Dave, I have already voted and I voted for it. My reasoning was pretty simple - if the big Agribusiness's are contributing so much money for the defeat of this, it means that I am for it. Agribusiness does not have my best interest as a priority.

Salmon, I caught and didn't have a rabbi pray over it while he ritually slaughtered it
Pulled Pork, mmm mmm cloven hoof bitch!
Bacon Cheeseburger... meat AND cheese fukkk yeah!
and I'm making some Babyback ribs tomorrow, probably going to eat some dungeness crab cakes the next day.

OK Hankster, I read the Washington State Academy of Sciences's White Paper and here's my book report on it for you...

Looks to me that it predicts anywhere from a marginal to 10% increase in the cost of food. Marginal is obviously OK, but 10% obviously isn't. The article states "The costs of actual labeling are a tiny fraction of the costs of compliance and certification." These costs come from not just labeling, but increased costs of sorting GMO from non GMO, certification testing as well as managing GM and non-GM crops for cross-pollination.

One point in the white paper that was not brought up yet ITT was the cost to the taxpayer through the state, not just the costs to consumers. Estimates for the cost to the taxpayer for the State hiring people to ensure compliance and enforcing this law range from $0.2 million per year to $22.5 million per year. $0.2 million is probably not worth complaining about but $22.5 million is.

I also found a very compelling argument regarding the voluntarily labeling, whole foods line of reasoning:



So there are not just 2 types of goods on the marketplace, GMO and non-GMO there are actually 4:

1. conventional unlabeled food
2. organic foods (which are by definition GMO-free)
3. voluntarily labeled GMO-free food.
4. voluntarily labeled GM food.

This law takes the first type off the market, restricting people's freedom of choice. These also happen to be the lowest cost choice in the market. So in a while this law is championed in the name of giving consumers greater choice through better information, it ironically restricts their choices rather than enhances it. Especially if you don't care about GMOs and are going to make your decision on price regardless, removing the lower cost item sans information takes away your preferred choice.

If most people don't care about GMOs enough to shop at Whole Foods or seek out the voluntarily GMO labeling program, then they probably don't care enough to pay higher taxes to subsidize the food costs for other people who do care. Shouldn't people who care about differentiating between GMO and non-GMO food be the ones to bear the full cost of differentiating between the two?