Boulder a surprising naysayer on GMO labeling initiative

If there was one place in Colorado where it seems that Proposition 105, a food-labeling initiative, would have been successful, Boulder County, with its booming natural and organic foods sector, would have been it.

Instead, those who opposed the ballot measure that would have mandated the labeling of packaged foods produced with genetically modified organisms were celebrating a resounding victory. The measure was voted down by nearly a 2-to-1 margin, winning in all but three counties. Even in Boulder County, the measure failed by more than 4,000 votes.

Such broad success, say 105’s opponents, was largely attributable to the wide spectrum of people who spoke out against the measure, from farmers to food producers, scientists and many of the state’s major newspapers.

SPONSORED CONTENT

How Platte River Power Authority is accelerating its energy transition

Platte River Power Authority, the community-owned wholesale electricity provider for Northern Colorado, has a history of bold initiatives.

“A lot of people who might have otherwise been on the fence about it leaned against it because there were so many speaking out against it,” said Eric Brown, communications director for the Colorado Corn Growers Association, an industry group that opposed 105.

The loss left the pro-105 camp, Right to Know Colorado, vowing to keep the issue alive. Right to Know chief executive Larry Cooper said it was still to be determined whether the group would try to place another measure before voters.

“We’re not going away,” Cooper said. “We’re still here.”

Brown said he wouldn’t be surprised if another 105-like measure were brought forth in Colorado. But that’s why, he said, his organization would continue to push for national labeling standards – including keeping GMO labeling optional – to prevent food producers from having to comply with a hodgepodge of different state laws.

Brent Boydston, Colorado Farm Bureau vice president for public policy, agreed that the debate is one that should be held at the national level.

“To create a patchwork of 50 state laws, that’s unviable,” Boydston said.

Prop 105 opponents said they couldn’t point to one specific issue where they felt the scales were tipped in the minds of voters. Among other things, they argued that 105 overly burdened farmers with regulations, was uneven in its scope because of exemptions for certain foods, and that it would have raised the grocery bills of consumers.

Prop 105 backers said the major tipping point in the race was money, with one side being better able to convey its arguments to voters. Final campaign spending reports for the two sides are due Dec. 4. But as of Oct. 22, the No on 105 Coalition had spent more than $15 million and raised nearly $17 million, compared with about $900,000 raised by 105’s supporters.

At an industry roundtable of natural- and organic-foods executives on Nov. 11 in Boulder, Best Organics Inc. chief executive Seleyn DeYarus said she was “shocked” that 105 failed even in a place such as Boulder County. She said 105 opponents’ most “brilliant” play, yet one she contends was misleading, was giving voters the sense that the bill would hurt all farmers. She said there’s a difference between the farmers people see at local farmers’ markets where they’re buying natural and organic produce and those industrial-scale farmers who are producing GMO crops.

“They’re not the same people,” DeYarus said. “It was people feeling like if they voted for it they would be hurting farmers. And I respect that, but unfortunately it’s an incorrect association.”

Brown and Boydston denied that anything was misleading about 105 opponents’ arguments, insisting that agriculture across the state would have been hurt and that a stigma would have been placed on Colorado products under 105’s mandates.

“Whether they grew GMO crops, organic or non-GMO, I don’t think the public in general wanted to see farming or production impacted in any way,” Brown said.

DeYarus said that because Oregon also had a GMO labeling bill up for a vote in the same election, the amount of funding coming in on the pro-105 side in Colorado from the natural and organics industry might have been lower. Despite more than $8 million in funding on the pro side, the Oregon measure also was defeated, although more narrowly.

Money aside, though, other 105 supporters admit that there were some nuanced factors that led to their measure’s defeat.

Todd Beckman, co-founder of NextFoods and a former WhiteWave Foods executive, said a national standard for GMO labeling would be easier for businesses to navigate. When he was at WhiteWave and before there was a national standard for organic labeling, he said, complying with various states’ laws surrounding organic labeling was cumbersome.

“For us (at NextFoods), we’re all clean. We’re GMO-free. We can slide right in,” complying easily with any GMO labeling mandates that may occur, he said. “But the other guys, I think we’ve got to get it at a federal level so it’s consistent and it’s across the board. Otherwise it’s really hard to manage.”

Sylvia Tawse, owner and founder of Boulder-based Fresh Ideas Group, said the anti-GMO community isn’t doing a good job with its messaging and conveying the risks associated with consuming GMO crops, risks the pro-GMO camp says are unsupported by science.

Breaking through in such a manner, she believes, could take years, akin to the organic-foods industry’s push to gain regulation and inspection at the federal level.

All of which means the debate over GMO labeling isn’t likely going away any time soon.

“I see this as it’s still a movement,” Tawse said, “and it’s going to take election after election after election.”

Joshua Lindenstein can be reached at 303-630-1943, 970-416-7343 or jlindenstein@bizwestmedia.com. Follow him on Twitter at @joshlindenstein.