Moms mistake: hiring Knoll Lowney. They should have got a lawyer who actually knows the law instead of that self-promoting blowhard. I feel badly for them.

LOL... Love it when the law proves to be a double edged blade. Tort reform anyone?

Anti-GMO is anti science - there are so many better causes to devote your time and energy to

@#3 ... The Union of Concerned Scientists .. does not think being concerned about GMO’s is anti-science http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agricultu…

Standing: it's a thing.

There is nothing in our anti-SLAPP law that says it must only be applied to big corporations. In fact, if the law was written in that way, it would likely be ruled unconstitutional. Laws should be, in fact must be, applied evenly.

I'm sure the judge must have been bought off by Monsanto. #snark

it seems inconceivable that a suit that would be legitimate under our public disclosure statutes come October 17 could be sanctioned under our anti-SLAPP statute when filed on September 17. That's just crazy.

I wonder how Mr Goldy would feel if somebody from Crown Downtown had brought a lawsuit against Hansen's secret anti-arena campaign donations a month ahead of when the California Fair Political Practices Commission filed their own suit (2 weeks after the filing deadline).

If the Attorney Gen gets time to investigate and act then a group of anonymous "moms" doesn't get to step up the deadline for the issue so they can make a stink in the press before ballots are in.

Corporations are moms, my friend. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to moms. Where do you think it goes?

The Union of Concerned Scientists is an activist group - not an unbiased scientific consensus.

While I'll concede that GMO crops are an environmental nightmare - they are a necessity for a planet with 9 billion+ people - the idea that they are unhealthy - or that organic food is some sort of panacea (or a realistic alternative for 9 billion people) is just a fantasy

@10 et al. 522 doesn't ban GMO foods!! Damn, what a bunch of boot licking sheep, wandering through life thinking you're all alpha dogs. Although, given how much money these big ag and chem industry folks are spreading around on this thing half of you might be paid trolls. In which case, well, gotta eat, I guess.

The tin foil hats must be flying off the shelves. Anyone who disagrees with me is suspect as being paid by big ag.

522 doesn't ban GMO foods, it just allows activists the opportunity to sue everyone from farm to grocery store if they find something unlabelled with "genetically engineered" that has more than 0.9% of something genetically engineered. It's one thing to assay for the presence of a gene in a raw commodity, assaying in a cooked/processed final product can be a real trick. Especially to get a % reading. Imagine the activists that find one lab that assays a bag of chips unlabelled and the flurry of lawsuits against the local Safeway or Mom and Pop grocer.

@10 I think you're missing an equal sign in yer equation.

@10, GMO crops are absolutely not necessary. The only people they are necessary for are Monsanto and the oil companies that profit from their use. There are many more labor intensive, but less resource intensive methods of growing the same amount of crops per acre. However, large corporations would rather invest money in machinery and chemicals than in labor.

That said, I suspect that pretty much every single processed thing we eat, including those labeled 'organic', has some amount of GMO product in it. GMO-free cereal? Forget it. GMO-free bread? Unlikely. Due to cross-contamination it is virtually impossible to get GMO-free corn or soy and there's corn or soy products in almost everything now. Any meat products you eat probably ate some amount of GMO feed in its lifetime.

10, the idea you put forth, that GMO crops are designed to "cure hunger" is laughable on it's face. GMOs in America are produced solely to make profit. The effect upon the consumer is secondary.

The other part that you're missing is that there is enough food on this planet to feed everyone. Hunger today is the product of greed: pure & simple.

GMO crops are so awesome that I always want to know that I'm getting only the latest and greatest science has to offer. That's why I'm voting yes.

I find the anti-GMO hysteria tiresome, and rarely very well justified. Just because Monsanto is evil (no argument there) does not make GMOs evil. It is a technology, not an ideology, and from anti-GMO campaigners I see a lot of ignorant or dishonest attempts to steer justified hatred of Monsanto into hatred of GMOs generally. Start demanding labelling of all foods made with pesticides, or preservatives, and I'd be a lot more receptive.

That being said, people should have the right to campaign for labelling without fear of having a multinational use every dirty trick it has to stop you. Not that I'm surprised. Considering the shit Monsanto gets up to in the developing world, this hardly registers on the ethics-o-meter they don't have.

I'm anti GMO right now... not at all because I am anti science. I just think that if our basic food supply is affected
1. I want the right to choose if I eat it or feed it to my children
2 at this time, I choose to wait until more independent research is performed.
3. I don't believe a few large corps should be able to make all the decisions regarding our entire nations food supply
4. I resent the fact that, unknowingly, my family has been a part of a food experiment solely for financial gain and with little/no regard to the possible health repercussions

Yep hiring KLowney was not a great idea. People aren't so much bad at hiring lawyers as not good at realizing someone you "vibe" with is usually a mistake.

And isn't Judge Wickham the one who said he'd marry gay couples if available and is then never available? And did they have to file in Thurston County? Judicial discretion is so often used as a political hammer ....

The Seattle Times' brilliant attorney (I mean that with genuine respect), Bruce EH Johnson, is the mastermind behind WA's Anti-Slapp law. Do you think he promoted it to support the likes of the little guy? No, it was for the likes of the Frank Blethens of our state. Afterall, Blethen and other fat-cat publishers are some of Davis, Wright, and Tremaine's biggest clients.

While Anti-Slapp was promoted to the legislators as protection for the free speech voice of the little guy against big corporations and big-moneyed individuals, it has been used repeatedly to threaten individuals who have a legitimate beef about questionable ethics and irresponsible corporate behavior.

Johnson worked the same magic on the legislature recently with the new Uniform Corrections and Clarifications Act, which took effect on 7/28/2013. He convinced legislators that this new law makes it easier for the peon public to wrestle fair corrections and clarifications from the Press in a timely manner, when it really protects the interests and profits of the publisher at the EXPENSE of the public and journalists. Only one other state in the union has passed a Uniform Corrections Act and that was North Dakota.

'nuf said.

@22: didja know that same logic is what caused the defeat of water fluoridation in Portland a couple of months ago?

Unfortunately we have entered an age of made-to-order science, when interest groups of all stripes fund studies to bolster their policy agenda. Witness the recent Regnerus study, funded to the amount of $800K by an anti-LGBT rights foundation, that proported to find that children of same-sex relationships scored lower on many health/welfare measures than children of opposite-sex couples. The study is garbage and the publication process was flawed to say the least, but that hasn't diminished its usefulness to its patrons. It was worth every penny they paid for it.

In short, it's not enough to want good independent research on public policy topics like GMOs, climate change, etc. The public would have to become a LOT more science-savvy to tell the difference on a wide range of topics, which is unlikely to happen. What I'm suggesting is that the political message must precede the scientific one. "Studies show" is a losing argument.

I've heard it said that the left should look to the LGBT movement as a successful model for other progressive campaigns like environmental awareness. If that's true (and I'm not sure it is) then the clear implication is that you should NOT be looking to science to point the way, because for decades one "scientific" paper after another reported that gay people were unhappy, maladjusted misfits who needed to be subjected to shock therapy in mental hospitals. The LGBT movement succeeded without science - we forced science to take a hard look at itself and its unconscious biases, a process that is still very much in progress. If we'd relied on "independent objective science" to rescue us, we'd still be prisoners in the psych ward.

@26: Excellent point about the public's need to be aware of who funds research.

A recent Salon article exposes fake research and how easily a gullible public can be duped:

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/04/fake_sci…

Which attorney(s)/firm represented GMA? Anyone know?

Anti-GMO folks are no different than anti-vaxxers or anti-climate change idiots. Funny enough, there's a bunch of mothers who support that shit as well.

Since when did giving birth to children confer a science degree? How many kids do you have to have to get published in Nature or the Lancet?

@28: I am answering my own question: GMA was defended by Michele Radosevich of Davis, Wright, and Tremaine (big surprise).

Publicola linked to Judge Wickham's decision:

http://www.seattlemet.com/data/files/201…

@29 NOT eating GMO food will not cause the death of children. For the anti-labeling crowd to compare GMO foods to the anti-polio campaign is total BS. There is no compelling reason to FORCE GMO food upon the citizenry.

@30 Judge knows where the campaign money has to come from...

@31 and 32, yes, people have died while anti-GMO rhetoric led some to overreact to any legitimate concerns. Would any anti-GMO activist here literally prefer to starve to death over eating a GM product?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/223383…
Zambia refuses GM 'poison'
Zambia's president has refused to overturn his ban on genetically modified (GM) food aid despite the food crisis which is threatening up to 2.4 million people.

Levy Mwanawasa said he would not allow Zambians to eat "poison".
"Simply because my people are hungry, that is no justification to give them poison, to give them food that is intrinsically dangerous to their health," Mr Mwanawasa told journalists at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg.
Just last weekend, hungry villagers stormed a chief's palace in rural Zambia and made off with 2,000 bags of maize.
They complained that they were dying of starvation while food was lying idle.

@33 Instead of the US dumping corn seed on African countries that could jeopardize their EU exports and subject them to servitude to Monsanto were the seeds to contaminate their own crops, why don't we offer those countries real aid and investment that would allow them to grow more food for themselves rather than just being dependent on our "charity" corn?

@34, except that US food aid programs frequently grind up the corn seed to prevent planting if the nation has GM concerns. Zambia just refused to distribute any GM corn, flat out.

As the link I posted said:
Zimbabwe has also banned GM aid in case it contaminates local crops.

A deal was done with Zimbabwe, whereby GM food was milled before being distributed, so that it could not be planted.

Similar arrangements have placated fears over GM food aid in Malawi and Mozambique.

I wonder if these countries would benefit from any dought-resistant GM crops that tolerate poor soil.

To me, this is another example of "Why do we still elect judges?"

Why is there never "dads for" anything?

What is so debatable about our right to know? I really have a hard time understanding the opposition to being able to discern whether a food (that is of questionable safety) is going into our grocery cart. Its part of the "precautionary principle" that the EU follows. Instead our federal government & agencies put the burden on the people rather than the corporations to demand safety. Follow the money...

The "It's Science" crowd is missing this point-- it's not good science. I'm concerned about the effects on our bodies after ingesting this "science." Show me the results of those studies.

The "It's Science" crowd is missing this point-- not all science is good science. Just because you can alter our food doesn't mean you should because that's not the end of it. I'm concerned about the effects on our bodies after ingesting this "science." Show me the results of those studies.

Here's an idea: let's get signatures in front of Wal-Mart for a proposed law that expands CR 11 sanctions to trial judges (i.e., when an appellate court overturns a trial judge's ruling, the appellate court must also make a determination of whether the trial judge either knew or should have known that this ruling was baseless. If the appellate court finds that the trial judge knew or should have known the ruling was incorrect, the appeal Court must impose a monetary sanction on the trial judge.)

Somebody will say this would make judges afraid to do their jobs and hence 'chill the judicial process'. Not true: CR11 has for decades been a constant threat to lawyers that they will have to pay a fine if they file a baseless motion, but that doesn't stop lawyers from filing motions like clockwork. Therefore no judge can argue that threatening them with the equal of CR 11 sanctions for their baseless rulings would "chill the judicial process".

And I think everybody except the judges and their immediate families would agree with me that the entire lack of potential punitive consequences for judges who rule baselessly merely to favor one party over another, is a lack that was the door through which about 90% of judicial corruption creeps. Let's make judges just as afraid to file frivolous rulings as attorneys are afraid to file frivolous motions. Deal?