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

FTC Issues Revised "Green Guides"

Expect to see fewer products pitched as "environmentally friendly" if the government has its way.

Hoping to limit the number of deceptive claims, the Federal Trade Commission on Monday released an updated version of its green marketing guidelines that hold companies to truthful standards in marketing their products.

The revision to the Green Guides is the first since 1998, when phrases like "carbon offset" and "renewable energy" were not widely used.

The revisions include some changes to the proposed guidelines that the FTC circulated in October 2010 and reflect input from consumers and industry groups. New sections address the use of carbon offsets, "green" certifications and seals, and renewable energy and renewable materials claims.

Among the updates, the guides warn marketers not to make broad, unqualified claims that their products are environmentally friendly or eco-friendly.

The FTC said "very few products, if any" deliver the far-reaching environmental benefits that consumers associate with such claims, which it says are nearly impossible to substantiate anyway.

The guides also:

• Advise marketers not to make an unqualified degradable claim for a solid waste product unless they can prove that the entire product or package will completely break down and return to nature within a year after customary disposal.
• Caution that items destined for landfills, incinerators, or recycling facilities will not degrade within a year, so marketers should not make unqualified degradable claims for these items.
• Clarify guidance on compostable, ozone, recyclable, recycled content, and source reduction claims.

The revised guidelines also outline how marketers can qualify their claims to avoid deceiving consumers.

• They do not address use of the terms "sustainable," "natural" and "organic." The FTC said that's because it may lack a basis to provide meaningful guidance, or it wants to avoid proposing guidance that duplicates or contradicts that of other agencies.

According to study by TerraChoice

The Green Guides are not rules or regulations but general principles that describe the types of environmental claims the agency may find deceptive. The FTC has imposed fines and taken other actions in recent years involving deceptive recyclability, biodegradable and environmental certification claims.

FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz said the changes will level the field for honest business people.

"The introduction of environmentally friendly products into the marketplace is a win for consumers who want to purchase greener products and for producers who want to sell them," he said. "But this win-win can only occur if marketers' claims are truthful and substantiated."

Consumer advocates hope the revisions will help reduce "greenwashing," in which a company promotes a single green aspect of the product but doesn't give the full picture of other ingredients.

Green Seal Inc., a nonprofit environmental certification organization based in Washington, applauded the changes.

"With this new guidance, we hope that there will be enforcement to help rid the marketplace of the many less-than-credible seals and greenwashing that exists," said Arthur Weissman, the group's president and CEO.

8 Tips for a Green Home and Yard