GMO, yeah? 5 surprises from an otherwise boring look at genetically modified crops

Researchers at the USDA’s Economic Research Service have stepped back to look at the effect of genetically engineered crops since they were introduced in the U.S. It’s a pretty dry and unsurprising document, but when read carefully a few interesting things jump out. Here’s five.

1. How many GMO trials are there? Tons

There have been thousands and thousands a field trials, which have translated to just a handful of different traits. A lot of these must have been for different, locally adapted varieties of, say, insect resistance. But it was also interesting to see how many trials there were for the low-profile GMOs. There were tests of plants with disease resistance, and plants with “resistance to cold, drought, frost, salinity, more efficient use of nitrogen, increased yield.” In addition to the big three (corn, cotton, and soy), the USDA has approved 11 kinds of tomatoes, eight forms of canola, five potatoes, sugarbeets, papaya, rice, squash, alfalfa, plum, rose, tobacco, flax, and chicory. About 12 percent of the squash grown in the U.S. is genetically engineered for disease resistance.

2. Herbicide tolerance is sneaky

Herbicide-tolerant soybeans grow on more than 90 percent of the soy acres in the U.S. But there doesn’t seem to be a direct benefit to farmers in terms of significantly higher yields. So why pay more for the GMO seed? Here’s what the researchers say:

The fact that several researchers found no significant differences between the net returns of adopters and nonadopters of HT crops (particularly HT soybeans) despite the rapid adoption of these crops suggests that many adopters may derive nonmonetary benefits from HT adoption. In particular, weed control for HT soybeans may be simpler, freeing up management time for leisure, enterprise growth, or off-farm income-generating activities.

In addition, farmers pay less for specialized herbicides and for the diesel needed to run a weed-busting cultivator.

3. Insecticide use is way down

That’s among both farmers who used GE insect-resistant crops and those who didn’t. “Corn insecticide use by both GE seed adopters and nonadopters has decreased — only 9 percent of all U.S. corn farmers used insecticides* in 2010. Insecticide use on corn farms declined from 0.21 pound per planted acre in 1995 to 0.02 pound in 2010.”

Wow. That’s a success story you don’t normally hear.

4. Traditional GMOs are increasingly monolithic

I’ve argued that we shouldn’t fight over “GMOs” but instead talk about the specific plants we like or dislike. There may be a problem with that argument: Now the main GE traits are coming bundled together. The argument, I think, still stands for rare cases (like disease resistance and Golden Rice).

5. Plowless farmers rise up

More and more farmers are growing crops with only minimal disturbance of the soil. That conserves topsoil, prevents run-off pollution, and allows for carbon capture in the fields. It’s good news, and it’s largely associated with the use of herbicide-tolerant crops (though I’m still not totally convinced the relationship is causal).

Here’s the entire doc for those who wish to dig deeper. Don’t say we didn’t warn you.

*This is the percentage of farmers who applied insecticide to their fields. It doesn’t include the farmers that used insecticides just by planting seeds: Many seeds are coated with an insecticide, which the plant sucks up and uses to fend off bugs. These systemic insecticides may cause less collateral damage because they aren’t sprayed over the entire field, but there are suggestions that they may hurt pollinators.

[via

10 Apps to Help You Eat GMO Free

As the struggle for GMO labeling rages on, app developers are taking matters into their own hands. By creating apps that allow consumers to determine exactly what is in the products that they buy, these developers are giving you total freedom of choice. These apps all have multiple features for identifying different types of ingredients, which means installing a combination of apps will keep you better informed. These ten apps all identify GMO products, among other ingredients, so you can control exactly what you choose to have in your diet.

• Non-GMO Project Shopping Guide – As it says on the can, this app provides consumers with a guide to shopping non-GMO. The Non-GMO Project’s Product Verification Program is a collaboration of a number of corporations whose aim is to help consumers make more informed choices in their purchases. The guide is completely free and is periodically updated with new contributions.
• Healthy Food, Allergens, GMOs & Nutrition Scanner – This Nutrition Scanner costs $3.99 and allows you to quickly determine exactly what is in the food you are shopping for. The scanner reads food labels and returns information on nutrition, ingredients additives and whether the product contains any GMOs. You don’t need to wonder which ingredients are dangerous, either, as the app has a caution rating for potentially undesirable contents.
• Buycott – If you are passionate about supporting companies that you believe have ethical practices, Buycott will help you stick to your principles. The app can trace food items back through the production chain, keeping you informed of every company involved in bringing the item to the supermarket shelf. The free app also provides contact details for each company, so you can voice your concerns or support for any given product.
• True Food – For conscientious consumers, True Food provides a real-time guide to shopping non-GMO. Every day the app will update with new alerts, news and tips on how to avoid GMO products, and where to find suitable alternatives. With over 70% of food products in the U.S. containing GMOs, this free app is definitely worth installing on your iPhone.
• ShopNoGMO – With 23 food categories that contain no GMOs, this free app gives you the power to decide which products you want to feed your family. The app is not limited to when you shop, however, as there is also a useful feature to help you avoid GMOs when dining out. Besides information on GMOs, there are helpful tips on sourcing organic foods and identifying other potentially unhealthy ingredients.
• GMO Checker – You can use this app to quickly identify products that are organic, vegan, gluten free and GMO free. GMO Checker uses a simple search function, which returns results with a color-coded key that tells you whether the product contains ingredients from the category list. While the app has a simple interface, it does cost $3.99, so it is not the cheapest option on the market.
• ipiit, The Food Ambassador – ipiit is a completely collaborative app with a database that is constantly growing due, in part, to user contributions. The database contains over 210,000 food products, with information on Gluten, Lactose, HFCS, GMO and much more. Users can set up their own preferences, making it easier to find the foods that match your needs. Rating foods on this free app will help keep the community informed so everyone can share in promoting healthier food choices.
• Chemical Maze – Whether you are concerned about what’s in your food, cosmetics or pet products, Chemical Maze will help keep you informed. You can filter results by category, effects, origin or symptoms, depending on what you want to find out about a product. This is the free addition of the app, however, there is also a paid edition with added features.
• Barcode and PLU Label Reader – Although this app is a Barcode and PLU reader, you have to manually enter the codes. With that said, the app does provide a lot of useful information that will help you purchase the healthiest products and avoid GMOs. Barcode and PLU Label Reader costs $1.99 and has a 4+ user rating on the iTunes store.
• Fruit Checker – A PLU label reader for fruits and vegetables, Fruit Checker will confirm whether products are certified organic, conventionally grown or genetically modified. In some cases the app will tell you where the product was grown, too. The app is useful, but limited for the price-tag of $0.99.

[via The Food Revolution Network]

The Natural Effect

Check out the new Only Organic Campaign! The organic seal indicates that food has been grown in ways that has passed nature’s own test for being good for you and good for nature.

In this hilarious video "The False Advertising Industry" reveals the shocking truth about what is allowed in "Natural" food. As a reminder to not be convinced otherwise, only the USDA Organic Seal guarantees your food contains no Genetically Modified Organisms, no toxic pesticides, and no growth hormones or antibiotics

Food labels that claim a food is "natural" may not guarantee that food is good for you or for nature. In fact, many so-called "natural" foods contain the toxic chemical pesticides, antibiotics, hormones and genetically engineered ingredients that are harming people and the planet. Only the organic seal guarantees that food is being made in ways that Mother Nature intended.

FDA considers "natural" food to mean "nothing artificial or synthetic (including colors regardless of source) is included in, or has been added to, the product that would not normally be expected to be there." But, federal regulators do not enforce the policy. And, many heavily processed foods containing "unnatural" ingredients designed to make food look better or last longer carry the "natural" label.

Some familiar foods using the "all-natural" promise include:

• Some Greek Yogurt labeled as "natural" is made using milk from cows fed genetically engineered ingredients. Sound natural to you?
• Despite being labeled "100% Natural", Corn Oil is often made with genetically engineered corn.  
• "All Natural" chips may sound healthy, but they actually contain genetically engineered ingredients.
• Granola products can contain highly processed ingredients, such as high fructose corn syrup, despite their "all natural" claims.
• Orange Soda can be "naturally flavored"...despite having high fructose corn syrup listed as an ingredient.
• Some companies advertise their frozen food products as made with "100% Natural white-meat chicken", even though its chickens are raised with the use of antibiotics. 
• Some frozen meals say "100% Natural", but really contain genetically modified ingredients. 
• “All Natural” Ice Cream...is it really natural? Hardly. It can come form cows treated with hormones and fed a diet containing pesticides. 
• Turkey Breasts labeled as "All Natural" can use turkeys that have never been outdoors. Sound natural to you? 
• Cheese labeled as "natural" could have been made using milk from cows injected with hormones, kept in poor conditions or fed genetically engineered food. 

[via Only Organic]

Organic Trade Association's New CEO on the Future of Organics

In the midst of the frenzy kicked up by Cheerios’ GMO-free announcement, the organic world has been buzzing with its own important news after the Organic Trade Association named longtime industry veteran Laura Batcha to become the association’s CEO and executive director.

Batcha will take the helm of the North American organization at a time when the organic sector is beginning to regain stronger annual growth numbers while continuing to face challenges in promoting, clarifying and differentiating the attributes of the organic seal in relation to the non-GMO, local and natural categories.

Batcha has had her hands in the organic industry for more than 20 years, beginning in 1989 when she worked on an organic farm in Santa Cruz, Calif. Later on, she started her own herbal business and held several leadership positions at Tom’s of Maine before joining the Organic Trade Association six years ago. She began as the association's marketing and public relations director and climbed the ranks to become executive vice president before her most recent promotion.

Batcha said one of the association's top priorities will be continuing to support the National Organic Program and its oversight of the organic seal. That work has recently included pushing for a provision in the upcoming Farm Bill to provide one-time financial assistance to the National Organic Program to update its technology systems.

Marketing the Organic Message

On a broader market-level view, the OTA's industry analysis describes a continued challenge in overcoming consumer confusion over the different benefits of organic food versus natural, non-GMO and local alternatives. Many consumers don't understand that the organic certification prohibits the use of GMOs, for example, the report said.

It's a challenge the OTA is taking on through education and promotional efforts that include advocating for policies that protect the rights of organic producers and handlers to make claims around, for example, the non-GMO guarantee that organics offer. There’s also movement to form an organic checkoff program, a quasi-government structure that allows the industry to self-pool money to fund education, promotion and research to support the industry á la the Got Milk? campaign.

“It’s a way for the industry to really have a big enough megaphone to communicate that message to the public consistently,” Batcha said. “At any given time, 30 percent of shoppers choosing organic have only been buying organic for less than two years, so our burden for education won’t go away.”

On mounting energy behind national or state-driven GMO labeling efforts, Batcha acknowledged they have the potential to increase competition with the green organic seal. But they also have spurred consumer desire to make more informed choices about their food which is a positive. It’s the job of organics to educate consumers about the additional benefits the organic label brings to the table, she said.

“What we have to do as an organic industry is make sure the consumer understands that it’s not apples to apples. The organic field offers more,” she said.

Taking Organic to the Masses

The increase in shelf space devoted to organic products at mass-market retailers and the growth in private label organic products are both trends Batcha said will likely continue. Eight of twelve private label categories tracked in 2012 experienced double-digit growth that year, according to the OTA's 2013 industry survey. A combination of trust, convenience and price has driven consumers to choose those brands, the report said.

On the international stage, mass-market retailers like Costco are becoming key players in bringing U.S. produce to other countries, Batcha said.

“As long as the trend for the consumer is more organic products, which it will continue to be, more outlets are going to be interested in attracting those shoppers to their stores,” she said. 

[via New Hope 360]

Designer Genes: The 7 Most Common Genetically Modified Foods

Genetically modified material sounds a little bit like science fiction territory, but in reality, much of what we eat on a daily basis is a genetically modified organism (GMO). Whether or not these modified foods are actually healthy is still up for debate -- and many times, you don't even know that you are buying something genetically modified.

It is not required to label GMOs in the U.S. and Canada, but there are substantial restrictions, and even outright bans, on GMOs in many other countries.

However, by 2018, Whole Foods Market will start labeling GMOs in the U.S. This grocery chains' locations in Britain already provide GMO labeled products, as required by the European Union. According to the EU, GMO refers to plants and animals"in which the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination."

1. Corn

Almost 85 percent of corn grown in the U.S. is genetically modified. Even Whole Foods's brand of corn flakes was found to contain genetically modified corn. Many producers modify corn and soy so they are resistant to the herbicide glyphosate, which is used to kill weeds.

2. Soy

Soy is the most heavily genetically modified food in the country. The largest U.S. producer of hybrid seeds for agriculture, Pioneer Hi-Bred International, created a genetically engineered soybean, which was approved in 2010. It is modified to have a high level of oleic acid, which is naturally found in olive oil. Oleic acid is a monounsaturated omega-9 fatty acid that may lower LDL cholesterol (traditionally thought of as "bad" cholesterol) when used to replace other fats.

3. Yellow Crookneck Squash and Zucchini

Numbers of this GMO veggie are relatively small, but genetically modified yellow squash and zucchini can be found in two different species in the U.S. The species contain protein genes that protect against viruses. Just like their other GMO counterparts, you won't be able to tell the difference between non-GMO and GMO zucchini or squash.

4. Alfalfa

Cultivation of genetically engineered alfalfa was approved in 2011, and consists of a gene that makes it resistant to the herbicide Roundup, allowing farmers to spray the chemical without damaging the alfalfa.

5. Canola

Canola is genetically engineered form was approved in 1996, and as of 2006, around 90 percent of U.S. canola crops are genetically modified.

6. Sugar Beets

A very controversial vegetable, sugar beets were approved in 2005, banned in 2010, then officially deregulated in 2012. Genetically modified sugar beets make up half of the U.S. sugar production, and 95 percent of the country's sugar beet market.

7. Milk

To increase the quantity of milk produced, cows are often given rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone), which is also banned in the European Union, as well as in Japan, Canada, New Zealand and Australia.

Looking Forward: Do GMO Apples Give Us A Glimpse Of The Future?

GMO apples are currently under review by the USDA, and have been since 2010, when the company Okanagan Specialty Fruits, Inc., developed apple varieties that don't turn brown for an entire two weeks after slicing.

Polyphenol oxidase (PPO) is an enzyme that causes the browning of Golden Delicious and Granny Smith apples, and scientists are now able to deactivate the gene. Some studies do show stripping fruits of PPO can impact a plant's susceptibility to diseases. The creators say they simply want people to eat more apples and while activating this gene slows the process of browning, it's still a natural process.

It's clear that other parts of the world view GMOs as health threats, but it's still an ongoing debate here in America. For now, many GMOs have been deemed safe by organizations like the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

[via Food For Thought]

Anti-GMO Coalition: If the Government Won’t Label, We Should Do it Ourselves

 
We’re still figuring out what exactly happened with Washington’s I-522 labeling bill, but considering some recent news that Big Food plans to make sure GMO labeling cannot happen at the federal level, we’ve got a lot of work to do to make sure people know what they’re consuming!

In light of these and other events surrounding the struggle to fight GMO cultivation and anti-labeling proponents, GMOInside.org, a coalition of organizations fighting for the GMO “right to know,” has made a novel suggestion: If the companies won’t label GMO foods, we should do it ourselves!

GMO Inside has made the distinction that it’s illegal for us to label foods in the grocery store. Meaning that, if we haven’t already bought it and removed it from the store, then it’s hands-off.

But, the organization encourages, if it’s in your home or your family members’ snack shelf or present at a community event or in the office, it’s fair game (though we can’t guarantee you won’t get swatted by your co-workers).

GMO Inside has provided colored labels indicating traditional “caution” images indicating that the labeled food may contain genetically engineered ingredients.

The goal, GMO Inside says, is to raise awareness. If you label your co-worker’s lunch for them, they may just ask what you know about GMOs. And the more people that know, the more ground we gain in the fight to label GMO products.

[via One Green Planet]

Washington State Voters Reject Labeling of GMO Foods

The initiative would have required labels on foods containing genetically engineered ingredients.

(Photo: Robyn Beck, AFP/Getty Images)

Washington state voters on Tuesday rejected an initiative that would have required foods containing genetically engineered ingredients to be labeled.

The vote was 54.8% opposed to labeling and 45.2% in favor of it.

Had it passed, Initiative 522 would have made the state the first in the nation to require such labeling.

The initiative was the most expensive in state history, though it was largely fought by out-of-state interests.

The No on 522 campaign set a record for fundraising, bringing in $22 million in donations according to The Seattle Times. Just $550 came from Washington residents, according to the newspaper. The top five contributors were the Grocery Manufacturers Association, Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Dow AgroSciences and Bayer CropScience.

The largest donor to the pro-labeling campaign were California-based Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps and the Center for Food Safety in Washington, D.C. However the initiative garnered almost 30% of its funding from individuals in Washington state, the Times reported.

Food industry ads claimed that the initiative would raise food prices. Labels would mislead consumers into thinking that products that contain genetically engineered ingredients are "somehow different, unsafe or unhealthy," said Brian Kennedy of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a food industry group based in Washington, D.C.

The Yes on 522 campaigns emphasized consumers right to know what's in their food.

The Washington initiative was part of an ongoing national fight by those opposed to genetically engineered crops to push for labeling. A similar bruising $37 million battle in California in 2012 went against labeling advocates. The final vote was 51.4% opposed and 48.6% in favor.

"Sooner or later, one of these is going to pass. It's only a matter of time. At some point the industry is going to get tired of pouring this kind of money into these campaigns," said Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition at New York University.

She said she doesn't believe there's anything dangerous about genetically engineered foods but is concerned about corporate control of the food supply.

Genetically engineered crops have a gene from another plant inserted into them to give them some ability they didn't have before.

There are two common genetic modifications. One is for herbicide tolerance: Plants are given a gene that protects them from harm when a farmer sprays them with herbicides to kill weeds. The other is a gene from a soil bacteria called Bacillus thuringiensis that allows plants to produce their own insecticide.

A huge proportion of commodity crops grown by U.S. farmers are genetically engineered: 97% of the nation's sugar beets, 93% of the soybeans, 90% of the cotton and 90% of the feed corn for animals, according to the 2013 figures from the Department of Agriculture.

About 60% of the papaya grown in the United States, all in Hawaii, has been genetically engineered to allow it to withstand the ringspot virus, which virtually wiped out papaya production in the islands in the 1980s, according to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications.

Very small amounts of genetically engineered zucchini, yellow squash and sweet corn are also sold in the United States.

The Food and Drug Administration does not require foods containing genetically engineered ingredients to be labeled because it considers them "functionally equivalent" to conventionally grown crops.

[via USA Today]

What GMO Labeling Means To You (Infographic)

If the old adage is true and you are what you eat, would you want to be a genetically mutated ear of corn?

Although that paints a pretty terrifying picture, the ethics behind Genetically Modified Organisms (better known as GMOs) are more complicated than one might think. Some studies show that these products are safe to eat and can actually cut down on the use of environmentally-harmful pesticides, while another group of scientists and activists believe that we don’t know enough about GMOs to call them safe for people OR the environment.

Regardless of what stance you take on GMOs, many people can agree on one thing: Consumers should be given a choice whether or not they want to eat genetically modified foods. Unfortunately, thanks to a lack of labeling laws, very few Americans currently have that right.

On November 5, Washington state residents will vote on a new GMO labeling law. Named I-522, this initiative could be a historic development in the progress of GMO transparency. However, some roadblocks have the potential to derail the law.

To find out how GMOs and GMO labeling could affect you, check out the infographic below.

[via Huffington Post]

Biotech Attack GMO Labeling in WA—Organic Brands Hide Behind Lobby Group

Proposition I-522, a citizen’s initiative on the ballot on November 5 in Washington state, would mandate clear labeling of genetically engineered (GE) ingredients on food packages.  It has become the latest battleground pitting consumer and farmer advocates against multi-billion-dollar agribusiness corporations.

Recent polling indicates strong support for the Washington state informational labeling measure. But a flood of money to fight the ballot initiative has rolled in from Monsanto, DuPont, and other biotechnology interests and food manufacturers, now totaling over $11 million, according to Washington state election records.

“Consumers might be surprised to find out that some of their favorite organic and natural brands, hiding behind their lobbyist, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, are contributing bushel baskets of cash towards thwarting the consumer’s right to know what is in their food in Washington,” says Mark Kastel, Codirector of The Cornucopia Institute.

Cornucopia has released an infographic designed to inform consumers and let them make purchasing decisions reflecting their values. Many organic and natural food manufacturers are financially supporting the GMO labeling effort. They and other proponents are identified in Cornucopia’s infographic along with the biotech and agribusiness concerns fighting the labeling effort.

Last year, a similar GMO labeling measure was narrowly defeated in California, with Monsanto and its allies pouring more than $46 million into their campaign and outspending labeling supporters by five to one. Many prominent organic and natural brands were outed in California by Cornucopia for their opposition to GMO food labeling.

Just recently, the powerful Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) publicly scrubbed its website of its members, a move thought by many to be an effort to mask which corporations/brands helped underwrite the $2.2 million already donated by the GMA against I-522. They haven’t, however, been able to remove this web archive detailing their membership.

“They are obviously trying to hide their membership,” says Trudy Bialic, Director of Public Affairs for PCC Natural Markets, a Seattle-based, member-owned grocery cooperative. PCC has been working on GMO issues since 1994 when rBGH — a genetically engineered growth hormone for dairy cattle — was a contentious issue.

Assessing the dollars fueling both campaigns, Bialic observes that “not one individual is listed as a contributor on the ‘No’ side, while the ‘Yes’ side is being funded by thousands of individuals.” PCC itself has contributed $198,344 in support of I-522.

GMA spokesman Brain Kennedy told Politico, a Washington, DC publication covering politics, that “GMA fully supports the No on 522 Campaign in Washington State, and will continue to support the campaign’s effort to defeat this costly, confusing and unnecessary proposal.”

Mandatory labeling of genetically engineered food at the state level is viewed as a watershed event by many industry observers, given the inaction on the popular proposal at the federal level. Monsanto, its biotech allies, and GMA in particular, have been credited for bottlenecking the federal labeling law.

“Just as we’ve observed in Europe, where labeling of food containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is mandatory, we fully expect that, when given a choice, consumers will choose organic or non-GMO products,” said Mark A. Kastel, Codirector of the Wisconsin-based Cornucopia. “And the industrial food lobby is fully cognizant of this — that’s why they’re fighting like hell against this grassroots effort.”

One leading organic manufacturer that has been actively promoting and funding a “yes on I-522″ vote is Nutiva. “We support I-522 because everyone has a right to know what’s in our food,” says John W Roulac, Nutiva’s Founder and CEO. Roulac has been working hard to convince other corporate executives to step up as well. He has committed Nutiva to donating $75,000.

Other prominent commercial backers of state citizen initiatives, viewed as heroes in the organic movement, include Nature’s Path, the prominent cereal manufacturer, and the soap manufacturer, Dr. Bronner’s. Additional organizations throwing their financial weight behind the consumer’s right to know include the health website Mercola.com and the Organic Consumers Association.

The biggest single donor to the “No” campaign is Monsanto. The biotech giant has contributed $4.8 million — an amount greater than all of the funds collected by the right-to-know forces.

“Consumers are increasingly interested in ‘voting with their forks,’ and many want to support companies that share their values,” notes Jason Cole, a researcher for Cornucopia who compiled the data for the infographic. “We know that many organic and ‘natural’ brands, owned by corporate agribusiness, fought the California food labeling effort. We believe, until it is shown otherwise, that many of these same companies are likely clandestinely supporting a defeat of the Washington state effort by funneling their dollars through the Grocery Manufacturers Association. ”

MORE:

Other “Yes” vote campaign donors include Organic Consumer’s Fund, Health Resources, Presence Marketing, Food and Water Watch, Center for Food Safety, WashPIRG, GFA/Boulder Brands, Annie’s, Food Democracy Now, Amy’s Kitchen, Lundberg Family Farms, Clif Bar, CROPP Cooperative (Organic Valley), UNFI, Inc., Wehan Farms, Stonyfield Farm, Whole Foods, Diamond Foods, Earthbound Farms, Turtle Mountain, Environmental Working Group, Institute for Responsible Technology, Freeland Foods/Go Raw, Jimbo’s Natural Family Inc., Brad’s Raw Chips, Suja Life LLC, Van’s International Foods, Vital Choice Wild Seafood and Organics, Jobbertown Media, Wallaby Yogurt, Eden Foods, Attune Foods, Back to Nature, Barney and Co, Dale and Thomas Popcorn, Guayaki Sustainable Rainforest Products, Califia Farms LP, Mamma Chia, Mary’s Gone Crackers, Organic Foods Express, Wholesome Sweeteners, Good Earth Natural Foods, Straus Family Creamery, Full Circle Farm, Skagit Valley Food Coop, Springfield Creamery, Earth Island, Equal Exchange, The Natural Grocery, Traditional Medicinals, Nutritional Therapy Association, Rhythm Superfoods, Marlene’s Market and Deli, Café Press, Raw Foods International, Nature’s Best, Ben and Jerry’s, Intellicomp/Seasnax, Skagit Valley Food Co-op, Wisdom Natural Brands, Bragg Live Foods, Turtle Island, Good Karma, Organically Grown Company, FoodState Inc., Park Slope Food Coop, Endangered Species Chocolate, Sky Valley Foods, Glutino, Northbest Natural Products, Wild Brine, Ocean Beach Organic Food Coop, The Food Coop (Port Townsend, WA), Essential Living Foods, Scratch and Peck Feeds, Raven’s Journey, and Experience Health.

Major opponents of Washington’s food labeling initiative also include Bayer CropScience ($591,654), DuPont ($3,420,189), and Dow AgroSciences ($29,531).

[via Cornucopia]

How to Identify GMOs in Food [Video]

By now you are pretty much convinced that GMOs are not good for health and the environment. But how do you recognize them in your food? Those who live in America will find it's difficult to identify GMOs in foods that we eat, as many of the GMO foods have creep-ed into our food and are hidden from naked eyes.  Non-GMO advocate Jeffrey Smith helps you figure out if the products you are buying are genetically modified or not. Few products are labeled so it’s hard to tell on your own.

[via Organic Foods Health]

Who wouldn't want GMO labeling in the U.S.?

One thing true about the GMO movement is that not everyone is convinced genetically modified food is dangerous or bad to eat. It's important, though, to keep the scope of the question in focus.

We are not debating whether GM food is good or bad.

What we are debating is whether American consumers have a right to know the GM status of the food they put in their bodies.

Why then, in this nation of "transparency" and "individual freedom," does there seem to be something out there that wants to keep grocery stores' doors as frosted and opaque as possible? Who wouldn't want consumers to know—that they might make their own decision?

Dave Murphy, executive director of Food Democracy Now!, a grassroots movement of more than 650,000 farmers and citizens, offers a somewhat sobering answer to that question. Upon hearing that major food producers were meeting to discuss GMO labeling at the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) in Washington in mid-July, he offered this in a press release widely circulated around Facebook:

“American consumers have a right to know what’s in their food, and it's time that Monsanto and the GMA stop hiding those facts and America’s large food manufacturers endorse the labeling of genetically engineered foods.

Polls have consistently shown that more than 90 percent of Americans support GMO labeling. It’s time for the hypocrisy on genetically engineered foods to end in the land of the free and the home of the brave and we urge the Grocery Manufacturers Association to stop opposing GMO-labeling nationwide.”

—Dave Murphy, executive director of Food Democracy Now!

NewHope360.com caught up with Murphy after the meeting and asked him what he thought the results of the conference were, and what would happen next. Here is what he said:

"The Grocery Manufacturers Association is moving forward with their efforts to kill GMO labeling in the U.S.," Murphy said. "Rather than heed the calls of millions of American consumers to offer basic transparency in the market place, the GMA is encouraging their members to spend millions of dollars to defeat a citizen-led ballot initiative in Washington state, like they did with Prop 37 in California."

Officially at least, big biotech companies like Monsanto are promising to be more transparent. As The New York Times reported on July 28, companies are pledging to create a website that will answer "virtually any question posed by consumers about genetically engineered crops."

The site, GMOAnswers.com, will be run by the Council for Biotechnology Information, which includes Dow Chemical, DuPont, Syngenta, Bayer CropScience and BASF.

According to the Times, most of the corn, soybeans, cotton, canola and sugar beets grown in the United States contain bacterial genes that make the crops resistant to an herbicide, insects or both. The Food and Drug Administration has said that such genetic engineering does not make these foods materially different in a way that would require labeling.

To anti-GMO activists, this is not enough. In May, thousands of people in cities around the world "marched against Monsanto" and against GMO-friendly laws. Dave Murphy, the leader of Food Democracy Now! believes change will first have to come at the state level. In a quick sit-down, this is what he had to say:

newhope360: What is at risk for food manufacturing companies?

Dave Murphy: By joining with the likes of pesticide and biotech companies such as Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta, food companies like Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Kraft, Kellogg’s and General Mills are jeopardizing the future of their brands as millions of Americans wake up to the fact these companies have willfully spent millions of dollars to deceive them about the contents in their food and deny them their basic democratic rights.

Any food company that does not support mandatory state and federal labeling of genetically engineered foods is increasingly placing their brand at risk of public exposure. If they want to deny us our rights, we will deny them their profits.

newhope360: What comes next in this battle or debate?

DM: Right now, activists across the country are working to pass Washington state's Yes on 522 ballot initiative to label GMOs, and follow up on the successes in Connecticut and Maine with bills in more than 20 other states.

Labeling of genetically engineered food is going to happen in the U.S.; this movement is not going away until we have a strong national GMO labeling bill. Giant food companies and politicians have to ask themselves if they're willing to risk their profits, reputations and careers to protect an industry that already labels food products with every major U.S. trading partner.

It's time for America to join the rest of the civilized world and allow reasonable and common sense GMO labeling bills to become the law of the land.

Who is padding the pockets of the Grocery Manufacturers Association?

• In 2012, Monsanto was the top contributor to the GMA’s campaign to defeat GMO labeling and Prop 37 last year, contributing over $8.1 million dollars in 2012.
• Other top contributors include Pepsi Co. at $2.48 million dollars in 2012.
• Kraft Foods at $2 million dollars in 2012.
• Coca-Cola at $1.7 million dollars in 2012.
• This year, 26 states have introduced legislation to label genetically engineered foods, with GMO labeling bills recently passing in Connecticut and Maine.
• A GMO labeling bill also passed the Vermont House this spring and awaits passage as early as next January in the Vermont Senate.
• Similar legislation has been introduced in Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Monsanto and the GMA have expressed fears over the passage of the upcoming ballot initiative in Washington State this fall, similar to the one in California, which places the issue of labeling genetically engineered foods before a popular statewide vote.

-- Statistics by Food Democracy Now!

[via newhope360.com]

Yes on 522 Campaign Raises $3.5 Million in Cash and Pledges to Date; 66% of Washington State Voters Favor GMO Labeling Bill

With 66% of Washington State voters surveyed in favor of GMO labeling, the Yes on 522 campaign has raised more than $3.5 million in cash and pledges to date, and is set to withstand significant opposition and spending by biotech and mainstream food interests. 

by Steven Hoffman, on behalf of Yes on 522 to label GMOs in Washington State

Seattle, WA (August 8, 2013) - In what is becoming a major battleground in the campaign to label genetically engineered foods in the U.S., 66% of Washington State voters indicated they are in favor of I-522, the state initiative to label GMOs in foods, while just 22% oppose it. The GMO labeling bill will appear on the November statewide ballot and in early voting, after more than 350,000 signatures were submitted to the state legislature in January.

Also, a recent voter survey found that support in the state for GMO labeling is broad and deep, as significant majorities of Democrats, Independents and Republicans support labeling, as do majorities of every age group and every region of the state. And while overall support is at the two-thirds mark, 48 percent of respondents said they "strongly support" the Yes on 522 measure, while only 13% of voters are strongly in the No on 522 camp.

The findings are based on a survey of 1,200 likely voters conducted June 18-23 by GBA Strategies, Washington, DC. The survey used live dialers and reached voters on cell phones and landlines. The results are subject to a margin of error of plus-or-minus 2.8% at the 95% confidence level.

Bracing for the Opposition

Notably, the poll found that support for labeling could withstand a barrage of opposition attacks. After voters hear one message in favor of labeling and six messages against, support for I-522 holds at 64%, while opposition only increases to 29%, says the poll.

Does this mean that the Yes on 522 bill can withstand being outspent six to one and still achieve victory on Election Day? Yes, say campaign leaders, however, they assert that this assumption holds true only if the campaign continues to raise the resources it needs to mount an effective television, radio, Internet and social media campaign.

Additionally, those funds are needed now in order for the campaign to act this summer to reserve the best media placements for the fall at optimal rates.

______________________________

"The bottom line is that we will lose like we lost Prop. 37 if we don't step up and give I-522 the ammunition it needs to win the air war." 

                                               - David Bronner, Yes on 522 Finance Chair

______________________________

A similar measure in California in 2012 also enjoyed more than 60% support early in the campaign, but lost by less than 3 percentage points after an onslaught of ads by Prop. 37 opponents, who spent $46 million with heavy donations from the biotech, agribusiness and mainstream food sectors.

But proponents of the GMO labeling bill say things may be different now in the Evergreen state. To date, the Yes on 522 campaign has raised more than $2.5 million with another $1 million in hard pledges committed, and has spent less than $350,000.

Industry Leaders Top “Yes on 522” Donor List

Major Yes on 522 donors include: Dr. Bonner’s Magic Soaps ($700,000); Mercola.com Health Resources ($200,000); Organic Consumers Fund ($380,000); Presence Marketing/Dynamic Presence ($200,000) and Presence founder Bill Weiland ($50,000); Center for Food Safety Action Fund ($100,000); Nature’s Path Foods USA Inc. ($100,000); Annie’s Inc. ($50,000); PCC Natural Markets ($50,000); Mark Squire, cofounder of Good Earth Grocery ($50,000); Karen Swift, cofounder of the BioSafety Alliance ($35,000); Clif Bar & Co. ($25,000); Boulder Brands ($25,000); UNFI ($25,000); Lundberg Family Farms ($25,000); Stonyfield Farm ($20,000); Turtle Mountain ($15,000); Amy’s Kitchen ($12,500); and Freeland Foods/Go Raw ($10,000). There are a total of 628 donors to Yes on 522 to date. For a complete list of donors, click here.

GMA Provides Cover for “No on 522” Donors

However, the “No on 522” campaign committee, which opposes GMO labeling, has reported raising nearly $1 million to date from just five pro-biotech interests, including major pesticide companies, and mainstream food companies via the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA). The GMA - a trade group representing mainstream food producers - has so far donated $472,500 to defeat Yes on 522; Monsanto has donated $242,156.25 to date; followed by DuPont Pioneer ($171,281.25), Bayer Cropscience ($29,531.25), and Dow Agrosciences LLC ($29,531.25). To see the list of No on 522 donors, click here.

Notable, too, is that the “No on 522” group has committed about $110,000 to retain Santa Monica, CA-based Winner & Mandabach Campaigns, which has a track record of three big and recent wins in Washington. Brad Shannon, political writer for the Daily Olympian in Olympia, WA, said on July 14 that Winner & Mandabach has a “track record of winning high stakes campaigns.”

“A Shot at Winning”

“Nobody is calling it ‘Little GMO’ after California’s ‘Big GMO’ yet, but Initiative 522 in Washington State looks like it is on the same track as the Golden State’s ill-fated Proposition 37. Except it has a shot at winning,” reported Dan Flynn on July 16 in Food Safety News.

“The ‘Yes’ campaign is stressing the public’s right to know what is in their food, while generally staying away from claims that GMOs are unsafe to eat,” Flynn wrote. “The ‘No’ campaign will tell Evergreen State voters such labeling will just increase food costs without any benefit basis. Those were familiar refrains in the ‘Big GMO’ campaign,” he said.

In a letter to donors, Yes on 522 finance committee member David Bronner wrote, “Key in-state endorsements continue to line up, including Washington Conservation Voters, Washington Nurses Association, and prominent fishing companies and organizations. Key alliances are being built with wheat farmer, apple grower and salmon fishery spokespeople, and earned media continues to go our way. A perfect storm is brewing with the GMO wheat contamination compromising Washington wheat exports, and imminent FDA approval of GMO salmon galvanizing the fishing sector.

“The Yes on 522 campaign is night and day better than Prop. 37, as we've all collectively learned and improved our game,” Bronner continued. “But the bottom line is that we will lose like we lost Prop. 37 if we don't step up and give I-522 the ammunition it needs to win the air war. Armchair hemming, hawing, complaining or otherwise being complacent about the amazing efforts and progress we are making as a movement is no excuse for not stepping up now in Washington when it counts,” Bronner urged donors.

How to Contribute to Yes on 522

To contribute to support the Yes on 522 campaign, visit Yeson522.com or contact Steven Hoffman, steve@compassnatural.com, tel 303.807.1042. Hoffman, director of Compass Natural Marketing, is working to raise funds and awareness in the natural, organic and sustainable products industry on behalf of the campaign.

This article originally appeared in the July 2013 Newsletter published by Presence Marketing / Dynamic Presence. Copyright 2013.

14-year-old Debates GMOs with Condescending TV Host

A Canadian television host’s attempts to school a 14-year-old girl did not quite go according to plan.

Kevin O’Leary, the co-host of the popular CBC business news program “The Lang and O’Leary Exchange,” must have thought he had laid the perfect trap for teen anti-GMO activist Rachel Parent.

The problem for O’Leary is that Parent, the founder of the pro-GMO labeling group Kids Right to Know, proved to be no pushover.

After a spirited debate on whether Canadian and US governments should rely on health studies conducted by genetically modified seed makers such as Monsanto, and the question of whether possible health benefits of GMO crops outweighed environmental concerns, O’Leary seemed to concede that the marketplace trend was heading toward transparency.

Throughout last week's interview, an incredulous O’Leary pressed his contention that Parent had been co-opted by anti-GMO groups, rather than having arrived at her conclusions independently.

The clip of the debate between Parent and O’Leary quickly went viral, and has been viewed on YouTube more than 300,000 times.

What You (and Your Customers) Should Know About GMOs

In recent years, people worldwide have grown increasingly attuned to genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. Nearly 2 million people participated in a global non-GMO “March against Monsanto” last May. More than 20 states now have GMO labeling legislation in the works. And in a game-changing move, in March 2013, Whole Foods Market announced that by 2018 all items sold in its stores must include GMO labeling. “We are putting a stake in the ground on GMO labeling to support the consumer’s right to know,” said co-CEO Walter Robb.

But for many of us, GMOs are still a mystery. What are they? How do they impact our health and environment? And what’s being done to label them? Here’s a quick overview of GMOs from seed to plate.

Made in a lab

There’s little argument over what genetic modification is: Scientists remove a gene from one organism and transfer that gene to a different organism. Unlike traditional methods, where farmers might breed plants from the same species to make a stronger plant, GM technology makes it possible to transfer any gene from any organism into a different one.

For example, Bt corn, developed in 1996, contains a gene from soil bacteria that’s toxic to insects. Scientists first isolate the desired bacterium DNA. “They then use a ‘gene gun’ to shoot [the bacteria] genes into a Petri dish full of corn embryos,” explains Gregory Jaffe, director of biotechnology projects at the Center for Science in the Public Interest. “They hope a bit of DNA randomly gets through the corn cell membrane. If it does, scientists take that embryo and grow a plant from it.” The resulting plant expresses the gene—in Bt’s case, an insecticide—in every one of its cells, enabling the corn itself to kill bugs. Needless to say, this scenario would never occur in nature—but as of 2012, Bt corn makes up 67 percent of all American corn acreage.

Spread in a field

Even more widespread than Bt corn are herbicide-tolerant crops that survive glyphosate, the weed killer known as Roundup. (Fittingly, these crops are called Roundup Ready.) Companies that manufacture Roundup Ready corn, cotton, and soybeans claim these crops are the solution to the world’s food problems, insisting that the GMO versions have higher yields, benefit farmers and the environment, and reduce herbicide use.

Anti-GMO activists disagree. “When [Roundup Ready] technology first came onto the market in 1996, most farmers had excellent weed control with only one herbicide application per crop,” says Chuck Benbrook, a research professor at Washington State University who studies genetically engineered crops. “But by 2000, the first Roundup tolerant weeds started to emerge in fields and were surviving a low application rate.” Fighting these progressively more resilient weeds is a snowballing struggle because farmers must incrementally up herbicide use. Since GMOs were adopted, farmers have increased herbicide use by 7 percent.

This worries Benbrook. “The sheer volume of glyphosate has led to soil changes that reduce a plant’s ability to draw up various mineral micronutrients [like zinc, chromium, and manganese],” he says. This also renders plants vulnerable to bacterial and fungal attacks. The downside? Lower crop yields, less nutrition, and more fungicide spraying.

Plus, a whole host of negative effects result from massive Roundup use. Most recently, a study published in the scientific journal Entropy suggests that long-term exposure to glyphosate residues could be linked to a suite of human health issues, including gastrointestinal disorders, Alzheimer’s, and certain cancers. As weeds continue to become even more resistant, heavier glyphosate use and more precarious herbicides (such as 2,4-D, an ingredient in Agent Orange) lurk on the horizon. Frighteningly, these higher-risk chemicals have a nasty habit of drifting.

Just label them

The Grocery Manufacturers Association estimates that a whopping 75 percent to 80 percent of conventional processed foods now contain GMOs. Even foods that don’t list corn, soy, or canola as a main ingredient can still be GMO-laden because of sneaky additives like ascorbic acid, maltodextrin, sugar from beets or corn, lactic acid, and more.“Products with seemingly low risk ingredients often have ones that could contain GMOs,” says Courtney Pineau, assistant director for the Non-GMO Project, a certification organization. “It’s surprising where GMOs can pop up, and it’s changing all the time.” Translation: If you’re not buying USDA Organic (which, by definition, excludes GMO ingredients), you’re probably eating GMOs.

Non-GMO proponents insist that labeling foods containing GMOs is paramount. While nearly 60 countries, including Australia, Japan, and the EU mandate GMO labeling, the United States does not, so you have no way to know what you’re eating or feeding to your family.

That doesn’t sit well with a lot of people. Since Whole Foods announced its labeling initiative, the Non-GMO Project has fielded a surge of inquiries from natural manufacturers wishing to attain the Non-GMO Project Verified seal. “A lot of this interest has to do with the impacts of the Right to Know movement, efforts from the Just Label It campaign, state initiatives, and increased outreach and education from Non-GMO Project Verified companies,” says Pineau.

The FDA maintains its position that GMOs are harmless, claiming there’s no evidence to substantiate adverse health effects. But the opposite is also true: There’s inconclusive evidence to show that they’re safe. According to a growing base of scientists, food experts, and citizens, you have the right to know what’s in your food and to choose or avoid products based on that knowledge.

[via NewHope360, Delicious Living]

Why to Support Labeling GM Foods

Many U.S. states have mandatory labeling of genetically modified foods on their legislative agendas. Survey after survey shows that more than 90 percent of us want GM foods to be labeled. Now is the time to contact your elected representatives and let them know you’re concerned about genetically modified food.

Genes form the building blocks of all life. Genetic modification — the technological shuffling of those building blocks among unrelated species — has been heralded since the 1990s as a potentially powerful agricultural tool. But pretty much all the genetically modified (GM) foods that have come to market so far have been crop varieties engineered to resist herbicides or produce insecticidal compounds (so farmers could, theoretically, apply fewer chemicals), and milk from dairy cows given a GM growth hormone that forces them to give more milk. Some countries have adopted these products, but others have banned them because the actual benefits of GM varieties remain unclear, especially as pests adapt to the traits upon which the technology relies.

Both benefits and downsides for consumers are controversial. In 1992, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ruled, based on woefully limited data, that GM foods were “substantially equivalent” to their non-GM counterparts. That ruling has been under fire ever since, but the government has failed to require new safety testing. Meanwhile, thousands of foods containing GM corn and soy have been introduced into our food supply (see the chart at How to Avoid Genetically Modified Food to learn how to avoid GM foods).

Recent studies have escalated public concern and renewed demands that GM foods be labeled. Studies have linked genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to cancer, deterioration of liver and kidney function, stomach inflammation, and impaired embryonic development.

Whether you’re for or against GM foods, one thing’s for certain: The science is incomplete.

A GMO labeling initiative on the 2012 ballot in California failed by 53 to 47 percent. Proponents of labeling spent $7.3 million; Big Ag and food processors spent $44 million. Labeling GM foods is about much more than just food safety. It’s about our right as consumers to know what we are eating. But labeling is also about how dominant we are going to allow Big Ag to become. Some of us don’t want to eat GM foods or feed them to our livestock. Others push for labeling because we want to make sure our food policy isn’t set by a handful of multinational corporations.

In the United States, we expect food to carry a label that tells us what’s in it. We require that our orange juice reveal if it is made directly from oranges or “from concentrate.” We require labels to tell us if salt, sugar, MSG, artificial flavors or colors, vitamins, or other ingredients have been added. We require meat labels to reveal when it has been pumped with up to a 12 percent saltwater “flavor solution.” And we require milk to indicate whether it is skim, 1 percent fat, 2 percent fat or whole. GM foods should be labeled; there is simply no good argument against telling consumers the whole story.

Monsanto and big food companies like to claim that genetic engineering is essential to feed the world’s ever-growing population. That’s nonsense — most hunger is due to economic inequality and systemic corruption that prevents food from getting to where it’s needed, not due to food shortages. And on the note of the “world’s ever-growing population,” it’s time for society to recognize that unlimited population growth is not sustainable to begin with. We need to choose a wiser course.

Survey after survey shows that 90 percent or more of us want GM foods to be labeled. The GMO-labeling initiative in California almost passed last year, despite the oceans of money pouring in to defeat it. Nearly half of U.S. states now have mandatory GM labeling on their legislative agendas.

If you’re concerned about labeling GM foods, now is the time to contact your elected representatives.

[via Mother Earth News]

Chipotle Becomes First US Restaurant Chain to Voluntarily Label GMOs

 By Jonathan Benson
For Natural News

The recent decision by Whole Foods Market to label all genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) sold in its stores by the long-off date of 2018 looks silly and almost meaningless compared to the right-now policy of fresh food chain Chipotle, which is officially the first and only major U.S. food supplier to voluntarily label GMOs.

On its “Ingredients Statement” website, Chipotle clearly outlines which of its food products contain GMOs, and also states that it is working aggressively to source completely non-GMO ingredients for all of its products as it moves forward.

Chipotle has always marketed itself as a healthy alternative to fast food, having taken steps from the beginning to eliminate things like dairy products produced using the artificial growth hormone rBST, for instance, and replacing them with pasture-raised dairy products. Chipotle has also played a key role in propelling forward the local agriculture movement by sourcing as many locally-grown and organic ingredients as possible, and eliminating artificial additives and other toxins commonly used in fast food.

But now Chipotle has set the bar even higher, and by choice, delineating each and every ingredient used in its meats, beans, rice, and dressings, and clarifying which ones contain GMOs. The primary GMO offender, as you will notice on Chipotle’s “Ingredients Statement” page, is soybean oil, which is reluctantly used in several of the chain’s meat and rice products. In fact, this commercial frying and cooking oil appears to be one of the only, if not the only, GMO ingredient still used by Chipotle.

“Our goal is to eliminate GMOs from Chipotle’s ingredients, and we’re working hard to meet this challenge,” explains the page. “For example, we recently switched our fryers from soybean oil to sunflower oil. Soybean oil is almost always made from genetically modified soybeans, while there is no commercially available GMO sunflower oil. Where our food contains currently unavoidable GM ingredients, it is only in the form of corn or soy.”

You can view the Chipotle “Ingredients Statement” page here.
Note: all items containing a “G” in the pink box contain GMOs.

Whole Foods’ track record on GMOs an embarrassment to the health freedom movement

While much of what Chipotle sells still admittedly contains GMOs in the form of corn and soybean oil, the company’s willingness to be forthcoming with its customers and the public about this fact is highly commendable. And it is a lot more than we can say for Whole Foods Market, which is still not being completely honest with its customers. The fact that Chipotle is already voluntarily labeling GMOs, and clearly indicating its intent to continue phasing them out right now, shows that Whole Foods’ 2018 labeling deadline is more of a political move to save face than a practical move to actually get the job done.

Other health food retailers like Trader Joe’s have already phased GMOs out of their private label brands, while health food stores like Natural Grocers source only organic produce and require that their packaged food suppliers fully disclose the source of any potential GMO ingredients. Natural Grocers even states directly on its website that, as a company, it does not consider GMOs to be at all safe for human consumption.

But Whole Foods, despite being a prominent leader in health food industry, has long taken the most ambiguous stance on GMOs. Besides its recent GMO labeling announcement and adoption of Non-GMO Project labeling back in 2009, both of which are commendable in their own rite, Whole Foods has not been nearly as forthcoming with its customers about GMOs, and yet continues to charge a premium for its products. While eventual labeling in 2018 may still be a positive step forward, it clearly lacks the proactive approach already being taken by companies like Chipotle.

[via: Natural News / sources: Chipotle, Fairfield Green Food Guide]

Connecticut First State to Approve Labeling Genetically Modified Foods

By STEPHANIE STROM
New York Times

Connecticut on Monday became the first state to pass a bill that would require food manufacturers to label products that contain genetically modified ingredients — but only after other conditions are met.

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy has said he would sign the bill into law, after reaching an agreement with the legislature to include a provision that the law would not take effect unless four other states, at least one of which shares a border with Connecticut, passed similar regulations.

The Connecticut bill also hinges on those states including Northeastern states with a total population of at least 20 million.

“This bill strikes an important balance by ensuring the consumers’ right to know what is in their food while shielding our small businesses from liability that could leave them at a competitive disadvantage,” Mr. Malloy said in a statement issued over the weekend after negotiations on the necessary provisions.

The legislature passed the bill on Monday, 134 to 3.

More than 20 other states are considering labeling laws, including New York, Maine and Vermont. Early polling suggests widespread support for a ballot initiative that would require labeling in Washington, as concern spread about the impact of genetically engineered salmon and apples on two of the state’s marquee businesses.

In 2005, Alaska passed a law requiring the labeling of all genetically engineered fish and shellfish, but Connecticut would become the first state to adopt labeling broadly.

Cathleen Enright, executive vice president for food and agriculture at the Biotechnology Industry Organization, said the industry supported voluntary labeling for genetically engineered ingredients. Dr. Enright noted that the Food and Drug Administration typically required labeling of foods only when issues like food safety, consumer health or nutrition were at stake.

She also said labeling by an individual state might put that state’s industry and businesses at a disadvantage compared with other states.

Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, called Connecticut’s move an “important first step,” and “a reminder of where the tide is going on this issue.”

Mark Kastel, co-director of the Cornucopia Institute, a liberal farm policy research group, said that while the triggers were unusual, they could work to the labeling movement’s advantage. “The hurdles in the Connecticut bill, if surmounted, would mean a critical mass in the marketplace that would emulate the impacts that would have materialized if California had passed its ballot initiative,” Mr. Kastel said.

Big food and seed companies like Monsanto and Dow spent tens of millions of dollars last fall to help defeat a ballot measure in California that would have required labeling.

But whether other states will go as far as Connecticut is unclear. In New Mexico, the state Senate voted not to adopt the report of its committee recommending labeling, effectively killing the labeling effort there. Efforts in Vermont, Hawaii and Maine have stalled.

And on Monday, the New York labeling bill was defeated in committee after members, including several who were co-sponsors of the legislation, were lobbied intensely by a representative from the Council for Biotechnology Information, a trade group whose members are BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroScience, DuPont Monsanto and Syngenta — all major makers of genetically modified seeds and pesticides that work with them.

Assemblywoman Linda B. Rosenthal, Democrat of Manhattan, said there were more than 40 co-sponsors when it went into the committee. “We had the votes lined up to pass this, and then the lobbyist for Monsanto and the other big seed companies showed up and was speaking to members and calling them and visiting their offices,” she said.

Ms. Rosenthal said she intended to continue to press for a labeling bill in New York. 

[via NY Times]

A Tale of Two Labels: Organic and Non-GMO

by Ken Roseboro for Organic Connections

The Non-GMO Project ver­i­fied seal is appear­ing on a grow­ing num­ber of food prod­ucts. Sales of Non-GMO Project ver­i­fied prod­ucts increased 66% in 2012, top­ping $2.4 bil­lion in sales—and that doesn’t even include sales of Whole Foods Market’s branded prod­ucts that are non-GMO verified.

“Threatens the organic label”

As the Non-GMO Project logo appears on more and more gro­cery shelves, some mem­bers of the organic food com­mu­nity expressed con­cerns that non-GMO will hurt sales of organic foods.

“The non-GMO label threat­ens the USDA Organic label,” says Greg Lickteig, direc­tor, The Scoular Company, which sells organic and non-GMO grains. “Given two prod­ucts on the gro­cery store shelf, one being non-GMO and the other organic, the non-GMO prod­uct will most cer­tainly be less expensive.”

Rakesh Raniga, pres­i­dent, Indianlife Foods, which sells both organic and Non-GMO Project ver­i­fied prod­ucts, agrees. “Non-GMO ver­i­fied prod­ucts will be less costly, there­fore some con­sumers may choose them over organic.”

Lynn Clarkson, pres­i­dent of Clarkson Grain, a sup­plier of organic and non-GMO grains, also sees non-GMO com­pet­ing with organic. “Yes, I think that a non-GMO label will com­pete with the USDA organic label for buy­ers’ food dol­lars,” he says. “I do not have a sense of how much dam­age it will do. The best way to avoid GMOs is to buy foods graced with the USDA organic label.”

However, he also says that a non-GMO label could be a step­ping stone to more organic demand. “If inter­est in a non-GMO label sen­si­tizes buy­ers to the con­se­quences of farm­ers widely using pes­ti­cides and syn­thetic fer­til­iz­ers, such devel­op­ment might actu­ally increase demand for cer­ti­fied organic foods.”

The Organic Trade Association hasn’t looked at any pos­si­ble impact of the Non-GMO Project on organic, says Laura Batcha, exec­u­tive vice pres­i­dent of the Organic Trade Association. However, she says OTA sur­veys show increas­ing aware­ness and con­cern about GMOs among organic con­sumers. “The num­ber of par­ents that cite avoid­ing GMOs as a rea­son to eat organ­ics rose to 22%, up from 17% in 2011,” Batcha says. “We take that as a pos­i­tive indi­ca­tion that con­sumers see GMOs as a core rea­son to pur­chase organic.”

Compatible with organics

Jim Riddle, coor­di­na­tor, grad­u­ate stu­dent organic research grant pro­gram at the Ceres Trust and for­mer chair of the National Organic Standards Board, doesn’t see a con­flict between non-GMO ver­i­fied and organic. “Many of those (non-GMO) claims appear on organic prod­ucts, and they are com­pat­i­ble with organic prod­ucts and mes­sag­ing,” he says.

Furthermore Riddle says “Both manda­tory GMO labels and vol­un­tary non-GMO labels will force organic pro­duc­ers and mar­keters to up their game and describe how their pro­duc­tion sys­tems have been shown to pro­tect soil health and water qual­ity; pre­vent pes­ti­cide con­t­a­m­i­na­tion; and build bio­di­ver­sity bet­ter than non-organic systems.”

As Riddle points out, many organic prod­ucts also fea­ture the Non-GMO Project ver­i­fied seal. According to Megan Westgate, Non-GMO Project exec­u­tive direc­tor, more than half of the Project’s 9,000 ver­i­fied prod­ucts are organic.

Also, lead­ing organic food com­pa­nies such as Eden Foods, Nature’s Path, and Lundberg Family Farms have been strong sup­port­ers of the Non-GMO Project since its founding.

Westgate says both labels are needed to help con­sumers avoid GMOs. “We are com­mit­ted to help­ing peo­ple under­stand the respec­tive val­ues of cer­ti­fied organic and Non-GMO Project ver­i­fied, and we reg­u­larly encour­age peo­ple to seek out both labels as the gold stan­dard,” she says.

Ken Whitman, pres­i­dent of Natural Vitality [and pub­lisher of Organic Connections], which sells organic sup­ple­ments that are also Non-GMO Project ver­i­fied, says the non-GMO label is needed. “All food isn’t organic and in the absence of GMO label­ing there needs to be a way shop­pers can be assured that the prod­ucts they are buy­ing are not genet­i­cally mod­i­fied. The Non-GMO Project has filled that need,” he says.

Room for both labels

Several organic indus­try experts say that edu­cated organic con­sumers would already know that organic is one of their best options to avoid GMOs since the National Organic Program rules con­sider genetic engi­neer­ing an “excluded method.”

“The true organic dis­ci­ple will under­stand that ‘organic’ has to be non-GMO,” says Steve Ford, pres­i­dent of Stonebridge, Ltd., a sup­plier of non-GMO and organic soybeans. 

“When it comes to label­ing non-GMO prod­ucts it must be under­stood that if you’re cer­ti­fied organic then you’re non-GMO,” says Randal Buresh, pres­i­dent of Oregon’s Wild Harvest. “The Non-GMO Project may help spread the word about organic farm­ing, help­ing to clar­ify what being organic is all about.”

Brendan McEntee, pres­i­dent of Cook Natural Products (also not a Non-GMO Project com­pany), agrees. “For the informed organic con­sumer there will not be any con­fu­sion about organic not being non-GMO.”

Though he also says “Certain organic prod­ucts may lose mar­ket share to cer­ti­fied non-GMO.”

Bob Sinner, pres­i­dent, SB&B Foods, a sup­plier of non-GMO and organic grains, sees a place for both non-GMO and organic label­ing. “I under­stand why the organic folks might try to pro­tect their label­ing turf, but as a uni­fied effort to sup­port the con­sumers that reject biotech I would hope they real­ize the ben­e­fits of both non-GMO and organic label­ing,” he says.

Whitman con­curs. “I don’t think we need a turf war between organic and non-GMO. It wouldn’t be pro­duc­tive. GMO is unpop­u­lar with health-conscious shop­pers. Organic is pop­u­lar. Can’t we just get along?” he says.

[via Organic Connections]