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]

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]

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]

There's an App for That

While we all sit on the edge of our seats awaiting the results of the upcoming proposition in California, the folks over at Fooducate released a phone app designed to tell you if there are GMO ingredients in your food. In an effort to eliminate nutrition label confusion the app provides the user with GMO information for about 200,000 products.

And while the app cannot replace individual due diligence and mainly common sense shopping, it's always nice having more options to educate the general public on the importance of GMO labeling.

iPhone screen shots

Learn more about Fooducate Apps on their website: www.fooducate.com.

[via Fast Co.]

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

Organic Brands Caught In The Middle Of Prop 37 GMO Fight

18 other states, including California have attempted to pass laws similar to Proposition 37, The Right to Know Genetically Modified Food Act and failed. With 1 million signatures, Prop 37 is the first such measure to reach the statewide ballot. If passed, genetically modified food products would include the words "Partially produced with genetic engineering" on the label. 

With voting day (Nov 6) drawing closer, giant food companies are dumping millions of dollars into an effort to stop Prop 37 before it even begins. Companies such as Monsanto and Coca-Cola, among others have donated approximately $23.5 million dollars to fund stopping Proposition 37, according to the Cornucopia Institute. Monsanto currently holds the title for largest contribution with $4.2 million dollars, followed by PepsiCo (Izze, Naked) with $1.7 million. Next is Coca-Cola (Honest Tea, Odwalla) with $1.1 million. Kellog (Kashi, Morningstar Farms, Gardneburger, Bear Naked) has contributed $632,500 to date with Dean Foods (Horizon Organic, Silk) contributing $253,000. 

(Full list of companies, subsidiaries and donations to stop Prop 37 below) 

Prop 37's opponents are attempting to stop Prop 37, citing their desire for a federal-level measure on GMO's as a more practical solution, as well as claiming that the passing of the act will burden farmers and the industry overall with exponentially higher costs and make farmers susceptible to numerous lawsuits, alleging that many growers will improperly label their food. 

Coca-Cola and Monsanto are presumably large enough to survive any perceived backlash from consumers for funding the opposition of something that two-thirds of Californians favor. However, smaller organic companies such as Odwalla and Honest Tea (both owned by Coca-Cola) are finding themselves caught in the middle of the fight and left with a lot of the stress. 

Most of the tension is from consumers, who are discovering that their favorite organic companies are owned by those opposing Prop 37. Cornucopia Institute founder, Mark Kastel told the New York Times, "They feel like they've been had." Kastel went on to say, 

"Consumers aren't always aware that their favorite organic brands are in fact owned by big multinationals, and now they're finding out that the premium they've paid to buy these organic products is being spent to fight against something they believe in passionately." 

In an age where voicing opinions online is easier than ever, many consumers have taken to the social media sites like Facebook to post messages of dissatisfaction such as, "I will no longer buy your products since you are spending the $$ on defeating Prop 37...". 

There are however plenty of organic companies coming together with coalitions such as Yes on 37 to get the word out about voting yes on Nov 6. Organic brands on the "pro" side of the GMO labeling measure include Organic Valley, Clif Bar and Amy's Kitchen. (See a full list of Yes on 37's supporters here)

Contributors of $23.5 million to stop Prop 37 (according to Cornucopia Institute)

Monsanto: $4,208,000

PepsiCo: $1,716,300

-Izze

-Naked

Coca-Cola: $1,164,000

-Honest Tea

-Odwalla

-Simply Orange

Conagra: $1,076,300

-French Meadow

-Alexia

-Lightlife

Kellog: $632,500

-Kashi

-Morningstar Farms

-Gardenburger

-Bear Naked

General Mills: $520,000

-Cascadian Farm

-Muir Glen

-Larabar

Smucker's: $387,000

-R.W. Knudsen

-Santa Cruz Organic

Dean Foods: $253,000

-Horizon Organic

-Silk

Biotechnology Information: $375,000 each

-Monsanto

-DuPont

-Syngenta

-Dow AgroSciences

-Bayer

-CropScience

-BASF Plant Science

-Grocery Manufacturers Association