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]

The Power of Labeling: Preserving & Building a Non-GMO Food Supply

When California Proposition 37 failed to pass at the polls last November, all of us who advocate for the right to know were profoundly disappointed. However, the measure, which would have mandated labeling of foods containing genetically engineered ingredients, garnered more than 6 million votes, and was actually a great case of "losing forward." Despite outspending of nearly 5 to 1, the initiative lost by just 2 percentage points and attracted a significant amount of national media attention.

Inspired by California's effort, nearly 40 states are now working on mandatory labeling of GMOs (genetically modified organisms). In June, Connecticut and Maine became the first states to pass mandatory GMO labeling -- though in both cases additional states need to pass similar measures in order for the laws to take effect.

This November, voters in Washington State will have a chance to pass I-522, a similar but improved version of the Prop 37 legislation. Since January, organizers in California have been sharing lessons learned with their peers in Washington, giving I-522 a solid foundation for success. As a state with an economy focused on exports--a lot of which go to countries with GMO bans--Washington is uniquely concerned about GMO contamination. With the looming threat of genetically engineered apples, salmon, and wheat--all quintessential Washington crops--even conventional farmers in the state are becoming concerned about the economic impact of GMOs.

The non-GMO movement is, at its core, about the right to know. Because GMOs are unstable and experimental, they are subject to mandatory labeling in more than 60 countries around the world, including Australia, Japan, Russia, China, and all of the European Union. More research is needed to understand the long-term health and environmental implications of genetic engineering, but in the United States that research is essentially being conducted on the public, without consent.

Despite biotechnology industry promises, none of the GMO traits currently on the market offers increased yield, drought tolerance, enhanced nutrition, or any consumer benefit. Meanwhile, a growing body of evidence connecting GMOs to health problems and environmental damage has triggered a massive public backlash.

At the federal level, the Just Label It campaign has collected more than 1.3 million signatures on a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) petition demanding mandatory GMO labeling. Although the FDA has yet to respond, this is more than twice as many signatures as have ever been received on any food petition in the agency's history.

Americans are also voting in record numbers with their wallets. The Non-GMO Project--a nonprofit organization that oversees North America's only third-party non-GMO verification, including ongoing ingredient testing--has quickly seen its label become the fastest growing in the natural products industry. With annual sales of well over $3.5 billion, Non-GMO Project Verified products are now found everywhere from independent food co-ops to big-box retailers.

When the Non-GMO Project was founded in 2007, mandatory labeling efforts had almost completely stalled. In that void, the project's strategy was to leverage the power of the marketplace, using supply and demand principles to preserve and build a non-GMO food supply. When it began, skeptics far outweighed supporters; many said it would be impossible to get a critical mass of food companies to voluntarily adopt such rigorous standards. Six years later, the progress is astonishing. More than 1,000 brands are now enrolled in the Non-GMO Project's Product Verification Program, and more than 14,000 products have successfully earned the verification.

This market demand and the corresponding rekindling of mandatory labeling efforts clearly show Americans are not willing to remain in the dark when it comes to the food we're eating and feeding to our loved ones. The momentum will continue until we have the same right to know about GMOs in our food as our peers around the world.

Would GMO Labeling Jack Up Food Prices?

The push to require labels for genetically modified food, which flared up in California before drowning under a flood of industry cash last year, is now underway in Washington state. Predictably, agrichemical and organic interests are pouring money into, respectively, defeating and supporting a ballot initiative called I-522, which would require foods containing GMO ingredients to bear labels. Just as predictably, the agribusiness interests are garnering much more money to kill the effort than their organic peers are in supporting it—outspending them $17.1 million to $4.6 million, the Spokane-Review reported.

Meanwhile, in a development that broke late Wednesday, the Washington state attorney general has filed a complaint alleging that the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a trade group that donated $2 million to the effort to defeat California's labeling initiative, violated state campaign laws and "spent more than $7 million while shielding the identity of its contributors," according to its press release.

As in California, the effect on food prices is emerging as a point of contention. Opponents of labeling, pointing to a 2012 study prepared during the California fight by Northbridge Environmental Management Consultants, say that the new rules would cost consumers $350 to $400 annually per household. The Northbridge paper, though, was funded by the industry-dominated campaign to stop Prop 37, as the California initiative was known. Campaign records show that Northridge received a total of $97,371 in five payments during 2012.

Supporters of the Washington initiative, in turn, point to a rival 2012 study, this one prepared by Joanna M. Shepherd of Emory University School of Law, which found that "food prices [are] likely to remain unchanged for consumers." That study was commissioned by the Alliance for Natural Health, a group that advocates for "the right of natural-health practitioners to practice and the right of consumers to choose the healthcare options they prefer."

So which is right? Over at Grist, Michael Lipsky, a distinguished senior fellow at the progressive think tank Demos, argues that labeling wouldn't likely cost consumers much at all. The cost of changing labels would be trivial, he writes—food manufacturers "do it all the time." Ever seen the words "new and improved" on some boxed delicacy?

The Northbridge study, he shows, is based on the assumption that, in order to avoid having to declare that their products contain GMOs, food manufactures will rapidly switch over to non-GMO ingredients, which would cost more to procure. That's because upwards of 80 percent of US corn, soybeans, and sugar beets are genetically modified—and iterations of these three crops suffuse US processed foods, providing sweeteners (high-fructose corn syrup and beet sugar), fats (corn and soy oil), and a litany of ingredients like various thickeners. For food manufacturers to get non-GMO versions of these substances, they'd have to pay a premium in the marketplace—hence higher ingredient costs that they'd want to pass on to consumers.

But that effect wouldn't last long, Lipsky argues. "If labeling were required, particularly if (and when) the labeling requirement is adopted by other states, demand for non-GMO versions of corn, soybeans, and sugar beets—the basic GMO crops—would increase, production would expand, and prices for non-GMO ingredients would decline," he writes. That makes good sense: basic supply and demand.

And here's something Lipsky didn't get to: Even in the short term, the effect on retail prices would likely be small. That's because ingredients make up a tiny portion of the expenses incurred by manufactures to process food and move it to grocery store shelves. Transportation, marketing, processing—all of these things cost more than the actual food in the box of cereal or frozen dinner at Walmart.

How tiny are the costs of ingredients? Consider a box of corn flakes—which are presumably made largely of GMO corn (it's impossible to know for sure, because no US state requires labeling). In this 2008 report (currently available online because it has been republished on a non-government server) on the effect of ethanol on food prices, a US Department of Agriculture researcher crunched the numbers (pun fully intended) on the how much money companies spend on corn to make your cereal:

[A]n 18-ounce box of corn flakes contains about 12.9 ounces of milled field corn. When field corn is priced at $2.28 per bushel (the 20-year average), the actual value of corn represented in the box of corn flakes is about 3.3 cents.

And what happened after the corn ethanol program pushed corn prices up to $3.49 per bushel—a 49 percent jump? The total cost of corn in the cereal box rose to 4.9 cents. In other words, paying a 49 percent premium pushed up the corn cost in a box of corn flakes a grand total of 1.6 cents. An 18-ounce box of corn flakes contains 18 servings—meaning that much-pricier corn translated to an increase of less than 0.1 cents per bowl. For a family of four that consumes four bowls of flakes every day, that's about $1.46 extra for the year.

So even if manufacturers had to pay a hefty premium for non-GMO corn, the retail price of food would barely budge. Whatever you think about GMO labeling, the concern that it would significantly jack up food prices is probably specious.

[via Mother Jones]

Who’s paying for GMO-labeling initiative campaigns?

Groups opposed to labeling genetically modified food outspent those in favor 5 to 1 last year when Californians voted on a labeling ballot measure. But the tables are turned in the run-up to an initiative vote in Washington state. So far, pro-labeling groups have spent more than $4 for every $1 spent by those opposed, according to an analysis by MapLight.

Contributions in support of Washington Ballot Initiative 522 (“The People’s Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act”) add up to nearly $4 million $3.5 million, while the opposition has raised about $950,000. The big money comes from the same interests that ponied during the California campaign, as you can see in this chart.

That chart only shows the biggest contributors. Pro-labeling contributions come from a broader base; the money supporting the initiative comes from 5,698 supporters, compared to just 12 contributors in opposition.

The relative weight of contributions, however, is likely to shift rapidly as the Washington initiative approaches its Nov. 5 moment of truth at the ballot box. Last year, the campaign against the California proposition spent $42 million in the six weeks before the vote. That proposition failed, with 6.4 million “no” votes, and 6.1 million votes in favor.

After that vote, both sides promised to fight just as vigorously in future campaigns. There are dozens of bills currently making their way through statehouses that would require the labeling of GM foods.

Editor’s Note and Correction: This story includes a chart from MapLight showing supporters of 1-522 had given $3,869,078. The correct number is $3,489,078.13, according to a MapLight correction.

MapLight has issued this update: “A previous version of MapLight’s analysis cited the total amount raised in support of I-522 as $3,869,078, including two contributions that were disclosed by the Washington Public Disclosure Commission as having been made by ‘ORGANIC CONSUMER FUND’ when in fact they were made by ‘ORGANIC CONSUMER FUND COMMITTEE TO LABEL GMOS IN WA STATE.’ As a committee that is supporting I-522, contributions from ORGANIC CONSUMER FUND COMMITTEE TO LABEL GMOS IN WA STATE to other committees supporting I-522 should be excluded from the total amount raised in support of this measure, making the correct total $3,489,078.13.”

[via grist]

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.

Statewide GMO Labeling Initiatives Still Going Strong

After the pledge to avoid products containing GMOs was denied when California’s Proposition 37 failed to pass during the election last November, it has had little affect on the anti-GMO movement. And with talks of the FDA approving genetically engineered salmon on its way, Americans are increasingly in favor of more food labeling with an overwhelming percent of Democrats, Independants and Republicans in favor, according to the National Survey of Healthcare Consumers: Genetically Engineered Food published on Just Label It!.

For more than 10 years, processed foods in the U.S. are made from genetically modified crops manipulated in laboratories. A movement to eliminate such ingredients in food has brought about awareness and posed questions regarding the negative effects of biotechnology on human health and the environment. While some scientists say GMO doesn’t pose a threat to either, many state-initiatives bills and campaigns continue to try and reach legislation in an effort to mandate labeling at the federal level.

Washington and New Mexico are just two of the 30 states that are gaining ground on their current initiative to mandate labeling. But, with most of the remaining states also behind the movement through proposed bills and campaigns, the anti-GMO movement is far from over.

Arizona—GMO-Free Phoenix is a food activist group working to educate consumers on safe ingredients and increase the Non-GMO Tipping Point Network to see that the genetically modified foods and brands are put out of business.

California— While the majority voted against Prop. 37 in recent elections, the Right to Know campaign continues to support Prop 37 through events and the education of people on their right to know what’s in their food.

Colorado—GMO Free Colorado is a grassroots effort to protect residents and pass a statewide ballot requiring GMO labeling of foods.

Connecticut—The Northeast Organic Farming Association, Conn. Chapter is a non-profit organization working toward strengthening sustainable farming and providing consumers with healthy food. While the bill, HB 5117 was recently removed from legislation before Prop. 37 went on the ballot, the organization is commitment to pass legislation in favor of GMO labeling through events and word of mouth.

Florida—Label GMO Florida is a grassroots initiative to bring to ballot the requirement of GMO labeled food. By 2014 the organization is determined to vote on the initiative.

Hawaii—Label It Hawaii is working to promote and pass the proposed bill HB2034/SB2443 in order to give residents the right to know what’s in its food. A series of proposed bills have made it to the Senate thanks to a group of supportive anti-GMO senators.

Idaho—Part of the GMO Free campaign, Idaho is working as a state to raising awareness and promoting local, organic and GMO-free foods.

Massachusetts—Also part of the Northeast Organic Farming Association, Mass. Chapter, the non-profit organization supports organic farming and brings awareness to what's in food and where it is coming from. The state has proposed a bill, H3276, to label food, but has yet to gain legislation

Michigan—No GMO for Michigan is a grassroots attempt to educate residents about the food they eat and the direct effect it has on their overall health. Through planned events and protests in an attempt to urge Congress to take action, the organization strives to provide residents the option to eat healthy.

Minnesota—Right to Know Minnesota is working to gather supports of GMO labeling to pass through legislation through their proposed bill,  S.F. 2563. The coalition is speaking out in favor for people's right to know what is in their food.

New Jersey—A proposed bill, HB 1367, through the efforts ofLabel GMOs in New Jersey was made possible through Girl Scout Troop 86 and introduced to the Senate where it will be heard by several committees. Their efforts are being used to gain a choice in what people eat.

New York—Part of the GMO Free campaign, New York is working to bring awareness about the affects of GMO and educate residents on the right to choose.

North Carolina—The state-proposed bill, HB 446, is part of the overall GMO movement to pass the labeling into law.

Ohio—Also part of the GMO Free campaign, the state is working to bring awareness to residents about what they are eating and where it is coming from.

Oregon—A statewide effort to pass legislation through proposed bills, SB 517 & HB 3346, GMO Free Oregon and Right to Know campaigns are initiatives to bring awareness to the people.

Rhode Island—Proposed bill HB 7494 was introduced in the Senate and was referred to the House Health, Education and Welfare Committee. The committee asked the bill be reviewed further, which Rhode Island is asking residents to make their voices heard by raising awareness and continuing to support the initiative until it is passed into law.

Utah—Millions Against Monsanto under the Utah Chapter is a non-profit organization that is challenging Monsanto for the harm caused by GMO and trying to stop the use of GMOs.

Vermont—A proposed bill, HB 722, was introduced to the Senate in 2012 and referred to the House Committee on Agriculture, which held a hearing on the bill. This legislative session was a big gain in the GMO labeling initiative and will continue to be part of political conversation in upcoming elections.

Virginia—Also proposed a bill, HB 606, in the Senate to pass GMO labeling was initiated by Senator Jill Holtzman Vogel, but has yet to be heard by a committee.

Washington—Label it Washington is working to pass the People's Right to know Genetically Engineered Food Act, I-522, to the Title 70 RCW. The campaign received over 350,000 signatures and the initiative was submitted to the Secetary of State in January.

Besides the grassroots campaigns throughout the states, more than 600 companies have formed a partnership with the Just Label It! Campaign to protect consumers’ right to know what’s in their food and petition against the FDA. These brands support the movement and believe the practice is their responsibility, political or not.

Residents are also urged to call their state representative and make their voices heard by bringing to their attention the hazards of GMOs and the people's right to know.

While more than a million signatures have been collected over the past months and proposed bills at the state legislature level continue to move forward, many said the denial of Prop 37 actually increased the movement with national efforts at an all-time high.

[via Nation of Change]

Labeling GMO Crops [video]

The current issue isn't about banning GMO crops in the United States, it's about labeling them - a consumer's right to know. We will work on getting them banned as our next step.

What do you know about GMOs? [Infographic]

A genetically modified organism (GMO) is an organism altered to incorporate genes of a desirable trait. Information on GMO labeling has been recently covered in the news, specifically regarding California's Prop 37 and has been a trending topic amongst the blogging community, but what do you really know about them? Luckily the folks over at Visualism have put together an infograph for you to test your knowledge on GMOs. And while barely scratching the surface on the entire GMO debate, we think it's a good starting point and worth the share.

What To Takeaway From Prop 37's Defeat

If you haven't heard yet, California's Proposition 37 did not pass, therefore there will be no mandatory labeling of genetically modified food, well....yet.  The ballot initiative dramatically gained attention leading up to the vote as massive amounts of opposition commercials hit the airwaves. Corporations not supporting the initiative spent more than $46 million, compared to the mere $9 million raised by organic advocates, activists and the general public. And while the narrow margin of the vote - 47% for labeling, 53% opposed - still doesn't push the initiative into action, it's a lot closer than expected, but a loss is still a loss.

Here are 5 takeaways from yesterday's vote from Marc Brush of New Hope 360:

1. Consumers do prefer natural food, but they don't particularly care right now about what that means. Whether this apathy manifests in the rampant abuse of natural product claims or our dogged lack of transparency concerning GM ingredients, mainstream consumers will vote for natural in polls but not on ballots, and only at the shelf if the price is right.

2. You really can buy the vote in America, at least on the rough and tumble terrain of state politics. Whether you view the opposition's messaging as consumer education or a nefarious disinformation campaign, the fact remains that $46 million in organized advertising tabled this initiative. In this light, food reformists need concern themselves much more with campaign finance reform and the mechanisms of politics than they ever have in the past. You could even argue that there is no true food reform without political reform first.

3. Most of the leadership in natural & organic food did not step up to the plate for this initiative. For whatever reason—imprecise language, litigation exposure, economic pressure—only a small handful of companies contributed meaningful levels to this particular cause. Spotlight on Nature's Path, Dr. Bronner's and Lundberg Family Farms for giving until it hurt.

4. This is not a death blow for the non-GMO movement, but let's be honest. It's serious. California was the state to make this happen, and now it serves as a very public proxy for the country's lack of conviction around this topic. If I was in the business of agitating for GM labeling, I would now focus the lion's share of my efforts and resources on Just Label It at the national level.

5. What exactly did that $46 million buy the companies who spent it? Time, and time alone. Given the escalating awareness surrounding this issue, the global call for labeling in most developed countries, and the relentless drive for transparency across industries but especially in food, the prospect of unlabeled GM food in America is increasingly remote. Another few years of it, however, makes that $46 million money well spent.

Hidden GMOs in Packaged Food

 
Grab any packaged food in your pantry and read the label. The following are ingredients that may contain GMOs, unless certified organic or non-GMO.

Aspartame (also called AminoSweet®,    NutraSweet®, Equal Spoonful®, Canderel®,  BeneVia®, E951) baking powder canola oil (rapeseed oil) caramel color cellulose citric acid cobalamin (Vitamin B12) colorose condensed milk confectioners sugar corn flour corn masa corn meal corn oil corn sugar corn syrup cornstarch cottonseed oil cyclodextrin cystein dextrin dextrose diacetyl diglyceride erythritol Equal food starch fructose (any form) glucose glutamate glutamic acid glycerides glycerin glycerol glycerol monooleate glycine hemicellulose high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) hydrogenated starch hydrolyzed vegetable protein inositol inverse syrup inversol invert sugar isoflavones lactic acid lecithin leucine

lysine malitol malt malt syrup malt extract maltodextrin maltose mannitol methylcellulose milk powder milo starch modified food starch modified starch mono and diglycerides monosodium glutamate (MSG) Nutrasweet oleic acid Phenylalanine phytic acid protein isolate shoyu sorbitol soy flour soy isolates soy lecithin soy milk soy oil soy protein soy protein isolate soy sauce starch stearic acid sugar (unless specified as cane sugar) tamari tempeh teriyaki marinades textured vegetable protein threonine tocopherols (vitamin E) tofu trehalose triglyceride vegetable fat vegetable oil vitamin B12 vitamin E whey whey powder xanthan gum

Vitamin C (ascorbic acid) although usually derived from corn, is probably not GM because it is not likely made in North America.

Chefs Back Measure on Labeling G.M.O.’s

By Stephanie Strom, Diner's Journal, New York Times

Alice Waters / Laura Morton for The New York Times 

More than 700 of the nation’s chefs and professional foodies, from prominent names like David Bouley to up-and-comers like the chef Bryant Terry of Oakland, have lined up to support a California ballot measure that would require food companies to label products containing genetically engineered ingredients.

“We’re talking about the provenance of food, and there’s nothing more important to chefs like me,” said Alice Waters, the founder of Chez Panisse in Berkeley, Calif., and legendary proponent of locally grown foods. “We need to know where our food comes from and how it’s produced, who produces it. That’s the bedrock of what we do.”

Ms. Waters said she initially thought she needed to do no more than vote “yes” for the ballot measure, Proposition 37, when she went to her polling place on Nov. 6. But a visit to Sonoma County from Carlo Petrini, the founder of the slow food movement, convinced her that she needed to become more active.

“He had come to talk about Slow Food and the change in leadership, but the first thing he started talking about was Prop 37,” Ms. Waters said, referring to the nonprofit Mr. Petrini founded in 1989 to nurture the movement. “He talked about Europe looking to the vote in California and how we needed to take this on, and I decided then that I needed to do whatever I could.  I needed to get active.”

So she sent out an e-mail late Friday night, asking chefs she knew around the country to lend their support to the campaign to get the ballot measure passed. By Monday morning, 100 chefs had signed up, and 200 more quickly signed on once word got out on Twitter and other social networks.

On Tuesday, Mr. Bouley became the 516th chef to sign onto the cause.

“Whether it’s calorie labeling in chain restaurants or chefs putting on their menus what farm they bought the lamb from, people want to know more about their food and where it comes from,” said Peter Hoffman, chef and founder of the now-closed Savoy, a farm-to-table pioneer in SoHo, and the Back 40 restaurants. “So this isn’t about whether G.M.O. is right or wrong, it’s about transparency. And when someone opposes transparency, what does it tell you?”

Mr. Hoffman noted that avoiding foods with genetically engineered ingredients is becoming harder and harder. For instance, he said he recently learned that most white vinegar sold in supermarkets comes from corn and thus is likely to be genetically modified.

Dan Barber, the executive chef and an owner of the Blue Hill restaurants, joked that he himself engages in genetic engineering, together with his partners at the Stone Barns Center for Food and Agriculture, a nonprofit farm and education center in Pocantico Hills, N.Y., that supplies some of the ingredients used in the dishes he makes at his restaurants.

The current menu, for instance, features a new, proprietary variety of squash that he and his partners at the farm have grown by cross-breeding conventional squashes. “That sometimes results in some outrage from customers initially until we explain what we’re doing,” Mr. Barber said.
But he makes a distinction between what he is doing and what the food and agribusiness companies that have poured tens of millions of dollars into opposing the ballot measure are doing. “They are inserting genes at will, sometimes from completely different species, and creating things in a lab that would never occur in nature,” Mr. Barber said. “We don’t support that.”

[via: New York Times]

Dr. Oz Officially Endorses GMO Labeling

Arguably the most influential health expert in the US, Dr. Mehmet Oz, has officially endorsed Proposition 37 in California, which makes GMO labeling on many (not all) food products. If this imitative passes in the state of California, it will set wheels in motion for all food companies nationwide. With only two weeks until the election, the Dr. Oz endorsement is a key development for those in favor of food freedom.

---

According to the press release, Dr. Oz concluded his show on Wednesday, Oct. 17 about the topic of GMOs with the following quote: “”Right now we have no way of knowing which foods have been genetically modified. I believe you should have that right,” said Dr. Oz, at the conclusion of the segment, titled GMO Foods: Are They Dangerous to Your Health? “I prefer to be cautious.”

Now that Dr. Oz is on board, the pendulum should swing back in the direction of common sense, and in favor of GMO labeling. Companies change labels all the time, so adding a small “May contain genetically modified ingredients” tag to their products shouldn’t be too taxing. Thankfully, the truth is coming out about GMOs, and the revolution is underway. [via The Natural Independent]

Whole Foods and GMO Labeling

A couple weeks ago, we reported on Whole Foods' new program that ensures any "organic" personal care products sold in their stores live up to the claims made by manufacturers. The positive sentiment following this news did not last long however, as Whole Foods has come under scrutiny from the organic community and its customers following what many are viewing as a much delayed and insincere endorsement of Prop 37. 

Whole Foods and GMO Labeling: The Whole Truth
Ronnie Cummings, Director Organic Consumers Association

After months of pressure from the organic community, including thousands of its customers, the leadership of Whole Foods Market on September 11 endorsed Proposition 37, the California Ballot Initiative to require mandatory labels on genetically engineered foods. But the endorsement came with “reservations” and inaccuracies. It also included the false claim that company policy precludes Whole Foods and its executives from providing much-needed financial support to Prop 37, a campaign that consumers – the very people who have made WFM and its executives wildly profitable – overwhelmingly support.

Is it possible that Whole Foods wants to ride the GMO labeling popularity wave while it quietly works behind the scenes to prevent Prop 37, or any other GMO labeling law, from passing? Could it be that a GMO labeling law – especially one like Prop 37 that prohibits the use of the word “natural” on any food containing GMOs – would cut too deeply into the company’s $9.8 billion in sales and almost $246 million in profits?

Right up until the company announced its lukewarm endorsement, Vice President of Global Communications and Quality Standards Margaret Wittenberg and other WFM top brass repeatedly stated that they would not endorse Prop 37. CEO John Mackey has reportedly claimed that “the jury is still out” on whether genetically engineered crops and foods are unhealthy for people or the environment. (Mackey also has stated that “no scientific consensus exists” to support global warming or climate change).

And while the company website states that WFM is “committed to foods that are fresh, wholesome and safe to eat”, nowhere on its list of unacceptable ingredients is there any mention of GMOs.

So why come out with a public endorsement of Prop 37? With national polls showing 90% support for GMO labeling, and voter support for Prop 37 running 67% for and 24% against, it was just common-sense marketing strategy to get behind the initiative. But was it really an endorsement?

When it first came out, WFM’s official endorsement contained misleading information that read straight from the opposition’s playbook. It also contained one glaring error.  Initially, the company listed among its “reservations” about Prop 37 this incorrect statement: The use of 0.5% of the total weight as the upper limit for processed foods that contain one or more genetically engineered ingredients to be exempted from labeling is inconsistent with the long-established international labeling standard of 0.9%.

Not true. The OCA contacted the authors of the official press release and offered this correction, taken straight from the ballot initiative itself: The 0.5% exemption is for one ingredient and a food can have up to ten such ingredients, meaning a 5.0% exemption (until 2019).

It took them several days, but WFM public relations team did finally issue a correction. But the correction did little to strengthen the company’s endorsement, which continues to perpetuate the exact same myths that the NO on 37 campaign is now airing in its $35-million TV advertising blitz. The endorsement echoes biotech industry claims that Prop 37 is “too complicated.” That GMO food labeling is best left up to the pro-biotech federal government and the FDA (don’t hold your breath for this), rather than the states. That if passed, Prop 37 will result in greedy trial lawyers suing innocent grocery stores, farmers, and food processors for not labeling or mislabeling GMO foods.

None of this is true – as has been repeatedly outlined by the YES on Prop 37 campaign.

Go to the full article

Russia Bans GMO Corn Following French Study, Many Scientists Skeptical

Rospotrebnadzor, Russia's federal service in control of protecting consumers' rights and well-being has suspended the import of genetically modified corn made by Monsanto, following a report by the University of Caen in France. Gilles-Eric Seralini, the French scientist behind the two-year long study, says rats whose diet consisted of Monsanto's genetically modified NK603 corn,  or were exposed to it's top-selling weedkiller Roundup suffered tumors and organ damage more often than rats in the control group. 

Published in the journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology, the study details the animals consuming the genetically modified corn developing mammary tumors as well as sever kidney and liver damage.  According to the final report, 50 percent of male and 70 percent of female rats died prematurely, compared to only 30 percent and 20 percent of rats in the control group. Many Americans as well as people in other parts of the world are calling the study and Russia's decision, clear evidence that humans should not consume modified crops, especially Monsanto's corn. The study prompted Vice-Chairman of the European Parliament's commission for agriculture, Jose Bove to call for the immediate suspension of all EU cultivation and import approvals of genetically modified crops. Bove spoke out about his request saying, "This study finally shows we are right and that it is urgent to quickly review all GMO evaluation processes." 

Does the study in fact prove once and for all that GMO crops are dangerous? Some scientists aren't agreeing with Bove just yet. Members of the European scientific community, not associated with the study have voiced their skepticism, with one French scientist accusing Seralini and his colleagues of going on a "statistical fishing trip."

Tom Sanders, head of the nutritional sciences research division at King's College London says Seralini's team did not provide any data on how much the rats were given to eat, or any documentation of their growth rates. 

"This strain of rat is very prone to mammary tumors particularly when food intake is not restricted. The statistical methods are unconventional…and it would appear the authors have gone on a statistical field trip."

David Spiegelhalter of the University of Cambridge said similar concerns arose when he learned of the study's findings, stating that the methods, statistics and reporting of all results were below standard. Spiegelhalter added that the study's untreated control arm comprised of only 10 rats of each sex, most of which also suffered mammary tumors. 

The French government, who recently decided to uphold a ban on cultivating GMO crops, has asked health and safety officials to assess the study as well as reaching out to the European Union's food safety agency, EFSA for assistance in taking a closer look at the study and its findings. The EFSA plans to deliver their initial review of the study sometime next week. 

With both sides of this study and Russia's recent decision to ban all Monsanto crops from entering their country shrouded in controversy, the only certainty at this the friction between both sides of the GMO debate is heating up.  

Getting The Dirt On What's Really Organic

With consumption of organic food throughout the United States on the rise and potential legislative measures, such as California's Prop 37 and private retailer Whole Foods instituting a third-party organic certification system, consumers are more interested in what their food and other products contain than ever before. Idaho news station KTVB recently investigated the cost of local organic foods and what goes into 'organic' certification. As of 2008, USDA numbers show Idaho ranks in the top ten states for organic food sales with more than $71 million in goods sold each year.





How Do You Know It's Organic? by Jamie Grey

"More and more people are concerned about where their food's coming from, and how it's been grown and what's gone into it," said Ariel Agenbroad, Horticulture Educator at the University of Idaho Extension Center in Canyon County.

Agenbroad says people are choosing to buy organic for a variety of reasons, including personal health beliefs, concerns about sustainability, and worries about food treated with chemicals.

Organic vs. Conventional: Cost comparison at the market

KTVB did a quick cost comparison using two grocery stores to check prices of organic produce and conventional produce. Calculating a simple average, recent prices showed organic produce generally costs around 50% more than non-organic.

For example, we found non-organic strawberries selling at $2.00/lb, while organic strawberries were $2.99/lb. Non-organic raspberries were $2.99/lb, while organic were $3.49/lb. The most drastic difference was green peppers: non-organic peppers sold for 59 cents each, while the organic variety cost 153% more at $1.49.

While those prices may shock some, we did find some items priced equally or cheaper. For example, organic navel oranges and organic kiwi fruits were priced lower per pound than their non-organic counterparts at Albertson's.

Is it really organic?

"You can trust the label -- that if it says 'certified organic by' -- that they are being inspected," said Brandon Lamb, organic program manager for the Idaho State Dept. of Agriculture.

Lamb and other inspectors check farms to make sure they're meeting USDA organic standards.

"How they're going to comply with those rules and regulations, how they're going to manage for pests, what their plan is for soil fertility, what their crop rotation is," Lamb said.

Organic farms earning more than $5,000 a year have to get certified through the USDA standards, proving they're using required sustainable farming practices. In Idaho, there are more than 200 certified organic operations, and most are growing crops.

How does a farmer or rancher get USDA certified?

Lamb allowed KTVB to accompany inspectors visiting a local vineyard for an organic re-certification inspection. Rocky Fence Vineyard in Emmett grows organic wine and table grapes and has always farmed organically. The vineyard sells to a local winery and ships table grapes internationally.

"These grapes here are just from the Idaho sun, and from the Idaho mountains," grape grower Michael Medes explains.

We found the several-hours-long inspection got down to the nitty-gritty -- from checking extensive records, receipts and plans, to walking down every row of grapes looking at the vines, to checking sheds, equipment and sprays. The idea is to check for sustainable farming practices at every level of production.

In a certified organic operation, natural pesticides, fertilizers, equipment, and other implements are allowed unless otherwise prohibited by the USDA. Synthetic products are not allowed unless specifically listed. Idaho's organic program (1990) is older than the federal accreditation program (2002), and regulations are continually getting tighter.

Farming organically costs significantly more

The USDA recently surveyed farmers nationwide, and found organic operation and production expenditures around 60% higher than conventional expenditures. The average organic farm spends $171,978 per year, while other farms spend an average of $109,359.

"If I could use a herbicide, it would be a lot easier," Medes said. "If I have to treat my vines when I have problems, the treatments usually cost about three times more than conventional and are about a third as effective."

Medes showed KTVB a gallon container of natural, USDA organic approved treatment that cost between $200 and $300 for one container. Growers say the higher cost has to be passed on to consumers, though they say the product from using organic practices is worth the price.

"We try to get our grapes tasting better so it's worth paying more. I mean that's our goal," Medes said.

Since consumers do sometimes pay more, organic growers say USDA certification is proof consumers are getting their money's worth.

"I'm glad they're real strict, because if the consumer's going to spend for organic produce, they should be protected that we're not spraying these things," Medes said.

Dept. of Ag: Other terms like 'spray-free' are not regulated

KTVB checked out several food labels at a local farmer's market and saw words like "natural," "no spray", "sustainably raised" and "country organic." Experts say those labels could mean the farmer is using organic practices, but they may not be certified or regulated.

"Consumers want to look for the organic label. [There] is the USDA issued label, and only growers that have gone through the process of becoming certified and gone through the paper work and had inspections done on their farm have permission to use this logo and call their produce certified organic," Agenbroad said. "Lots of other people will use terms like 'natural' or 'no spray' or 'organically grown', but those don't come with the seal, so it's not an absolute guarantee."

Knowing that information, experts suggest you check labels and ask questions to make sure a farm's growing practices match up with your personal beliefs about food.

"[If] You're buying based on your values, and if it's important for you to see farming happen in that way, or support a grower who uses those principals or practices, then it is worth the money to you," Agenbroad said.

Small farms don't have to be inspected to use 'organic' labeling

Lamb says small farms earning less than $5,000 a year don't have to get inspected to advertise that they're organic, they just need to register with the state. Lamb's office handles those applications as well. Usually, he says getting a small farm organic certificate is just a quick check and registration process, and does not include inspection.

Boise's Capital City Market requires proof of USDA organic certification from anyone who wants to sell using the term 'organic'. Other terms, like natural or spray-free aren't checked because the market says there's really no way to check because there aren't standards or certificates for those terms.

Fines, penalties and suspensions for incorrect use of 'organic' label

Growers and producers can be denied certification, have their license suspended, or issued a notice of non-compliance with the USDA if inspectors find violations with their methods.

"Every year we have approximately 10 to 15 operations that are suspended, but typically that's for failing to apply," Lamb said.

Lamb and his office also investigate if people report problems or suspect an organic farm or operation is out of compliance. He says they usually investigate complaints within 24 hours.

Additionally, the USDA issues fines to growers or operators found to be using the "Certified Organic" label fraudulently.

New organics health study by Stanford

Looking at the health aspects of organics, a new research study by Stanford University shows practically no nutritional difference between organically and non-organically grown produce -- but does show a big difference in the use of pesticides.

Organic fruits and veggies have a 30% lower risk of pesticide contamination than non-organic. However, no studies found specifically that pesticides at non-organic levels cause harm.

Scientists also looked at pork and chicken. They discovered there's a 33% greater risk of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in non-organic pork and chicken. They also found higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids in organic milk and chicken.