Reader weighs in on Initiative 522

Regardless of other thoughts, should we examine one possible "unintended consequence" if Initiative 522 passes?

Initiative 522 would require food producers to create special labels for Washington State. Hmm... Washington State has only slightly more than two percent of this country's population. Do you think that national brand food producers are going to setup special processing (consider the expense of special manufacturing and labeling) to make products for a two percent market? The cost of such would probably far exceed any expected profit. Furthermore, consider potential lawsuits if their processing or labels don't meet the State's requirements. Would the possibility of frivolous lawsuits be added into any profit versus loss calculations? Would we expect expect national companies to absorb an additional five percent manufacturing cost (wild guess value) for an expected three percent profit?

Will one possible "unintended consequence" of Initiative 522 passing be that many well known nationally produced food products will disappear from store shelves? What is the potential impact on future grocery prices?

I spoke to several national food companies giving them this information and asking them whether passage of Initiative 522 could cause them to withdraw their products from this State. Not all had thought ahead in this direction. No company will sell products in Washington State at a loss!

Do not think that you may avoid future problems by growing your own food. Look up U.S. Supreme Court case WICKARD v. FILBURN, 317 U.S. 111 (1942). The Supreme Court declared that under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 8) that it could regulate even the production of food on a person's property that was grown for personal usage! Who knows what this State may do in the future if Initiative 522 passes.

Thomas Fancher

Moses Lake