GMO labeling supporters fined $320K over campaign disclosure

[THE Bigzoman]

An Iowa-based organization that supported a Washington state ballot measure to require labeling of genetically modified foods in 2013 has been fined nearly $320,000 over campaign finance violations.

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson said Thurston County Superior Court Judge Gary Tabor issued the fine Monday against Food Democracy Action. The group must also pay the state's legal fees and trial costs.

Earlier this month, another Thurston County judge ordered the initiative's opponents, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, to pay $18 million in civil fines for concealing the true sources of $11 million in contributions received from some of the nation's biggest food and beverage companies.

Ferguson said Food Democracy Action collected almost $300,000 from its supporters and transferred $200,000 of that to support Initiative 522, but didn't register its political action committee or identify its 3,100 donors until after the election. The initiative failed.

The organization did not immediately return calls seeking comment.

http://www.kwwl.com/story/33768231/g...ign-disclosure


A stupid group; with stupid people; run a stupid campaign; and run it stupidly.

Why am I not Surprised?

[THE Bigzoman]

Why is an Iowa based group trying to change laws in Washington?

[Milchshake]

A stupid group; with stupid people; run a stupid campaign; and run it stupidly.

Why am I not Surprised?

So the Pro GMO forces got fined $18 million.

The Anti GMO guys got fined $320k.


Which one is supposed to be the stupid one?

[WintersLegion]

Why is an Iowa based group trying to change laws in Washington?

Because if they can get it changed in one state that opens the door to changing it in others.

[Lockula]

Why is an Iowa based group trying to change laws in Washington?

They might have suspected a high anti GMO percentage of the population might have lived in Washington. Most likely the Seattle area.

[Oktoberfest]

GMO shit should be labeled

[the game]

Anti-GMO stupid idiots, you just made the list.

Ok Jericho.

[Garnier Fructis]

So the Pro GMO forces got fined $18 million.

The Anti GMO guys got fined $320k.


Which one is supposed to be the stupid one?

The Anti-GMO ones, by dint of being anti-GMO.

[Deleted]

So pretty much:
An organisation, which has a cause i don't agree with, has been fined for buerocratic "errors", which have nothing to do with the cause at hand.
And now you came here to gloat over that?

This tells more about you, than them.

I'm not pro or anti GMO; but i'm for GMO-labeling. The customer should have more information when choosing what he wants to buy; regardless for whatever misguided reason he seems to think A is worse than B.

[Milchshake]

The Anti-GMO ones, by dint of being anti-GMO.

Im gonna go with the guys trying to hide 11 million in funding. Not only dumb, but makes you look more shady. They were too embarrassed to be funded by the makers of Sunny Delight for some reason.

[Docturphil]

I'm not pro or anti GMO; but i'm for GMO-labeling. The customer should have more information when choosing what he wants to buy; regardless for whatever misguided reason he seems to think A is worse than B.

Why should GMO labeling be required tho? There is no evidence that it's harmful; there's boat loads of evidence on the contrary. So what's special about GMO products that they should require a label? Until there is clear evidence that it could be harmful (which there will never be because there's already decades of data), then it shouldn't require a label specifying that.

If people really want to know more about the product they can research the brand on the internet.

[May90]

Not sure why people advocating for GMO labeling are considered anti-GMO... They are only asking for labeling, not for banning/restricting GMOs. As silly as this idea is, a person supporting GMO products very well might be advocating for this as well.

[Deleted]

Why should GMO labeling be required tho? There is no evidence that it's harmful; there's boat loads of evidence on the contrary. So what's special about GMO products that they should require a label? Until there is clear evidence that it could be harmful (which there will never be because there's already decades of data), then it shouldn't require a label specifying that.

If people really want to know more about the product they can research the brand on the internet.

For the sole reason of providing 1st hand information to the customer.
Just how often do you go to a shop, see something you may be interested in, pull out your phone and google it?
Like i said in the quoted post:
The reason might be misguided, but information needs to be provided without additional work.

Another matter: Do you really belive what you read on the internet? In a lot of cases the internet is a bad source.

Not sure why people advocating for GMO labeling are considered anti-GMO... They are only asking for labeling, not for banning/restricting GMOs. As silly as this idea is, a person supporting GMO products very well might be advocating for this as well.

Indeed. People just want to know what they are buying without having to go trough the hoops of researching the whole thing and filtering data on how likely it is to be true; which can be very difficult with the internet.

[Gestopft]

Not sure why people advocating for GMO labeling are considered anti-GMO... They are only asking for labeling, not for banning/restricting GMOs. As silly as this idea is, a person supporting GMO products very well might be advocating for this as well.

Requiring a label adds credibility to the unfounded notion that GMOs are bad. It damages the reputation of a very promising science that will in all likelihood be vital to feeding the world as the population continues to grow.

Companies that want to advertise as non-GMO can feel free to do so, but there is no need to require labels just to satisfy people who aren't scientifically literate. I live in Washington and had to convince several friends of mine to vote against I-522.

[Super Kami Dende]

Anti-GMO people are retards anyway. So I find this hilarious.

[Gestopft]

Why is an Iowa based group trying to change laws in Washington?

Proposing laws for different states isn't unheard of- see groups like ALEC

In this case, it's likely that there are non-GMO growers in Iowa could stand to profit by supporting laws like this around the country. Washington was a good place to try and start something like this.

[Milchshake]

Proposing laws for different states isn't unheard of- see groups like ALEC

In this case, it's likely that there are non-GMO growers in Iowa could stand to profit by supporting laws like this around the country. Washington was a good place to try and start something like this.

As opposed to the Pro-GMO group based in Washington DC, that spent $11 million dollars trying to influence the vote. Then got fined $18 million for trying to conceal where the $11 million came from.

I know all the cool kids like to always say "buh both sides are bad"... we're not even getting that now.


I mean growing non GMO crops seems like harder work. It seems rational that that non-GMO growers want to distinguish their product.

[Garnier Fructis]

I know all the cool kids like to always say "buh both sides are bad"... we're not even getting that now.

There's no false equivalence to be had here. Non-GMO are simply worse.

[Mayhem]

Requiring a label adds credibility to the unfounded notion that GMOs are bad. It damages the reputation of a very promising science that will in all likelihood be vital to feeding the world as the population continues to grow.

Companies that want to advertise as non-GMO can feel free to do so, but there is no need to require labels just to satisfy people who aren't scientifically literate. I live in Washington and had to convince several friends of mine to vote against I-522.

Denying a label adds credibility to the unfounded notion that GMOs are better. They don´t have higher yield per acre, so how are they a very promising science that will in all likelihood be vital to feeding the world?

[Kapadons]

Denying a label adds credibility to the unfounded notion that GMOs are better. They don´t have higher yield per acre, so how are they a very promising science that will in all likelihood be vital to feeding the world?

Not sure how often you walk into a grocery store, but it would be much easier to label everything that was "non-GMO" than it would be everything that is GMO. And shit loads of products already have a "non-gmo" label added to the box by either the manufacturers or the grocery store itself to appeal to people with limited knowledge of the subject.