into
soybean ). Scientists did recognize early on that the safety of this technology is important and should be
monitored. Self imposed regulation and restrictions were set in place as early as 1988. The implication
of this statement that the GE process is uncontrolled and that scientists are generally unsupportive of
GE is unfounded.
(6) Forty-nine countries, including Japan,
South Korea, China, Australia, New
Zealand, Thailand, Russia, the European
Union member states, and other key United
States trading partners, have laws mandating
disclosure of genetically engineered foods on
food labels. Many countries have restrictions
or bans against foods produced with genetic engineering.
Section 1, Part (6) text similar to Proposition 37, Section 1, Part f. The number of countries differs,
however.
Many countries do implement GMO labeling, although the number reported seems to vary from
around 40 to as many as 61 (Proposition 37 reports 50 in a similar section). Regardless of the number,
the details of these labeling laws often differ from I-522. In the European Union, for example, tolerance
levels for unintended GMO contents are set at 0.9% (EU GMO Regulation ). While I-522 imposes this
limit initially, it will eventually require a zero tolerance level after July 1st 2019, a practical impossibility.
Note that in I-522, this will apply even in cases of unintended GMO use. After this time, any errant
producer or reseller, large or small, will be held accountable without a label. Assuming that the
detection abilities for genetic material will only increase with time, and that transfer of genetic material
across phylogenetic constructs is quite liberal in nature, it virtually guaranteed that problematic genetic
material will eventually be detectable in any product. The zero tolerance aspect of this initiative creates
a condition that is impossible for any producer, GMO or not, to meet.
Several countries currently do restrict or ban GMO products. These restrictions, however, are
not as complete as implied, however. European Union members, for example, regularly approve and
import GMO products intended for animal feed. Many of these countries also have both privately and
publicly funded GMO research programs (see, for example, the GMO approval database).
Despite the intentions of this line of argument, the existence of laws outside of the State of
Washington or the United States is a poor guide. In most cases, other countries have imposed such laws
based on widely criticized science, political pressure from groups opposed to GM technology, fear of
corporate influence, or as a protection for their agricultural producers.
(7) No international agreements prohibit the
mandatory identification of foods produced
through genetic engineering.
Section 1, Part (7) text coincides with Proposition 37, Section 1, Part f.
This is currently true. Regulations mandating labeling would impose no legal restrictions on
export commodities. Buyers, sellers and brokers for exported commodities, however, already contend
with international laws regarding GMOs. Therefore, the existence of a labeling law, particularly one at
the State level that does not require testing for genetically modified components, would have no impact
on international trade.
(8) Numerous foreign markets with restrictions against
foods produced through genetic engineering have
restricted imports of United States crops due to
concerns about genetic engineering. Some foreign
markets are choosing to purchase agricultural
products from countries other than the United
States because genetically engineered crops
are not identified in the United States, making
it impossible for buyers to distinguish
what does or does not meet their national labeling
laws or restrictions, rendering United
States’ products less desirable. Trade losses
are estimated at billions of dollars. Mandatory
identification of foods produced with
genetic engineering can be a critical method
for preserving the economic value of exports
to markets with restrictions and prohibitions
against genetic engineering.
Section 1, Part (8) text not found in Proposition 37.
As mentioned above, restrictions and bans have not prevented these countries from importing
GM products. GM animal feeds (primarily soybean) are openly sought by many countries, including the
European Union. For commodities intended for human consumption, it is unlikely that a State level
regulation will influence international trade. Buyers and exporters of such items are likely to certify the
quality and contents of the products they handle themselves. The ‘mandatory identification’ referred to
above would be provided by the buyers and exporters testing the materials themselves for the security
of their business transactions. The billions of dollars in trade implied would not be casually gambled on
a State mandated label that does not even require testing for GMO content. State level labeling is not
now, and would not be in the future, critical to preserving economic value. The initiative is intended for
Washington State consumers, not international markets. This statement goes beyond the intended
scope of the initiative.
(9) Industry data shows foods identified
as produced without genetic engineering,
including conventional foods identified this
way, are the fastest growing label claim.
Consumers have a right to an informed choice
at the point of sale.
Section 1, Part (9) text not found in Proposition 37.
This is an odd claim to make in an initiative pleading for mandatory labeling. If true (no
reference is given), and voluntary use of such labels is so popular, why should the State make them
mandatory? Why impose regulation where it is not needed? This statement implies that any consumers
‘right to know’ is already being addressed by producers without the need for further regulation and that
the ability to distinguish GMO/non-GMO products from one another already exists.
(10) Farmers from a wheat growing region
of the state have gathered more than two
thousand six hundred signatures on a petition
demanding mandatory disclosure for crops
produced with genetic engineering. The
farmers are concerned they will lose their
wheat export markets if genetically engineered
wheat is approved.
Section 1, Part (10) text not found in Proposition 37.
This is clearly a play by the author(s) to gain voter traction in Central and Eastern Washington
where there are large farming operations (Wheat, Potato, Onion, and Apples). These regions of
Washington State are historically very conservative and often heavily influenced by Libertarian and Tea
Party politics that would not be expected to support an initiative that imposes expanded government
regulation on growers, producers and retailers. The case is not closed regarding labeling, however. The
agricultural sector in Washington is keenly aware of negative public perceptions. Washington State
apple growers, for example, suffered large financial losses in the 1970’s after a scare concerning a plant
growth regulator, Alar. Potato growers were also preemptively frightened away from GM potatoes after
activist groups pressured fast food and processing companies into banning GMO products banning GMO
products. This supporting statement seems designed to leverage the fears and sensitivities of
Washington growers and marketers towards the initiative. Support, however, would be damaging to
growers in the long run. Diseases such as late blight in potato and fire blight in apples are a continuing
problem for which conventional control measures are few. Genetic modification techniques, however,
offer hope for both potato and apple.
The effects of mandatory State labeling on export markets is not clear. As stated earlier, it is
unlikely that buyers and exporters would rely on a State level labeling requirement for product quality
assurance, especially when the measure does not mandate product testing. Furthermore, clearly
labeled non-GMO, organic grains are already sold and promoted as such for sale within and outside of
Washington State with no problems (see: Bluebird Grain Farms or Organic grains in Washington , for
example). Initiative I-522 will do nothing to enhance the market size or value for Washington State
commodities. Additionally, there are indications that some farmers elsewhere have no interest in
mandatory labeling, despite the claims made in the initiative.
(11) Agriculture is Washington’s number one
employer and wheat is Washington’s number
two export crop, second only to goods and
services produced by the Boeing company,
and ahead of Microsoft, which ranks third.
Section 1, Part (11) text not found in Proposition 37.
This is a continued attempt to portray the farming community as threatened without
justification as to how a State level labeling law would influence multinational export trade. See 10)
above. This is at odds with the experience of other farmers across the United States who have found
that the use of GM products has helped strengthen and secure their economic positions. There is no
reason to imply otherwise other than to frighten voters into supporting the measure.
(12) Preserving the identity, quality,
and reliability of Washington’s agricultural
products is of prime importance to our
state’s fiscal health.
Section 1, Part (12) text not found in Proposition 37.
Product identity is important, but the labeling initiative would not provide or enhance this.
Producers desiring the identity of “Non-GMO” already have services available to them through private
agencies such as The Non-GMO Project or official certification using the USDA Organic designations.
Mandatory GMO labeling is not required to accomplish this identity. Since the initiative requires only
GMO products to carry a label, products lacking labels would have no identity with ‘GMO free’ outside
the State of Washington. Even with the initiative in place, producers of these products would still need
to implement one of the above designations or similar in order to achieve the desired identity. I-522
does nothing to enhance product identity, quality or reliability.
(13) The cultivation of genetically engineered
crops can cause serious impacts
to the environment. For example, most
genetically engineered crops are designed
to withstand weed killing herbicides. As
a result, genetically engineered crops have
caused hundreds of millions of pounds of
additional herbicides to be applied to the
nation’s farmland. The massive increase in
use of these herbicides has caused emergence
of herbicide-resistant weeds, which
have infested farm fields and roadsides,
complicating weed control for farmers and
encouraging use of increasingly toxic and
more dangerous herbicides. These toxic
herbicides damage the vitality of the soil,
contaminate drinking water supplies, and
pose health risks to consumers and farmworkers.
The public should have the choice
to avoid purchasing foods produced in ways
that can lead to such harm.
Section 1, Part (13) text taken almost verbatim from Proposition 37, Section 1, Part h.
The idea the GMOs are inexorably linked to herbicide tolerance is one of the most persistent
claims of anti-GMO supporters. In truth, however, they are not. Herbicide tolerant traits can and are
introduced into crops using non-GE techniques. BASF, for example, markets an entire line of crops
including rice, wheat, canola, corn, sunflowers, and lentils that are tolerant of the herbicide Beyond® ,
developed using the process of mutagenesis, not GE (BASF Clearfield products ). They are marketed as
Non-GMO products. Even if GMO products were completely banned, herbicide tolerant crops and the
potential problems associated with them would still exist. The trait is simply too valuable to farmers and
producers to abandon. The vagueness of the proposed label would not enable a consumer to avoid
GMO herbicide resistance traits because they are not explicitly designated as such on the label.
Farmers and agricultural scientists have been aware of herbicide resistant weeds for many
years, predating the existence of GE crops. Their management and control has, therefore, been a topic
of discussion for many years and effective strategies to minimize their impact have been subsequently
developed. Agricultural university extension offices and consultants, for example, routinely advise and
make material available to growers on the use of best practice methods for controlling resistant pests.
Producers of GMO seeds include legal clauses in their contracts with growers, mandating they use
accepted management strategies for controlling resistant pests. Even with these measures in place,
researchers continue to evaluate and investigate new management techniques. No pest control method
is immune to development of resistance. Weed control through tillage and rotation, for example, have
encouraged resistance through crop mimicry and seed dormancy. Diamondback moths exposed to the
popular organic insect control, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) have shown resistance on at least one occasion.
Pest resistance is not a problem that is unique to GE crops and the means to effectively counter it are
well known and used in practice.
The concept of measuring herbicide (or pesticide) use through simple weights is a non-standard
method for measuring product use that has unfortunately been popularized by C. Benbrook in his
alarmist anti-GMO publications. For this reason, among many others, these publications have been
shown to be inaccurate and misleading. Because pesticides vary in molecular weight, formulation,
efficacy, toxicity, and environmental impact, measuring their impact on a simple weight to weight basis
has no meaning or relevance. More appropriate measures such as the Environmental Impact Quotient
(EIQ) are a much better choice. These measures jointly account for important factors such as the levels
of active ingredients (ai), their toxicity, and their environmental effects (EIQ ). Using this type of metric,
it can be shown that use of GE technology to replace an environmentally toxic herbicide like atrazine
with a safer alternative, glyphosate, is beneficial (see for example: Brookes and Barfoot 2012). Likewise,
genetic modification of crops to express environmentally benign Bt toxins in order to replace multiple
applications of toxic insecticides, provides a vast improvement in environmental and human health
concerns. Accurate assessments of the potential environmental impacts of pesticide usage should be
based on complete information and not simple “pounds used” comparisons.
This supportive I-522 statement is designed to identify GE technology as different from other
agricultural practices and cast it as an environmentally dangerous alternative. The truth is, however,
that GE technology can, in fact, be a much more environmentally friendly choice. The value of its
benefits must be judged on a case by case basis and not summarily dumped into an ‘all are bad’
category.
(14) United States department of agriculture
data shows Washington state ranks second
in the nation for organic farm-gate sales at
two hundred eighty-one million dollars per
year. While total United States food sales
are virtually stagnant, growing less than one
percent overall, the organic food industry grew
at 7.7 percent according to 2010 data. Sales of
organic fruits and vegetables increased eleven
and eight-tenths percent, accounting for
approximately twelve percent of all United
States’ fruit and vegetable sales. Organic
dairy, another key industry in Washington
state, grew at nine percent and comprises nearly
six percent of the total United States dairy
market. Organic farmers are prohibited from
using genetically engineered seeds or livestock feed.
Section 1, Part (14) text similar to, but more elaborate than Proposition 37, Section 1, Part i and
Part j.
(15) Trade industry data shows the organic
industry is creating jobs at four times the
national rate.
(16) Published data shows organic farming
is more profitable and economically secure
than conventional farming over the long
term. This important element of Washington’s
economy must be protected.
Section 1, Part (15) and Section (16) text not found in Proposition 37.
Section 1, Parts (14) through (16) are primarily promotional material for organic farming
methods and have no direct relevance to I-522. As stated in Section 1, Part (14), organic producers do
not use GM products, hence they are labeled as non-GMO by default and are not influenced by the
direct labeling of GMO products. The implication and claim in Section 1, Part(16) is that GM somehow
threatens organic producers. There has been much talk about the possibility “GMO contamination”,
however, such claims are overstated as explained in this post and associated comments. Farmers and
producers routinely take precautions to prevent contamination in the crops that can cross pollinate. In
addition, some states have already implemented guidelines for controlling contamination where it might
occur. More to the point, it is not possible that a labeling initiative such as I-522 could or will address
these issues. These concerns must be, and are, dealt with through other means.
(17) Conventional farmers have a right to
choose what crops they grow and many conventional
farmers want to grow traditional
crops developed without genetic engineering.
Identifying seeds and seed stock
produced with genetic engineering would
protect farmers’ rights to know what they are
purchasing and protect their right to choose
what they grow.
Section 1, Part (17) text not found in Proposition 37.
This is straw man argument and simply a non issue. Conventional farmers can already plant
whatever they think is best for their situation and there is no reason to think they would not be able to
in the future. Many plant both GM and non-GM crops simultaneously (see for example:
eatocracy.cnn.com ). The vast majority of farmers plant seed or seed stock that is already certified by
the USDA or state agencies to be what it says it is. This ensures they get a uniform quality crop free of
weed seeds and other pests. Seed sold with certification is already clearly labeled and identified as GM
or not. In some areas, there is even a trend towards farmers moving back to non-GMO crops because
the enhanced GE traits previously employed have been so effective that they are no longer needed.
From: http://www.greenbook.net/news/Non-GMO-corn-has-its-place-186468351.html
Jon Lundgren, Ph.D., entomologist with the USDA Agricultural Research Service in South Dakota, said, in
general, there seems to be a “developing market for non-GM corn.”
“Bt technology has been so effective for so long that we have eliminated the target pests in a lot of the
growing regions. The European corn borer has been driven to such low populations that farmers are starting to
wonder where did it go, and do I need to plant Bt corn every year. If the pest isn’t there, then the economic value
isn’t there for Bt hybrids.”
The additional labeling of seeds and seed stocks by I-522 would be redundant to existing labeling and
certification and would provide no additional information to producers.
(18) The purpose of this chapter is to ensure
people are fully informed about whether the
food they purchase and eat was produced
through genetic engineering so they may
choose for themselves whether to purchase
and eat such food. Identifying foods produced
through genetic engineering also will
help protect our state’s export market.
Section 1, Part (18) text similar to Proposition 37, Section 2.
The labeling proposed by I-522 is so general as to be useless for informing a consumer. The
labeling of products that qualify would contain no specific information on the type or nature of the
modification, nor the ingredient(s) modified, nor the amounts present. As shown below, the numerous
product exemptions granted by the labeling initiative would completely confound consumers’ efforts to
avoid GMO products based on only the information provided by I-522. Labeling information on non-
GMO product status is already voluntarily available to retailers and producers through the USDA Organic
designation or GMO testing organizations.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. The
definitions in this section apply throughout
this chapter unless the context clearly
requires otherwise.
Section 2 provides definitions for terms and phrases used in the initiative below. No comments
are given here. Refer to the Initiative text for more information.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. (1)
Beginning July 1, 2015, any food offered
for retail sale in Washington is misbranded
if it is, or may have been, entirely or partly
produced with genetic engineering and that
fact is not disclosed as follows:
(a) In the case of a raw agricultural commodity,
on the package offered for retail
sale, with the words “genetically engineered”
stated clearly and conspicuously on
the front of the package of such a commodity,
or in the case of such a commodity that
is not separately packaged or labeled, on a
label appearing on the retail store shelf or
bin where such a commodity is displayed
for sale;
Section 3, Part (1.a) is virtually identical to Section 3, 110809 (a.1) of Proposition 37, save a few
minor editorial changes.
The fact that raw commodities would be required to display GMO labeling on the front of the
package is troubling. Why the front of the package? Nutritional and health related labels are commonly
found together on the side or back of the packaging. Consumers know, through experience, where to
find this type of information, yet this section intentionally deviates from this and requires the label to be
on front, separated from other similar information. California Proposition 37 had a similar clause. A
legal analysis of that initiative stated:
“The government may compel purely factual disclosures to consumers for purposes of preventing
consumer deception. The disclosures required by Prop 37—simple statements indicating that the
product is genetically engineered—are factual in nature. But there is room for debate as to whether the
disclosures serve the state’s interest in preventing consumer deception.” (from: foodlawfirm.com).
In other words, if the information is factual (it is) and non-disclosure is intentionally trying to deceive a
consumer, the government can force a producer to say something. But there is a large doubt as to
whether producers are intentionally deceiving consumers. GMO products are commonly used in US
food items and their use is not a secret. As part of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, the
government cannot compel one to make unwarranted speech. Forcing producers to put a label on the
front of a package, in distinct area separate from other labeling information when no intent to deceive is
evident, would appear to be compelled speech. The legal analysis above concludes with “I predict that if
Prop 37 passes, the lawsuit challenging it will contain a First Amendment Element.” In all likelihood,
passage of I-522 will generate this First Amendment battle. The state will then be obligated to defend a
potentially unconstitutional law.
(b) In the case of any processed food, on the
front of the package of such food produced
by a manufacturer, with the words “partially
produced with genetic engineering” or “may
be partially produced with genetic engineering”
stated clearly and conspicuously; and
Section 3, Part (1.b) is essentially identical to Section 3, 110809 (a.2) of Proposition 37, with minor
editorial changes. One exception is evident: The requirement that labeling be placed on the
package front. Proposition 37 allowed for the label to appear either on the front or back of a
processed food package.
Again, as with raw food items, the labeling information for processed foods is specifically
required to be placed on the front of the package, unlike any other food related nutritional or health
information. This seems like a clear attempt to blatantly distinguish GMO items as markedly different
than non-GMO counterparts, contrary to the overwhelming scientific consensus and Federal legal status
of GMO foods. The required separate and prominent placement of a GMO label can be seen as an
attempt to scare consumers away from such products. There is evidential precedence for this possibility.
Consumers tend to overstate the importance of labels placed only on the front of a package and
separated from nutritional and health information. Given the common negative perceptions of genetic
engineering that have been established by anti-GMO efforts, the placement language in I-522 would
seem to go beyond the implied purpose of a consumers ‘Right to know’ and instead tend towards
consumer rejection of the labeled products. In implementing I-522, the state would be complacent in
actively denigrating certain products over others without justifiable cause. For these reasons, the
compelled speech arguments above should apply here as well.
Because the law has the ability impose substantial legal and financial consequences on
producers and retailers, the label of ‘may be partially produced with genetic engineering’ is likely to be
applied to most products by default simply to preemptively avoid such threats even at the cost of
customer appeal. Such wording would of little use to consumers, however, since it is not a guarantee
that GMO contents are or are not present. The only means for a consumer to guarantee the GMO
status of a product would be for them to purchase those labeled as Certified Organic or Non-GMO;
Labels that already exist. I-522 would provide no additional services to those that are already in place.
(c) In the case of any seed or seed stock, on
the seed or seed stock container, sales receipt
or any other reference to identification,
ownership, or possession, with the words
“genetically engineered” or “produced with
genetic engineering” stated clearly and
conspicuously.
The content of Section 3, Part(1.c) is not present in Proposition 37.
As outlined in section 1, Part (17) above, this is redundant with current practice and government
certification of seeds and seed stocks. Seed companies such as Monsanto, for example, clearly labels all
their GMO products as such because that quality is a strong selling point for their farming customers.
This section may be present only as an aide in helping support and enforce the required chain of
documentation necessitated by later sections of the bill.
(2) Subsections (1) and (3) of this section
do not require either the listing or identification
of any ingredient or ingredients that
were genetically engineered, nor that the
term “genetically engineered” be placed immediately
preceding any common name or
primary product descriptor of a food.
Section 2 is primarily the same as Section 3, 110809 (a.2.b.) of Proposition 37.
This portion of the initiative continues the removal of any useful label information for the
consumer. The labeling will not provide any clue as to what ingredient(s) are modified. Referring back
to Section 1- Part (1), Section 1- Part(3), and Section 1- Part(13), arguments are made that labeling
would help: consumers avoid religious and dietary conflicts, aid the state in tracking health problems,
and identify crop products that are herbicide tolerant. The lack of specific information regarding GMO
content, however, clearly makes these initial claims false. The vague labeling provided by I-522 provides
no useful information to consumers or state officials.
(3) Subsection (1) of this section does not
apply to any of the following:
Like its California predecessor, I-522 provides a long list of exemptions, often targeted at politically
and economically powerful agricultural and food sectors. Section 3, similar to Proposition 37
Section 3, 110809.2, begins this list.
(a) Food consisting entirely of, or derived
entirely from, an animal that has not itself
been genetically engineered, regardless of
whether the animal has been fed or injected
with any food produced with genetic engineering
or any drug that has been produced
through means of genetic engineering;
Section 2, Part(3.a) is based on Section 3, 110809.2.a of Proposition 37.
Here an exemption is conveniently given to the entire dairy, livestock, poultry (meat and eggs)
as well as farmed seafood industries where the animals may be fed, injected or treated with GMO
products indiscriminately with no adverse consequences from the law. It is notable, and probably no
coincidence, that these industries comprise up to 30% of Washington State’s agricultural income and
constitute a powerful lobbying group in state politics. The author(s) of I-522 clearly want to avoid
conflicts with these groups.
(b) A raw agricultural commodity or food
that has been grown, raised, produced, or
derived without the knowing and intentional
use of genetically engineered seed or
food. To be included within the exclusion
under this subsection, the person supplying
a raw agricultural commodity or food
must provide a sworn statement that the raw
agricultural commodity or food: (i) Has not
been knowingly or intentionally produced
through genetic engineering; and (ii) has
been segregated from, and has not been
knowingly or intentionally commingled
with, foods that may have been genetically
engineered at any time. In providing such
a sworn statement, a person may rely on a
sworn statement from his or her own supplier
that contains such an affirmation;
Section 2, Part(3.b) is closely based on Section 3, 110809.2.b of Proposition 37.
Section 2, Part(3.b) outlines the immunity of producers who inadvertently violate the law. The
caveat is that producers must be able to provide sworn documentation that each and every ingredient
used is GMO free (see Section 3, Part(1.c) above, for example). As with Proposition 37, this section will
induce substantial book and record keeping for producers. Such documentation must be available for all
production periods, commodity lots, and years of production, as long as the products are on retailer
shelves. Large retailers and producers can probably incur the costs of maintaining this documentation
with little trouble. Smaller businesses, particularly artisan and home based operations, however, would
find these additional regulations cumbersome and expensive. Consider, for example, a small retailer at
a booth in the world famous Pike Street Market selling a relish, salsa, preserve or similar product. Such
people would have to keep track of every ingredient they used in their products, documenting the
source and potential GMO content of each. Likely, they would have made the product multiple times,
with different sources for their materials each time. Yet, they will be required to have documentation
available for each and every instance. This is far too cumbersome for such small producers who will
have little choice but to submit to the “potentially contains GMO” labeling, whether it is true or not.
Even if they were to decide to source materials from more expensive organic or certified Non-GMO
ingredients, they would still need to have proof available to demonstrate this. Small producers are left
in a no win situation, regardless of their stance on GMO. Failing to document is not an alternative, as
substantial, potentially crippling fines and legal consequences can be levied against them at any time, by
any willing party, as mandated in the sections to follow.
It is clear that I-522 will place burdensome and binding inhibitions on small businesses who
desire to sell food products in Washington State. This is in contrast to the numerous exemptions given
to large agricultural and food interests removing any liability they may have for GMO contents. Again,
the State would find itself complacent in promoting one sector of agricultural business over another for
no justifiable reason.
(c) Any processed food that would be
subject to this section solely because one or
more processing aids or enzymes were produced
or derived with genetic engineering;
Section , Part(3.c) is closely based on Section 3, 110809.2.c of Proposition 37.
Another broad exemption which excuses food industry products such as cheese, yoghurt and
bakery products that may use enzymatic components in production. These enzymes are often
manufactured through GM technologies. Up to 80% to 90% of cheeses made in the US and Britain, for
example, are made using a GM based rennet product. These exemptions provide another chance to
avoid conflict with economically important and powerful sectors of the agricultural community, many of
which often portray themselves as natural and organic producers.
(d) Any alcoholic beverage that is subject to
regulation under Title 66 RCW;
Section 2, Part(3.d) is closely based on Section 3, 110809.2.d of Proposition 37.
Washington State is regarded as number two in production of premium wines giving a 3 billion
dollar boost to the state economy in 2006. Since regulatory changes in 2008, distilleries are also
becoming a large business in Washington State. It is no surprise then that an exemption is also granted
to such operations. These producers may use GMO products at will in their products without bothering
with the labeling requirements specified in I-522.
(e) Until July 1, 2019, any processed food
that would be subject to this section solely
because it includes one or more materials
produced by genetic engineering, provided
that the engineered materials in the aggregate
do not account for more than ninetenths of one percent of the total weight of
the processed food;
Section 2, Part(3.e) is similar to Section 3, 110809.2.e of Proposition 37.
This clause introduces a time limit (exactly the same as Proposition 37) to the tolerance of 0.9%
GMO in affected products. After this time, the implication is that no GMO will be permitted, although
obtaining such a zero tolerance level is practically impossible. This will make application of the law
difficult at best after the stated deadline. This appears to be an underlying attempt to an eventual
outright ban on GMO products.
(f) Food that an independent organization
has determined has not been knowingly and
intentionally produced from or commingled
with genetically engineered seed or genetically
engineered food, provided that such
a determination has been made pursuant to
a sampling and testing procedure approved
for this purpose in rules adopted by the
department. These rules may not approve
a sampling and testing procedure unless
it is consistent with sampling and testing
principles recommended by internationally
recognized standards organizations, such as
the international standards association and
the grain and feed trade association. No
testing procedure may be approved by the
department unless: (i) It does not rely on
testing processed foods in which no deoxyribonucleic
acid is detectable; and (ii) it is
consistent with the most recent “Guidelines
on Performance Criteria and Validation of
Methods for Detection, Identification and
Quantification of Specific DNA Sequences
and Specific Proteins in Foods” (CAC/GL
74, 2010) published by the codex alimentarius
commission;
Section 2, Part(3.f) is similar to Section 3, 110809.2.f of Proposition 37.
This provision allows for private testing entities to give producers a non-GMO certified status.
These agents, such as the Non-GMO Project typically provide the certification on a pay-to-play basis.
Again, the producer will be expected to fund any costs of certification and be required to keep track of
the associated documentation to avoid coverage and legal consequences of I-522. Labeling laws provide
an attractive business opportunity for these groups. Not surprisingly, such organizations were vigorous
supporters of Proposition 37 and can be expected to offer strong support of I-522.
(g) Food that has been lawfully certified to
be labeled, marketed, and offered for sale
as “organic” pursuant to the federal organic
foods production act of 1990 and the regulations
promulgated pursuant thereto by the
United States department of agriculture;
Section 2, Part(3.g) is similar to Section 3, 110809.2.g of Proposition 37.
This section exempts certified organic producers who are prohibited by Federal law from using
GMO anyway.
(h) Food that is not packaged for retail
sale and that either: (i) Is a processed food
prepared and intended for immediate human
consumption; or (ii) is served, sold, or
otherwise provided in any restaurant or other
food service establishment that is engaged
primarily in the sale of food prepared and
intended for immediate human consumption;
or
Section 2, Part(3.h) is similar to Section 3, 110809.2.h of Proposition 37.
Probably the most substantial exemption in I-522, Section 2, Part(3.h) provides a free I-522 pass
to all restaurants. Americans are estimated to eat out an average of 5 times a week and spend as much
as $142 billion on fast food alone. By providing an exemption to the restaurant industry, I-522
proponents avoid a massive conflict with this prominent and economically powerful sector of the food
economy. Consumers who dine out, however, will find no use in the I-522 labeling initiative as chefs,
cooks and restaurateurs will be able to use any and all of the GMO ingredients they desire, without
informing their patrons. This makes the “Right to know” argument pointless for most citizens.
Proposition 37 saw a long list of celebrity chefs sign on as supporters, and with good reason; Their
businesses would have been free of any obligation to comply with the labeling law. It would be
expected that Washington State, with its well known and revered chefs and restaurants, will also attract
a list of food centric celebrities who support I-522. They too, will be immune to its consequences,
should it pass.
(i) Medical food.
Section 2, Part(3.i) is the same as Section 3, 110809.2.i of Proposition 37.
The last of the exemptions list. It is somewhat perversely amusing that an initiative that was
earlier so concerned with dietary restrictions, allergens, adverse health effects, and unintended health
consequences, should so casually and succinctly give an exemption that allows those under medical care
to be fed GMOs without informing them. Apparently, eating GMOs is ok if one is sick and under medical
supervision. They evidently do not qualify for the “Right to know’.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. The
department may adopt rules necessary to
implement this chapter, provided that the
department is not authorized to create any
exemptions beyond those provided in section
3(3) of this act.
Section 4 is equivalent to Section 3, 110809.3 of Proposition 37.
The State may use any regulatory measures required to enforce I-522, but it cannot adjust or
modify the exemptions it covers. Once made law and surviving any legal challenges, changes to the
regulations would be difficult. Voters may offer a veto referendum (an initiative to repeal a law), but
not immediately: From ballotpedia.org– “In Washington, no initiated statute may be amended or
repealed for two years without a 2/3 supermajority vote of both chambers. Any initiated law, so
amended, is not subject to veto referendum. After two years, the law may be repealed or amended by a
simple majority vote.”
NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. (1)
The department, acting through the attorney
general, may bring an action in a court of
competent jurisdiction to enjoin any person
violating this chapter. (2) The department
may assess a civil penalty against any person
violating this chapter in an amount not to
exceed one thousand dollars per day. Each
day of violation is considered a separate violation.(
3) An action to enjoin a violation of
this chapter may be brought in any court of
competent jurisdiction by any person in the
public interest if the action is commenced
more than sixty days after the person has
given notice of the alleged violation to the
department, the attorney general, and to the
alleged violator.(4) The court may award to
a prevailing plaintiff reasonable costs and
attorneys’ fees incurred in investigating and
prosecuting an action to enforce this chapter.
Section 5 is equivalent to Section 3, 110809.4 and Section 4,111910, Parts (a), (b) and (c) of
Proposition 37.
Section 5 describes the legal claws of the measure. In Parts (1) and (2), the state is authorized to
bring a legal suit against a producer or retailer and seek financial penalties at the rate of $1000 per day.
Each day is considered a separate violation, requiring the defendant to account for all days that the
plaintiff claims are in violation. Recall from Section 2, Part(3.b) that this means the defendant will be
required to produce the documented sworn statements for all the days in question. Failure to show
such documentation for even one day could still amount to a substantial fine. This is another example
where I-522 will place a heavy burden on small producers and retailers.
Parts (3) and (4) are similar to the clauses in Proposition 37 (Section 4, 111910, Parts (a) and (b))
that received extensive debate and attention. These Parts of I-522 allow anyone to initiate court
proceedings against a defendant, if the defendant fails to produce documentation or submit to labeling
requirements within 60 days of notification to the state. Once undertaken, the court can determine that
the plaintiff’s legal and investigative costs be taken from the defendant. In California, this was seen as
an opening for frivolous lawsuits by anyone having the gumption to legally attack another. This seems
to be a possibility in Washington as well. By extending the action of this law to the general citizenry, the
initiative author(s) have potentially opened a legal doorway for unnecessary and costly legal actions.
Perhaps a more troubling aspect of Section 5 is that it represents a complete antithesis to the
conceptual basis of US law where a defendant is assumed innocent until proved guilty. In the case of I522, the plaintiff merely needs to make the complaint. No evidence is required. The burden of proof is
placed squarely on the defendant, even during the 60 day grace period. They will either submit to the
implied guilt of a “may contain GMO” label or be forced to defend themselves in a costly legal battle. For
this reason, and the potentially costly financial and legal consequences imposed by the bill, it is likely
that most producers will preemptively opt to label all their products with the “may contain GMO”
designation. In doing so, they would remove their own liability while simultaneously destroying what
little utility the label might have provided in guiding consumer purchases. Retailers and producers
would be left to comply with a useless regulation while consumers would gain nothing except the
burden of paying for enforcement and the underlying product costs.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 6. Sections
1 through 5 of this act constitute a new
chapter in Title 70 RCW.
Section 6 is equivalent to Section 5 of Proposition 37.
If passed into law, I-522 would become part of Washington’s Public Health and Safety
regulations (Title 70 RCW). The initiative provides no funding mechanism for the required
monitoring or enforcement actions.
NEW SECTION.
any provision
any person or
the remainder
the provision
Sec. 7. If
of this act or its application to
circumstance is held invalid,
of the act or the application of
to other persons or circumstances
is not affected.
Section 7 is equivalent to Section 6 of Proposition 37.
Provision is given that the entire law cannot be struck down if one part of it is found to be
invalid. This is a standard clause in initiatives to ensure that a single faceted legal challenge will not
defeat the entire law.