Power Of Messaging On Display In GMO Labeling Fight
By Austin Jenkins
Voters are about to decide whether Washington becomes the first state in the nation to labels some genetically engineered foods. A poll last month showed Initiative 522 with a four point lead and 12-percent of voters still undecided.
Today, there’s slow food, local food, processed food, industrial food, organic food, global food and, oh ya, genetically engineered food. And that’s what the fight over Washington’s Initiative 522 is about. Should it be labeled as such.
At first it looked like Washington voters overwhelming thought yes. An Elway Poll in September gave it a 66% percent approval rating. But six weeks later that had plummeted to just 46%. Pollster Stuart Elway says in 20 years:
Stuart Elway: “I’ve never seen a shift like this in this amount of time.”
What changed in those six weeks?
What you might call an airwaves bombardment. So far both sides have spent a combined $27M – most of it from out-of-state and for the “no” campaign. Pollster Elway says if the topic was more visceral:
Stuart Elway: “Abortion for example, you would not see advertising move this many voters around.”
But Elway says on an issue that voters aren’t that familiar with, ads have far more sway. It may be tempting to view this vote as a referendum on GMOs, or on how we view our food, or science versus the natural order. But Daniel Fagin, a professor of science journalism at New York University, says the outcome will say more about campaign funding and politics.
Daniel Fagin: “This is a political battle. It’s waged with a lot of rhetoric on both sides, a lot of paid media on both sides that is going to be inherently misleading in many ways. So, I wouldn’t attempt to interpret anything bigger from that.”
Fagin hopes after the election – no matter how it turns out – both sides can find a way to return to what he calls a rational discussion about how and when food should be labeled.