Pepsi, Coca-Cola and Nestlé are among the major brands that contributed to an effort to oppose Initiative 522, the food-labeling initiative on the November ballot, according to documents made public Friday.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) identified about three dozen companies that contributed a combined $7.2 million to help defeat I-522, which would require labeling on genetically modified foods.
The association released the list after a lawsuit from the state Attorney General’s Office. Attorney General Bob Ferguson has said the association improperly collected the cash in a manner that shielded the identities of the companies to protect them from scrutiny.
Pepsi was the biggest contributor to the cause, giving $1.6 million. The soft-drink company was followed by Coca-Cola and Nestlé, which each contributed a little more than $1 million, according to documents.
- USC fires head coach Steve Sarkisian, former UW Huskies coach
- Seahawks coach Pete Carroll on Steve Sarkisian: ‘It breaks my heart’
- Seahawks’ Pete Carroll ‘baffled’ after late collapse vs. Bengals
- McMenamins Anderson School grand opening is Thursday
- Time for Seahawks to accept that Marshawn Lynch may go from Beast Mode to Decreased Mode
Most Read Stories
Other contributors included General Mills, Kellogg, Hershey and ConAgra.
Ferguson said the agreement for the association to disclose the donors removes the need to seek court intervention.
“The people of Washington demand transparency in elections,” Ferguson said in a statement. “I’m pleased the GMA board recognized their responsibility to disclose the names of companies who contributed to opposing Initiative 522, and the amount of their contributions.”
Voters are starting to receive ballots in what has shaped up to be one of the costliest initiative fights ever in Washington state.
Supporters say consumers have a right to know whether foods they buy contain genetically engineered ingredients and contend that the genetically engineered label is no different from other food labels.
Foes say it would cost farmers and food processors and such a label implies the food is somehow less safe.
In California last year, voters narrowly rejected a genetically engineered labeling measure after opponents mounted a $46 million defense.