Come time November 6th, the Washington state ballot will be officially closed to voters and a ruling on I-522 will have been formally decided. To provide Washington State voters with a distinct view into the recent initiative requiring the labeling of Genetically Engineered (GE) foods or foods containing GE ingredients, the NO on 522 campaign launched a television ad campaign clarifying the reality behind I-522. Their messaging is clear, concise and accurate, “522 would burden farmers, food producers and grocers with more red tape and higher production costs. These added costs would be passed on to Washington consumers through higher food prices.”
While the NO on 522 Campaign launches television ads featuring family farmers, physicians and prominent state leaders, the Yes on 522 campaign also starts TV ads which make patently false and misleading claims.
For instance, the NO on 522 campaign TV ads features such reputable individuals as Dan Newhouse, Former Director, Washington Department of Agriculture; Ken Eikenberry, Former Washington State Attorney General; Brenda Alford, third-generation family farmer from Pasco; and Sarah Zarelli, Registered Pediatric Dietitian. All more than qualified to justify why and how I-522 is damaging to farmers, families and the state as a whole. Additionally, each representative provides a sound perceptive into the burdensome nature of the measure from all sectors of the agriculture and state community.
Moving over to the Yes on 522 campaign, who features NOT one prominent individual or valid resource to back its claims. The campaign’s first ad argues that I-522 would “not cost a dime,” where in fact, a study of I-522 done by the Washington Research Council, concluded that these costs are grossly underestimated.
This makes it easier to vote NO on Washington State Ballot Initiative 522.
To see a detailed comparison of No on 522 ads versus the Yes on 522 ads, go here.
To learn more about the Washington State Initiative 522 as well as the No 522 campaign, visit their web site.