On Tuesday (5th November), voters in Washington State will go to the polls to decide whether to label food containing genetically modified ingredients.

Although such measures have been passed (albeit with provisos meaning the new regulations have not yet come into force) in other US states, Washington represents the most significant battleground in the GM labelling debate since proposition 37 was narrowly defeated in California last October. 

Agribusinesses and 'big food' companies spent $46 million (£29m) on advertising to derail the push for GM labelling in California last year. Monsanto, the principal donor to the 'no' campaign, spent over $8 million – almost as much as the total amount of money donated to the 'Right to Know' pro-labelling cause. This appeared to have paid off, as the pro-labelling camp's initial overwhelming support dropped off in the months before the vote on Prop 37.

Nevertheless, Washington officials announced in February that labelling proposals (called Initiative 522) would go to the vote in the State, having secured the 250,000 signatures necessary to appear on the election ballot. 
If passed, I-522 "would require most raw agricultural commodities, processed foods, seeds and seed stocks, if produced using genetic engineering, to be labelled as genetically engineered when offered for retail sale." 

Although spending has been only half that recorded in California, donations made to the campaign opposing the new law have shattered records in Washington State. $22 million (£14m) dollars in funding for the anti-labelling campaign has been spent on advertising that has affected public opinion, reducing – though not reversing – the initial majority enjoyed by the pro-labelling campaign. 

Industry groups acknowledge that GM food suffers from a bad press; they claim that labelling laws such as I-522 would mislead customers into believing there are definite health risks associated with GM. Those backing the 'no' campaign insist that, if passed, I-522 would leave them open to frivolous lawsuits, raise food prices and confuse consumers. 

Supporters of GM labelling point out that such measures exist throughout much of the rest of the world and maintain that the key issue in the labelling debate is freedom of choice. They also maintain that there is currently a lack of transparency over GM testing results, and, as international support for a recent statement by the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER) shows, no scientific consensus on the safety or efficacy of GM food. 
http://www.farming.co.uk/news/article/9074 

In September, genetically modified alfalfa was found to have contaminated an export crop of conventional alfalfa from Washington State, the second case of contamination came just three months after the United States' North-Eastern wheat industry was rocked by the discovery of unlicensed genetically modified wheat growing in an Oregon farmer's field, leading several trade partners to suspend wheat imports from the US. 
http://www.farming.co.uk/news/article/8899 

GM alfalfa, which is the first genetically modified perennial to be grown commercially in the US, was licensed two years ago. The crop was widely resisted as it is pollinated by honey bees and anti-GM campaigners warned that it would be almost impossible to contain. Opposition to its commercialisation was so fierce that USDA was forced to conduct rigorous analysis of the GM varieties' effects on conventional farmers and the environment for the first time in the 20 year history of GM crops. The US-based Center for Food Safety said at the time that two discoveries of GM contamination, occurring in such close succession, highlighted the "inadequacy of the U.S. regulatory structure for GM crops."   

Whatever the outcome of Washington's vote, the struggle over GM labelling in the United States is far from over; at least 20 other states are currently considering similar laws.