In the days after the defeat of the ballot proposal known as I-522, which would have required labeling GMO food in Washington State, it seemed that nothing much had changed in the fight over genetically engineered foods.
Supporters of labeling blamed the loss on Big Food's big money, and promised to return to the ballot in 2016. Meanwhile, food activists across the country turned their attention to upcoming battles in Oregon, New York and Connecticut.
Opponents of labeling called the election a victory for science, and promised to fight GMO disclosure laws wherever they are proposed.
But a more thoughtful survey of the battlefield in the wake of I-522 suggests that something has indeed changed. In fact, it appears to us that there have may be three fundamental and unexpected shifts under way in the GMO debate.
1. Big Food may not care so much about GMO labels anymore.
When Washington State's attorney general alleged that the Grocery Manufacturers Association had violated campaign laws in failing to disclose donors to an anti-labeling fund, the GMA promptly came clean. There were no surprises in who was on the list. Nearly all the major food and beverage companies in the country were there, led by PepsiCo, Coca-Cola and Nestle.
But there were some surprises in who was not on the donor list. Of GMA's 300 members, only 34 had given to the secret fund. And two of the biggest contributors to a similar effort in California—Unilever and Mars—had not given to the Washington fund.
Mars took things a step further and made it clear it had no interest in the GMO label fight any longer, issuing a statement that said the company "will neither oppose nor fund opposition of GMO labeling proposals at the state or federal levels, where those initiatives seek only to inform consumers of whether a product contains GMOs."
2. Young people may not care all that much about GMO votes.
When I-522 was defeated, a co-chair of the Yes on I-522 group blamed poor turnout among the group believed to be the backbone of the pro-label movement—young adults.
The numbers would suggest that had more young, left-leaning voters gone to the polls, I-522 would have passed. But the simple fact is that such people didn't turn out on election day. And it would be misleading to suggest that the considerable advertising deployed by the "No" forces had much impact on young progressives. Those ads were clearly aimed at rallying more conservative voters and winning over undecided voters.
Rather it seems more likely that young adults in Washington State just didn't feel as passionately about the ballot initiative as they were expected to, nor as much as older progressives did.
We're not suggesting that young, left-leaning voters are suddenly not interested in avoiding genetically engineered foods. On the contrary, probably no other demographic feels as strongly about eating non-GMO food.
But there is considerable evidence that young adults may have grown disenchanted with the entire voting process in a way that earlier generations never did. And the GMO issue may not be significant enough to overcome this non-voting tendency in young adults,
3. The White House may have changed its mind on GMO.
Back when Barack Obama first ran for president, he voiced his support for label requirements for GMO foods. Food activists took him at his word, and it seemed likely that Obama would one day sign a federal law forcing GMO labels.
As the years went by, that law never happened.
Whatever Obama once said about GMO food, it became clear that he wasn't going to push for labels or bans. Instead, the president seemed simply to have sidestepped the issue. He didn't appear to have changed his mind. Rather it seemed that GMO simply wasn't a priority for him. And food activists grew upset.
But in recent months, Obama seems to have been shifting away from I-don't-much-care to I-sort-of-like-GMO food. From his appointment of a former Monsanto exec to the FDA to persistent rumors that the Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement will impose a ban on GMO labels, there are suggestions that Obama has changed his opinion.
All we know for sure is that in the days after I-522 was defeated, there was no statement from the White House about GMO. Rather, the FDA issued a ban on trans fat.
Now trans fat is nasty business, and banning it will almost certainly improve the health of Americans. But banning trans fat could also lead to an increase in the use of genetically engineered food ingredients.
Would you like to see more retail news like this in your inbox on a daily basis? Subscribe to our Food Dive email newsletter! You may also want to read Food Dive's look at American households' poultry preferences.