Update (February 18, 2016): Initiative has been assigned a number, recently, so it's Initiative No. 1456. Need 570 volunteers to get 570 signatures each! To see initiative, go to Secretary of State's site. Write, today! Thank you!
As the sponsor of the last anti-GMO petition, Initiative 1338 of the year 2014, I am happy to announce a new effort this year. Although, I was very disappointed that some natural supporters of the general anti-GMO effort bailed out on me in '14 or never helped at all. This year, however, I think I can get some of them and the general public to get behind this latest proposal. It's going to take some work, not only by me, but hundreds of volunteers. There are very few differences between what will be the new initiative, that hasn't been assigned a number yet, and 1338; mainly an updated date for commencement of the law. Remember, 1338 was not the same as the more renowned initiative that made the ballot in 2013, the latter which had big money behind it, but failed nonetheless. There were significant differences between these two. For instance, 1338 allowed the option of disclosure (labeling of GMOs) on the nutrition facts label instead of more conspicuously on packages that the 2013 initiative mandated.
I will need 570 volunteers to get 570 signatures on the petition by June 30th. It's that simple, so if you can be one of those 570, please write me as soon as possible. Put GMO labeling volunteer in the subject heading, please. Thank you.
Mark Greene, chairman of the Respect for Mother Nature of Washington Committee
[Updated and revised on 2/18/16.]
As the sponsor of the last anti-GMO petition, Initiative 1338 of the year 2014, I am happy to announce a new effort this year. Although, I was very disappointed that some natural supporters of the general anti-GMO effort bailed out on me in '14 or never helped at all. This year, however, I think I can get some of them and the general public to get behind this latest proposal. It's going to take some work, not only by me, but hundreds of volunteers. There are very few differences between what will be the new initiative, that hasn't been assigned a number yet, and 1338; mainly an updated date for commencement of the law. Remember, 1338 was not the same as the more renowned initiative that made the ballot in 2013, the latter which had big money behind it, but failed nonetheless. There were significant differences between these two. For instance, 1338 allowed the option of disclosure (labeling of GMOs) on the nutrition facts label instead of more conspicuously on packages that the 2013 initiative mandated.
I will need 570 volunteers to get 570 signatures on the petition by June 30th. It's that simple, so if you can be one of those 570, please write me as soon as possible. Put GMO labeling volunteer in the subject heading, please. Thank you.
Mark Greene, chairman of the Respect for Mother Nature of Washington Committee
[Updated and revised on 2/18/16.]
Comments