Breaking Bread: GMO labeling due on packaged foods by summer 2018

FINALLY!!!!!

Last year, Congress passed a law requiring that foods containing genetically modified ingredients reveal that on their labels.

By the summer of 2018, the marketing division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is charged with defining what that label will say.

Will it actually list the ingredients (as in: "This product contains genetically modified corn and soy"), or will it be a QR code connecting the consumer to the information on a website?

The debate over the label's wording could prove as contentious as the fight over genetically modified organisms themselves.

GMOs are plants whose DNA has been changed. The development is beyond the typical cross-breeding of plants because the changes are made in the laboratory at the cellular level.

Opponents of GMOs fought hard for the labeling. They consider GMOs less safe than non-GMO foods, have ethical concerns about tampering with nature, have issues with the corporations behind GMO seed (namely Monsanto), and fear environmental damage from widespread GMO crops.

GMOs were developed 20 years ago to help farmers by changing the structure of plants to make them more resistant to disease so that farms could produce higher yields while applying fewer pesticides. GMOs are produced mostly for commodity crops: Corn, soy, canola and sugar beet.

Recently, I had the chance to sit in while a group of Ohio food manufacturers learned about the new labeling law from Steve Armstrong of EAS Consulting.

Armstrong is a lawyer who specializes in food labeling and food-regulation compliance; until recently, he served as the chief food-law counsel for Campbell's Soup Co. Armstrong traveled to Columbus to speak at the Ohio Food Industry Summit, sponsored by the Center for Innovative Food Technology in Toledo.

JUMP

Campbell's Decision to Label GMOs Destroys Monsanto's Main Argument Against Labeling

Monsanto claims food manufacturers will pass the cost of mandatory GMO labeling on to consumers. Campbell's says otherwise.

Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) have long defended their die-hard positions against mandatory GMO labeling laws, often by feigning concern about the financial impact labeling laws would have on consumers. Labeling will be costly for manufacturers, who will pass those costs on to consumers, they argue (despite studies suggesting otherwise). As if concern for consumers’ wallets had anything to do with Big Food’s determination to deceive.

So the first question we asked the Campbell Soup Co. following the announcement that Campbell's will label all of its products that contain GMOs, was, will you charge more for these products after you label them?


In an email to OCA, company spokesman Tom Hushen wrote, “To be clear, there will be no price increase as a result of Vermont or national GMO labeling for Campbell products.”

JUMP

If the GMO salmon is as good as its maker says, why not label it?

This undated 2010 handout photo provided by AquaBounty Technologies shows two same-age salmon: a genetically modified salmon, rear, and a non-genetically modified salmon, foreground. (AquaBounty Technologies/Associated Press)

By now, you’ve probably heard that the Food and Drug Administration has approved the first-ever genetically engineered animal for human consumption. It’s an Atlantic salmon modified for fast growth with genes from two other edible fish, and it has been — and will undoubtedly continue to be — a lightning rod for all the issues associated with genetically modified foods. There’s safety, there’s escape into the environment and there’s labeling: a trifecta of discord. The fish’s lengthy approval process — the salmon’s developer, AquaBounty Technologies, first approached the FDA 20 years ago — indicates just how intense that discord has been.

So, safety first. Groups such as Consumers Union and Food and Water Watch have expressed concern about both safety and allergenicity, with Consumers Union citing small sample sizes and “inadequate analysis.” It’s unlikely that the FDA assessment will put their minds at ease, since the final decision is largely consistent with preliminary findings from 2010, when the agency determined that food from the GE salmon is as safe as, and no more allergenic than, food from any other Atlantic salmon, and concluded there is “reasonable certainty of no harm.” (Although “genetically engineered” is the term the FDA uses, this salmon is commonly referred to as a genetically modified organism, or GMO.)

The larger issue is the possibility of escape, important because escapees could outcompete or interbreed with native fish. AquaBounty says it has several layers of safeguards to prevent that: The fish are raised on land, in tanks, and the fish grown for food (as opposed to breeding) are all females, and sterile. The FDA calls the possibility of the salmon’s escape “highly unlikely,” and the possibility of their breeding in the wild commensurately unlikely. Environmental conditions around the company’s Canadian and Panamanian facilities, the agency found, make it unlikely that any escapees could thrive and establish a viable population. (The FDA approval is for only those two facilities. Any new installations will require a new environmental assessment and separate approval.)

Consumers Union, again responding to preliminary FDA findings that today’s announcement confirmed, says the agency’s determination that escape is a remote possibility was built on “inadequate science and unfounded assumptions” and expresses concern that the sterilization process isn’t 100 percent successful. (That’s true; the FDA requires that the rate be at least 95 percent, and AquaBounty chief executive Ron Stotish says that rates, in practice, are generally over 99 percent.)

A Canadian governmental risk assessment issued in 2013 also looked at both safety and escapes and described the risk to human health as “low” and the risk to the Canadian environment as “negligible.”

On both of those issues, there will always be some doubt. Safety can’t be proved (we can only infer it from absence of harm so far), and any containment system can fail. So the questions aren’t “Is it safe?” and “Could they escape?” The question is whether the risk in those two areas is outweighed by the benefits.

So let’s talk about the benefits. According to AquaBounty, the advantages are that the fish reaches market weight in about half the time taken by conventional salmon and requires 25 percent less feed to get there. If that’s true (and there’s no reason to suppose it isn’t), what we have here, finally, is a GMO that can benefit people and planet — unlike the other genetically engineered foods approved for use in the United States, which chiefly benefit farmers. Growing healthful fish in less time, with less feed, is a win for humans (in the form of more affordable salmon) and environment (in the form of reduced feed requirements and less pressure on forage fish stocks).

I do have one concern about whether those benefits will play out, but it’s related to neither safety nor the potential for escape. It’s about raising fish in tanks. Although tanks eliminate the potential for ocean pollution and the spread of disease to wild fish, and virtually eliminate the problem of escapees, they require both water and energy. Does that increase in resources counterbalance the decrease that comes from faster growth and better feed conversion? AquaBounty’s Stotish says that energy requirements vary widely by location and that the Panamanian location is very resource-efficient, as the water is gravity-fed and doesn’t need cooling. Although he hasn’t done the calculation in greenhouse gases, he has done it in money, a reasonable proxy. “We have a lower cost per kilo than net pen production,” he says.

That leaves the third issue: labeling. The United States, unlike many other countries, has no requirement that genetically modified food be labeled as such, and the salmon is no exception. When the fish is introduced, Stotish says, it probably will not be identified as genetically engineered — a decision I think is unfortunate. “When you’re the first and only, labeling is a dangerous decision,” he says. “We’d like to label it as a premium product, but we’ll probably introduce it as ‘Atlantic salmon.’ ”

Because there is so much fear and so many misconceptions about genetically engineered food, I feel his pain. But I’d ask him to suck it up and put the label on it. One of the reasons GMOs became such a brouhaha is that consumers feel the technology was foisted, in secret, on an unsuspecting public.

The company has a limited capacity to grow fish, so consumers won’t be seeing the salmon on store shelves right away. Stotish estimates that it’ll be two years before production levels are high enough to get a regular supply to market, and I think that gives AquaBounty plenty of time to change its mind about labeling. If the fish has all the advantages the company claims it does, say it loud. And let everyone — pro and con — vote with their wallets.

LINK

What Monsanto Doesn’t Want You To See

 When consumers across Europe started campaigning for GMO labeling in the early 1990s, Monsanto released a series of advertisements in support of mandatory GMO labels. And in 1997, the European Union implemented mandatory genetically modified food labeling requirements for all member states.

But the biotech giant doesn’t want Americans to know about its onetime support of labeling. Since 2012, Monsanto has spent more than $22 million to fight state ballot initiatives to label GMOs and millions more to lobby Congress against mandatory labeling.

Our question for you, Monsanto: Why do you oppose Americans’ having a right to know about GMOs when you supported it for Europeans?

LINK

5 Shocking Facts About GMOs

One alarming aspect of the whole GMO debate is the fact that so many Americans are going about their daily lives completely unaware that they are consuming genetically modified organisms at just about every meal. The reason I know this is because I used to be one of them.

So what are GMOs and why should we be concerned about them?

A GMO or genetically modified organism is created by merging the DNA from different species to create an organism; plant, animal, bacteria or virus which cannot be produced in nature or through traditional crossbreeding. It can bring about the production of foods that taste better, have longer shelf lives, or withstand harsh growing conditions.

Sounds harmless enough right? And even a good idea. But this isn’t the whole story, much as big food companies would like you to think it is. There are reasons why we should be extremely wary of consuming any food that has been genetically altered. Here are five of them:

1 GMOs are unhealthy: Since the introduction of GMOs in the mid-1990s, the number of food allergies has sky-rocketed, and health issues such as autism, digestive problems and reproductive disorders are on the rise. Animal testing with GMOs has resulted in cases of organ failure, digestive disorders, infertility and accelerated aging. Despite an announcement in 2012 by the American Medical Association stating they saw no reason for labeling genetically modified foods, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine has urged doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets for their patients.

2 They increase herbicide use: When Monsanto came up with the idea for Round-up Ready crops, the theory was to make the crops resistant to the pesticide that would normally kill them. This meant the farmers could spray the crops, killing the surrounding weeds and pests without doing any harm to the crops themselves. However, after a number of years have passed, many weeds and pests have themselves become resistant to the spray, and herbicide-use increased (both in amount and strength) by 11% between 1996 and 2011. Which translates to – lots more pesticide residue in our foods – yum!

3 They are everywhere! GMOs make up about 70-80% of our foods in the United States. Most foods that contain GMOs are processed foods. But they also exist in the form of fresh vegetables such as corn on the cob, papaya and squash. The prize for the top two most genetically modified crops in the United States goes to corn and soy. Think about how many foods in your pantry or refrigerator contain corn or its byproducts (high fructose corn syrup) or soy and its byproducts (partially hydrogenated soybean oil).

4 GM crops don’t ensure larger harvests. As it turns out, GMO crop yields are not as promising as some projections implied. In fact, in some instances, they have been out-yielded by their non-GMO counterparts. This conclusion was reached in a 20 year study carried out by the University of Wisconsin and funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Thus negating one of the main arguments in favor of GMOs.

5 U.S. Labeling suppression: Many of the companies who have an interest in keeping GMOs on the market don’t want you to know which foods contain them. For this reason, they have suppressed recent attempts by states such as California and Washington to require labeling of GMO products. And since they have deep pockets, they were successful – for now. The companies who spent the most on these campaigns are Monsanto (who produces the GMO seeds), and Pepsi, Coca Cola, Nestle and General Mills, who produce some of the most processed foods in existence. Incidentally, most other developed countries such as the nations of the European Union, Japan, Australia, Brazil, and China have mandatory labeling of genetically modified foods. Food for thought!

So, if you don’t wish to partake of GMO foods, what can you do? First and foremost, buy organic. The USDA has strict guidelines for producers of organic foods which restrict them from using any GMO products in their foods.

If a food is not organically grown, look for a Non-GMO Project Label which certifies that it has been tested and found to have less than 0.9% GMO-contamination.

At Viance, we are convinced that eating a clean, contaminant-free diet is essential in achieving good health and vibrancy. That is why we do not allow any genetically modified organisms in any of our products.

LINK

Eating GMOs? You May be Playing Roulette With Your Life

What’s Wrong With GMOs?
“Round-Up Ready” is the name given to soy and corn that was developed by Monsanto and involves the pesticide Round Up being integrated right into the seeds before they are planted. The theory they are trying to sell is that this will require less pesticides to be sprayed, but according to experts at Cornell University, this practice has ended up requiring a more intense use of pesticides as the plants around the corn and soy (and the corn and soy themselves) grow resistant to the Round Up. Mistake?

Coincidence?

Don’t be naive.

It gets worse with GM corn. When an insect eats GMO corn, their stomachs, for lack of a better description, explode. At first, studies showed us that there was no impact on human health. Now studies reveal that tiny tears in the cells of human intestines occur when we eat GMO food. The result is a rise in leaky gut, which leads to a rise in food allergies and auto-immune disorders. This is terrifying stuff. The documentary ‘Genetic Roulette’ by Jeffrey Smith, one of the world’s leading consumer advocates should make you sit up and take notice…and never question whether or not to buy organic again.

And these are just two of the thousands of genetically modified foods being mixed into the ingredients in many foods today.

Messing With Mother Nature
Genetic modification also allows for cross-breeding that is far removed from natural hybridization, although manufacturers of these products would have you believe otherwise with their propaganda. The theory behind GMOs is simple. Scientists select specific genes from one organism and introduce them into another to confer a specific trait. This technology can be used to create new varieties of plants and animals more quickly than conventional methods and produce traits not possible through traditional, natural techniques. The mad scientists behind GMOs would have you believe that their process is just like mixing red and yellow peppers’ DNA to create an orange pepper, but it isn’t. For example, genetic material from salmon can be injected into strawberries to make them more resistant to cold weather. That’s messing with Mother Nature in the most unnatural way.

Look at it this way. Two peppers, even of different colors, would hit on each other in a bar, date, and mate. But a strawberry and a salmon, well, not so much. The consequences of this work are alarming with ramifications we cannot begin to imagine.

While marketers try to sell us on the concept of GMOs as foods that improve yields, are more nourishing for developing countries struggling with famine, and require less use of toxins to grow them, nothing could be further from the truth. While Monsanto and other chemical giants continue to promote these false ideas, there has been no independent proof to support their claims. Only studies conducted within their companies have shown the results they market in their public relations campaigns.

There is, however, increasing concern among independent scientists about the safety of these crops and the resulting foods. The spread of pesticide-resistant plants, the possible toxicity to natural habitats and the species that thrive there, and the impact on human health all remain unanswered questions and are of paramount concern to experts.

Who Benefits From GMOs?
So why do these companies do this? Why take such risks with the collective health of humanity and the planet?

GMO crops and foods would give companies like Monsanto and DuPont the ultimate control over human life . . . the control of food. They have already changed the way commercial farmers farm; this is just the next step to world domination, in the sense of food.

Do you think that the chemical executives sitting in their high-rise glass-walled offices with spectacular views care for one moment about the health of populations in developing countries? Or in the industrialized world, for that matter?

How Did We Get Here?
With more than 167 million acres of GMO crops planted in the United States, making our farmers the largest producers of these crops, there is solid reason for concern. The United States accounts for more than all GMO crops grown around the world. And if you are thinking it’s just about corn and soybeans, here is the laundry list of crops now grown using GMO technology (and don’t you think it’s weird to even use the word “technology” when talking about growing food?): corn, cotton, soybeans, canola, squash, sugar beets, rice, dairy products, farm-raised salmon, papaya, and alfalfa, to name a few. GMO ingredients play a role in more than 70 percent of our food overall.

How can this be? How did these potentially disastrous organisms get into our food in such a high concentration? Public relations would have you believe that the FDA approved GMOs after rigorous testing and long-term studies. Nope. In fact, there are no safety testing requirements, according to their own website. The only testing done on GMOs is done by the companies themselves and are meticulously designed to avoid problems: this, according to Dr. Arpad Pusztai, the leading researcher in this field. (When Dr. Pusztai expressed his concern over GMO issues, he was fired from his job after thirty-five years at a biotech plant.)

The FDA, under the first President George Bush, was specifically directed to promote the research of biotechnology and not ironically, the person in charge of developing the policy was the former attorney to the biotech giant Monsanto, who later became their vice president. The results of his policy showed that GMO crops were not different from traditional crops in “any meaningful or uniform way.” Therefore, testing was not required.

It didn’t stop there. The outrage was perpetrated on Mother Nature came under the Obama administration. In one week, this administration deregulated two very important crops that can affect our future: alfalfa and sugar beets. Deregulation of alfalfa, the nation’s fourth largest crop and a prodigious pollinator, could spell disaster for natural crops. Used mainly in animal feed, GMO alfalfa would contaminate not only soil and crops, but the meat you eat as well. In January of 2011, this important crop was completely deregulated, meaning that there are no restrictions on the growing of GMO, Round-Up Ready alfalfa by Monsanto and no labeling is required . . . so you, the consumer will have no idea. This deregulation also removed what are known as “buffer zones,” specific distances designed to prevent the contamination of organic alfalfa crops by GMO crops, making it virtually impossible to produce organic alfalfa. Indirectly, this means that it could become impossible to produce organic meat and dairy products since alfalfa is such a big part of their feed.

And the hits continued! In February 2011, sugar beets were deregulated allowing for GMO sugar beet crops to be grown without restriction or labeling requirements to avoid “a sugar shortage,” according to Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture for the Obama administration. God, forbid we should consider using a wee bit less sugar. We’d rather screw up the natural order to feed the hungry mouths of business and lobby groups!

We Need GMO Labeling
Tom Vilsack says that to regulate GMO crops would be “burdensome” to business, but whose business? The deregulation of these crops and the resulting contamination puts an unreasonable burden on all those dedicated farmers and business people working hard to produce and create organic foods. The deregulation of these crops significantly threatens the ability to produce certified organic products, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (author of the original Organic Foods Prodution Act). The biotechnology industry has declared war on the organic food industry and through shrewd lobbying has won a decisive victory . . . and will continue unopposed with the onslaught of genetically modified foods that are controlled by only a handful of multinational corporations.

Are you mad as hell yet? It gets better.

Scientists who worked for the FDA came to the overwhelming consensus that GMOs were distinctly different from other crops and could lead to unpredictable and hard-to-detect toxins, allergens, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged their superiors to conduct long-term studies.

They were ignored.

As a result, only one in four Americans knows that they have eaten or are eating GMO foods. The Campaign for Healthier Eating is committed to educating Americans about what is really in their food. One of the goals is to change the regulations so that GMO ingredients in food must be listed as such. The labeling is voluntary now.

What You Can Do
Read labels, when you can find them, and work to understand them. Begin with your produce. You know those pesky little stickers that are so hard to remove from everything we buy? They could turn out to be your best pals.

If produce is grown with GMO influence, the little stickers will show a 5-digit number beginning with “8.” If the produce is organically produced, the stickers will show a 5-digit number beginning with “9,” and conventionally produced veggies and fruits will have stickers with a 4-digit number. But don’t get your hopes too high that you’ll beat them at their own game. With voluntary labeling you have no idea what you are getting most of the time unless it’s certified organic.

With processed foods, there is no way to tell what GMOs may be lurking in your food, well, foodlike substances. GMO ingredients are widespread and well-hidden. Even some so-called natural food companies employ GMO ingredients so you really have to know the players to win at this game . . . unless you are buying certified organic foods. And with all of the deregulation going on around us, certified organic could become a moot point. At this time, there is only one organization dedicated to rooting out GMOs and letting the consumer know if the products they are using contain GMOs, whether the product is organic or not. The Non-GMO Project’s mission is simple: They are “committed to preserving and building sources of non-GMO products, educating consumers, and providing verified non-GMO sources.”

Most important, you can get involved. Go to www.carighttoknow.org and support the cause in any way that you can. And vote with your dollar. Cornucopia Institute has information on who is doing what with this most important campaign. Use your dollar to tell these companies we will settle for no less than the truth. Finally, get your hands on a copy of the documentary, Genetic Roulette and watch it with friends and family. Genetically modified foods and other toxic additives in our foods should scare us witless and have us all mad as hell.

JUMP for links

Are We Too Clueless to Understand GMO Labeling?

If GMOs mean more and better food to feed more people, why not label products as such?

As if there isn’t enough malaise about government already, here’s a great way to get the American people to feel their elected officials aren’t serving them: Tell them that they’re stupid and their opinions don’t matter. Which raises the question: Who are they serving? But I’ll come back to that in a moment.


The House of Representative’s Committee on Horticulture, Research, Biotechnology and Foreign Agriculture recently convened to discuss the benefits of biotechnology. The subject of whether genetically modified organisms, aka GMOs, in our food should be labeled – they currently are not – was on the table. One of the experts asked to testify was David Just, a professor at Cornell University. However, he's apparently not an expert on GMOs, but rather on behavioral economics in child nutrition programs, whatever that means. His opinion was that GMO foods should not be so labeled because people don’t understand about GMOs.

Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) asked him, “What is the biggest drawback? Is it the ignorance of what the product is, just from a lack of education?” To which Just replied: “It is ignorance of the product, and it's a general skepticism of anything they eat that is too processed or treated in some way that they don't quite understand.” In simple English, we’re too stupid to understand this complex subject. The entire Committee, made up of six Democrats and seven Republicans, agreed. In this case, it simply means that seeds are inserted with genetic material from other organisms. It doesn’t take a PhD or the word Congressman or Congresswoman before your name to understand that. That’s astounding when the Internet has allowed people to research and become conversant in countless complex topics. Plus, there has been enormous media coverage of the subject.

Regardless of whether GMOs are dangerous to people and to crops in the long run – that’s a whole other discussion – why would the people who run Monsanto and other companies that make GMOs and the manufacturers who use them in their food products be opposed to labeling? After all, their position is that GMOs mean more and better food to feed more people and decreased use of pesticides. Labeling would simply allow people to chose to consume such foods or purchase other products without GMOs. We already have that choice with organic products. Why not with GMO products? It’s worth noting that the European Union has mandated that GMO products be labeled, and six member nations have banned them outright.

So who are many of our elected officials serving? Could it be that that Monsanto, other chemical companies and big food companies regularly fill the coffers of our elected officials to fund their reelection campaigns? Just wondering. And by the way, guess whose payroll Just is on? That’s right. He’s a consultant to Monsanto. We’re not too stupid to understand that implication.

Many Good Links Here

Give consumers a choice to opt out of GMO foods

More than 30 new crops are being developed, including apples and salmon

There is an ongoing debate about the use of genetically engineered ingredients in foods. Are there negative health risks or environmental impacts? Should our kids be eating them? While the debate ensues, shouldn’t we have a clear choice whether or not we want to purchase these products? Today we do not.

Genetically modified organisms can be found throughout our grocery stores and homes. At least 75 percent of processed foods contain GMOs, including nearly every major baby formula brand. As do many other common food items, such as salad dressing, breakfast cereals, and cooking oil. Indeed, while there are currently only nine commercial GMO crops — including corn, soy, canola, cottonseed, and sugar beets — more than 30 new engineered crops are currently being developed, such as apples, coffee, and salmon. Chances are, whether we know it or not, we could soon see them on store selves and our dinner tables.


Yet, despite the rapid growth in the use of GMOs in our food supply, there remains a lack of transparency for consumers. Unless a shopper researches individual brands before going to the grocery store, they currently can’t know by looking at the packaging if it contains genetically engineered ingredients. That’s because companies are not required to label GMO foods as such.

Opponents of GMO labeling include the chemical manufacturers and junk foods companies, which have spent millions to keep us in the dark about what’s in the foods we eat. They suggest that there is no evidence of harm from GMO foods. But, without labeling and tracking, scientists are unable to look for possible links between GMO food intake and many of the unexplained health problems facing Americans today. Nearly 300 scientists and doctors, including the developer of the first commercialized GMO crop, signed on to a recent statement citing serious safety concerns about GMOs. Independent studies have linked the consumption of GMO foods to digestive disorders, infertility, allergies, and even cancer. These studies warrant further research.

Ultimately, however, whether it’s for environmental, health, religious, or ethical concerns, the free market is supposed to give consumers the products they want. Without GMO labeling, the food economy is not able to do that.

In recent months, the effort to label GMO foods has received unprecedented attention across the United States. In the past year Connecticut and Maine both passed legislation requiring the labeling of GMO ingredients, both contingent upon other states passing similar legislation. Earlier this month, Vermont passed the nation’s first-ever no-strings-attached GMO labeling bill. Now 26 other states, including Massachusetts, are considering labeling legislation.

Under these laws, food producers — not retailers — are responsible for labeling foods that contain GMO ingredients. Dozens of countries have managed to achieve this standard without increasing food costs. In fact, the United States and Canada are the only two industrialized countries whose citizens cannot easily determine if their food is genetically engineered.


Here in Massachusetts, with the help of legislative champions, representatives Ellen Story of Amherst and Todd Smola of Palmer, the GMO labeling bill is quickly gaining support and momentum at the state house. According to a poll by the New York Times, 93 percent of Americans favor GMO labeling. More than 20,000 Massachusetts residents have signed a petition in support of the legislation, as have some 150 Massachusetts farms and more than 200 consumer, health, and community organizations.

At the end of the day, while ambiguity clouds the debate around GMO foods, we should give consumers the choice to opt out of this experiment. And all that it takes is a simple label on the side of a package.

LINK

Monsanto and Big Food Losing the GMO and 'Natural' Food Fight

After 20 years of battling Monsanto and corporate agribusiness, food and farm activists in Vermont, backed by a growing movement across the country, are on the verge of a monumental victory -- mandatory labels on genetically engineered foods and a ban on the routine industry practice of labeling GMO-tainted foods as "natural."

On April 16, 2014, the Vermont Senate passed H.112 by a vote of 28-2, following up on the passage of a similar bill in the Vermont House last year. The legislation, which requires all GMO foods sold in Vermont to be labeled by July 1, 2016, will now pass through a House/Senate conference committee before landing on Governor Peter Shumlin's desk, for final approval.

Strictly speaking, Vermont's H.112 applies only to Vermont. But it will have the same impact on the marketplace as a federal law. Because national food and beverage companies and supermarkets will not likely risk the ire of their customers by admitting that many of the foods and brands they are selling in Vermont are genetically engineered, and deceptively labeled as "natural" or "all natural" while simultaneously trying to conceal this fact in the other 49 states and North American markets. As a seed executive for Monsanto admitted 20 years ago, "If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it."

Proof of this "skull and crossbones" effect is evident in the European Union, where mandatory labeling, in effect since 1997, has all but driven genetically engineered foods and crops off the market. The only significant remaining GMOs in Europe today are imported grains (corn, soy, canola, cotton seed) primarily from the U.S., Canada, Brazil, and Argentina. These grains are used for animal feed, hidden from public view by the fact that meat, dairy and eggs derived from animals fed GMOs do not yet have to be labeled in the EU.

Given the imminent passage of the Vermont legislation and the growing strength of America's anti-GMO and pro-organic movement, the Gene Giants -- Monsanto, Dow, DuPont, Bayer, BASF, and Syngenta -- and the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), representing Big Food, find themselves in a difficult position. Early polls indicate that Oregon voters will likely pass a ballot initiative on Nov. 4, 2014, to require mandatory labeling of GMOs in Oregon. Meanwhile, momentum for labeling continues to gather speed in other states as well.

Connecticut and Maine have already passed GMO labeling laws, but these laws contain "trigger" clauses, which prevent them from going into effect until other states mandate labeling as well. Vermont's law does not contain a "trigger" clause. As soon as the governor signs it, it will have the force of law.

Divisions Between Big Food and the Gene Giants

Given what appears to be the inevitable victory of the consumer right-to-know movement, some of the U.S.'s largest food companies have quietly begun distancing themselves from Monsanto and the genetic engineering lobby. General Mills, Post Foods, Chipotle, Whole Foods, Trader Joe's and others have begun to make changes in their supply chains in order to eliminate GMOs in some or all of their products. Several hundred companies have enrolled in the Non-GMO Project so they can credibly market their products as GMO-free.

At least 30 members (10 percent of the total membership) of the GMA who contributed money to defeat Proposition 37 in California in November 2012, have held back on making further contributions to stop labeling initiatives in other states. Among the apparent defectors in the GMA ranks are: Mars, Unilever, Smithfield, Heinz, Sara Lee, Dole, Wrigley, and Mead Johnson. Under pressure from the Organic Consumers Association, Dr. Anthony Weil's natural health and supplements company, Weil Lifestyle, pulled out of the GMA.

Meanwhile a number of the Gene Giants themselves, including Monsanto, appear to be slowly decreasing their investments in gene-spliced GMOs, while increasing their investments in more traditional, and less controversial, cross-breeding and hybrid seed sales. Still, don't expect the Gene Giants to give up on the GMO seeds and crops already in production, especially Roundup Ready and Bt-spliced crops, nor those in the pipeline such as 2,4-D "Agent Orange" and Dicamba-resistant corn and soybeans, GE rice, and "RNA interference" crops such as non-browning apples, and fast-growing genetically engineered trees.

America's giant food companies and their chemical industry allies understand the threat posed by truthful labeling of GMOs, pesticides, antibiotics, growth promoters and toxic chemicals. They understand full well that the GMO monocrops and factory farms that dominate U.S. agriculture not only pose serious health and environmental hazards, but represent a significant public relations liability as well.

This is why the food and GE giants are threatening to sue Vermont and any other state that dares to pass a GMO labeling bill, even though industry lawyers have no doubt informed them that they are unlikely to win in federal court.

This is also why corporate agribusiness is supporting "Ag Gag" state laws making it a crime to photograph or film on factory farms. Why they're lobbying for state laws that take away the rights of counties and local communities to regulate agricultural practices. And why they're supporting secret international trade agreements, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the Trans Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership that will, among other provisions, enable multinational corporations to sue and eliminate state and local laws on matters such as GMOs, food safety, and country of origin labeling.

The bottom line is this: Corporate America's current "business-as-usual" strategies are incompatible with consumers' right to know, and communities' and states' rights to legislate.

Coca-Cola, Pepsi, General Mills, Kellogg's, Campbell's, Safeway, Del Monte, Nestlé, Unilever, ConAgra, Wal-Mart, and every food manufacturer with GMO-tainted brands, understand they're not going to be able to label their products as "produced with genetic engineering," or drop the use of the term "natural" on GMO-tainted products, only in Vermont, while refusing to do so in other states and international markets. This is why their powerful front group, the GMA, is frantically working in Washington, D.C., to lobby the FDA and the Congress to take away the right of states to require genetically engineered foods and food ingredients to be labeled, and to allow them to continue to label and advertise genetically engineered and chemically-laced foods as "natural" or "all natural."

Industry's Last Chance: Indentured Politicians

Conspiring with the GMA, Monsanto's minions from both the Republican and Democratic parties in Congress, led by the notorious Koch brothers mouthpiece, Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.), introduced in early April in the House a GMA-scripted bill to outlaw mandatory state GMO labels and allow the continued use of "natural" or "all natural" product labels on a wide range of Frankenfoods and beverages.

The GMA's federal offensive to prop up the dangerous and evermore unpopular technology of transgenic foods comes on the heels of two high-profile ballot initiative battles in California (2012), and Washington State (2013), where GMA members were forced to spend almost $70 million to narrowly defeat GMO labeling forces. The 15 largest contributors to stop GMO labeling in California and Washington include the following GMA members:

(1) Monsanto: $13,487,350
(2) Dupont: $9,280,159
(3) Pepsico: $4,837,966
(4) Coca-Cola: $3,210,851
(5) Nestlé: $2,989,806
(6) Bayer CropScience: $2,591,654
(7) Dow Agrosciences: $2,591,654
(8) BASF Plant Science: $2,500,000
(9) Kraft Foods (Mondolez International) $2,391,835
(10) General Mills: $2,099,570
(11) ConAgra Foods: $2,004,951
(12) Syngenta: $2,000,000
(13) Kellogg's: $1,112,749
(14) Campbell Soup: $982,888
(15) Smucker Company: $904,977

The Fire Next Time

These "dirty tricks," "dirty money" ballot initiative victories in California and Washington now ring hollow. If Congress or the FDA, prompted by these same companies, dare to stomp on states' rights to require GMO labels on GMO food, if they dare to repress the rights of millions of consumers to know whether or not their food is genetically engineered, they run the very real risk of detonating an even larger and more vociferous grassroots rebellion, including massive boycotts and a concerted effort to throw "Monsanto's Minions" out of Congress. The widespread furor last year over the so-called "Monsanto Protection Act," surreptitiously appended to the Appropriations Bill, and then, after massive uproar, subsequently removed, is but a partial foreshadowing of the turmoil yet to come.

Likewise Congress or the FDA should think twice before legally sanctioning the patently outrageous practice of allowing companies to continue to label or advertise GMO or chemically tainted food as "natural" or "all natural."

Given the fact that 80-90 percent of American consumers want genetically engineered foods to be labeled, as indicated by numerous polls over the last 10 years, and given the fact that it is obviously unethical and fraudulent to label or advertise GMO or heavily chemically processed foods as "natural," even the FDA has so far declined to come to the rescue of Monsanto and Big Food. In the face of 65 so far largely successful national class-action lawsuits against food companies accused of fraudulently labeling their GMO or chemically-laced brands as "natural, "Big Food's lawyers have asked the FDA to come to their aid. But so far, the FDA has declined to throw gasoline on the fire.

It's clear why "profit at any cost" big business wants to keep consumers in the dark. They want to maximize their profits. The consumer, the environment, the climate be damned. But let's review, for the record, why truthful food labeling is so important to us, the overwhelming majority of the people, and to future generations.

Here are three major, indeed life-or-death, issues that drive America's new anti-GMO and pro-organic food movement:

(1) There is mounting, and indeed alarming, evidence that genetically engineered foods and crops, and the toxic pesticides, chemicals, and genetic constructs that accompany them, are hazardous. GMOs pose a mortal threat, not only to human and animal health, but also to the environment, biodiversity, the survival of small-scale family farms, and climate stability.

(2) Genetically engineered crops are the technological cornerstone and ideological rationale for our dominant, out-of-control system of industrial agriculture, factory farms, and highly processed junk food. America's industrial food and farming system is literally destroying public health, the environment, soil fertility and climate stability. As we educate, boycott and mobilize, as we label and drive GMOs off the market, we simultaneously rip the mask off Big Food and chemical corporations, which will ultimately undermine industrial agriculture and speed up the "Great Transition" to a food and farming system that is organic, sustainable and climate stabilizing.

(3) Fraudulent "natural" labels confuse consumers and hold back the growth of true organic alternatives. Consumers are confused about the difference between conventional products marketed as "natural," or "all natural"and those nutritionally and environmentally superior products that are "certified organic." Recent polls indicate that many health- and green-minded consumers remain confused about the qualitative difference between products labeled or advertised as "natural," versus those labeled as organic. Many believe that "natural" means "almost organic," or that a natural product is even better than organic. Thanks to growing consumer awareness, and four decades of hard work, the organic community has built up a $35-billion "certified organic" food and products sector that prohibits the use of genetic engineering, irradiation, toxic pesticides, sewage sludge and chemical fertilizers. As impressive as this $35 billion Organic Alternative is, it remains overshadowed by the $80 billion in annual spending by consumers on products marketed as "natural." Get rid of fraudulent "natural" labels on GMO and chemically tainted products, and organic sales will skyrocket.

With the passage of the Vermont GMO labeling law, after 20 years of struggle, it's time to celebrate our common victory. But as we all know, the battle for a new food and farming system, and a sustainable future has just begun.

LINK

Koch Industries and Monsanto Team up to End Your Right to Know

Apparently it wasn’t an April fool’s joke. Three months after news outlets revealed the Grocery Manufacturers Association’s (GMA) plan to pursue federal legislation to block states from enacting “right to know” laws, they finally have a sponsor: Representative Mike Pompeo (R-KS).

According to news reports, Congressman Pompeo plans to introduce legislation to prevent states from enacting laws requiring the labeling of genetically engineered (GE) food. The bill would instead codify a failed 13-year old voluntary labeling standard for GE foods.

“GMA’s selection of Congressman Pompeo as their champion shows how extreme the proposal really is,” said Colin O’Neil, director of government affairs for Center for Food Safety. “Selecting Pompeo creates an unholy alliance between Monsanto and Koch Industries, two of the most reviled corporations in America.”

Congressman Mike Pompeo was the single largest recipient of campaign funds from the Koch Brothers in 2010. After winning election with Koch money, Congressman Pompeo hired a Koch Industries lawyer to run his office. According to The Washington Post, Congressman Pompeo then introduced bills friendly to Koch Industries while Koch hired outside lobbyists to support them.

Koch Industries’ subsidiary, Georgia-Pacific, is a member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association which donated more than $7 million against the recent Washington State ballot initiative to label GE foods.  Monsanto, another GMA member, was the single largest contributor to that campaign. Between Washington State and California, Monsanto, GMA (including Georgia-Pacific), and others, have contributed over $67 million to keep consumers in the dark about GE foods.

“With Vermont, Oregon and other states poised to take action this year, it is clear that GMA is scared of what’s ahead,” added O’Neil. “They know that the food movement’s power is growing and that labeling is not a matter of if but when. They are afraid of state action and now they’re trying to steal away consumer choice in Congress.”

Background on State Labeling:

Connecticut and Maine have already passed GE labeling legislation. Alaska passed a bill requiring the labeling of genetically engineered fish and fish products. Vermont’s bill has already passed the state house and a senate committee. It is expected that nearly 30 states will introduce GE labeling laws or initiatives in the 2014 legislative session and Oregon is already planning a ballot initiative on the issue.

Background on National Labeling:

Building on public demand for information, in 2013, Senator Barbara Boxer and Congressman Peter DeFazio introduced legislation that would require mandatory labeling of GE foods at the federal level. The common sense legislation would compel the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to implement a mandatory labeling policy. FDA has the authority to require food companies to disclose the presence of these novel food ingredients, and the agency has already required labeling for more than 4,000 ingredients, additives and food processes.

LINK

The Shameful Truth About the Naked Juice Class Action Lawsuit Settlement and What American Consumers Can Do About It

Last week, Naked Juice agreed to settle a very important class action lawsuit which accused the company of deceptive labeling.

The primary basis of the lawsuit stemmed from the company’s use of the words “All Natural” on products that contained Archer Daniels Midland’s Fibersol-2 (“a soluble corn fiber that acts as a low-calorie bulking agent”), fructooligosaccharides (an alternative sweetener), other artificial ingredients, such as calcium pantothenate (synthetically produced from formaldehyde), and genetically-modified soy.

Since these ingredients are either genetically-engineered or synthetically produced and do not exist in nature, it is completely misleading to consumers for these juices to claim to be “All Natural.”

As part of the settlement, Naked Juice, a subsidiary of PepsiCo, has agreed to remove the label “All Natural” from all of its juices and to pay a $9 million settlement to the class action group.

Without a question, this is a big, big win for consumers and is a huge step forward for more accurate labeling in the U.S.  It also puts other food manufacturers on serious notice that GMOs are anything but natural and cannot be marketed as such.

Yet, as one digs deeper into the fine details of this lawsuit settlement, there are some extremely troubling details of which the general public is completely unaware.

JUMP to THE DETAILS THEY DON’T WANT YOU TO KNOW ABOUT


Tell Naked to get Honest About Labeling HERE

Whole Foods executive clarifies stand on GMO labels

Whole Foods executive responds to editorial on labeling food with genetically modified ingredients.

Whole Foods Market’s goal in stating our intent to label products for GMO content by 2018 is to clear up confusion about what is — or isn’t — in the food we buy. Unfortunately, the recent Capital Press editorial “GMO label initiative is backwards,” only continues the confusion.

Whole Foods Market is currently working with suppliers to label products as non-GMO because there are no laws that products containing GMOs must be labeled. Our customers have asked for this level of transparency, and in the absence of federal standards, we have taken the initiative with our suppliers on their behalf.

Non-GMO labeling by a third party confers credibility on claims made by the producer, but in order to be fully transparent, information about GMOs should be easy to find on every product. There must also be labels on products that do contain genetically engineered ingredients.

The Capital Press editorial says, “By 2018, everything in Whole Foods stores will be labeled non-GMO, according to the company’s website.”

Actually, what our website says is “By 2018, we will require our supplier partners to label products containing GMO ingredients.” Our goal is not to eliminate GMOs from our stores, but to have products that may contain GMOs labeled as such. Ultimately, GMO produce, animals that are fed GMO feed, and products that contain GMO ingredients will all be labeled in our stores.

Lastly, we do not believe the argument that “GMO labels would make food cost more in Oregon and reduce the selection” to be true. Manufacturers update product labels on an average of once a year, and adding new language or labels should not increase cost. Many of these manufacturers already sell products in the 64 countries that require them to be labeled. Whole Foods Market does not currently intend to stop selling foods with GMOs, and the inference that a labeling initiative will “reduce the selection” is probably not true for the State of Oregon, either.

This is simple – consumers want to make food choices based on clear information on how their food was produced. Let’s tell them in the easiest way possible: on the labels of their food.

Joe Rogoff is the regional president for Whole Foods Market in the Pacific Northwest.

JUST LABEL IT!

The GMO-Free Stream Is Turning Into a Flood

Like cracks in a dam that lead to the whole structure crumbling, the move toward removing genetically modified foods from the food supply, or at least informing the consuming public about how much of the food they eat has been altered in the lab, is spreading. It's only leaking through in droplets now, but soon it may become a torrent.

Aside from halfhearted attempts by the government to mandate GMO labeling, industry itself is beginning to see the benefit in identifying the products that have been modified, or more correctly, highlighting those that are GMO-free.

When it rains, it pours
The latest large food company to join the cascading list of those providing a product that isn't affected by genetic modification, Post Holdings , just unveiled that its Grape-Nuts Original will be Non-GMO Project-verified as of this month, and it also notes its Grape-Nuts Vintage is GMO-free as well. By avoiding the inclusion of soy, the most genetically modified food crop in existence, with some 94% of all seed being altered in the lab, Post is able to "clean up" the perception of a popular brand.


DuPont is the largest manufacturer of genetically modified soy seeds, ahead of even Monsanto, and it's estimated that about 60% of all processed foods on the market today contain soy. With at least 85% of all soybeans, corn, sugar beets, and canola grown from GMO seeds -- most of which are made by Monsanto -- it means if the label contains at least one of those ingredients, there's a good chance it's been modified on a genetic level, further suggesting some 60% to 70% of all food on the supermarket shelf is GMO.

Post's move, however, follows closely on the heels of General Mills , which recently announced its original Cheerios cereal is now GMO-free -- though unlike Grape-Nuts, it isn't verified by a third party. And Kellogg has said that by the end of this year all existing Kashi cereals and Chewy Granola Bars -- two of Kashi's biggest products -- will sport Non-GMO Project verification. In 2015, all of new foods Kellogg introduced under the Kashi brand will be Non-GMO Project Verified and will also be at least 70% organic.

Although many of the food makers like General Mills have contributed millions of dollars to defeat labeling initiatives -- even if it might be the right thing to do for the wrong reason -- they've recognized there's a profit to be made from consumers desiring clean and healthy foods, so that momentum is building to at least create a segregated food list.

Rain o'er me
With the push led by the likes of Whole Foods Market , which is undertaking an initiative of its own to inform customers by 2018 which foods it sells contain such ingredients, enough pressure can mount for manufacturers and suppliers to follow suit. It's not going to happen overnight or even anytime soon, but when there's enough of a backlash by consumers against products that don't carry a third-party verification seal -- call it guilt by disassociation -- we're going to see a stampede of companies culling GMO foodstuffs out of their product lines and demanding growers avoid them as well.

Already there are anecdotal media reports of an organic food shortage, and though "organic" usually means GMO-free (the USDA has a couple of small loopholes), it does signal consumers are giving more thought to what they're eating.

The main players in genetic modification remain Monsanto, DuPont, and Dow Chemical, along with Bayer and Syngenta. Over the past two decades, they've together purchased more than 200 seed companies and now completely dominate the seed market. Only when consumers push back against food product companies will the manufacturers force changes at their suppliers, who will cause the farmers to change their agricultural practices.

Cry me a river
When Kellogg announced the change at Kashi, it admitted the brand had gotten "too mainstream" and it wanted to restore its growth cycle. If a company is counting on being GMO-free as a means to exciting growth, it's understandable why proponents are worried and why the anti-GMO trickle is about to turn into a flood.

LINK

For Those Who Want To Avoid GMO Foods, There's An App For That

The Buycott app will tell you if a product was made by a company associated with the opposition to labeling genetically modified foods.

Mmm … lunchtime. These Beanfields Nacho Bean and Rice Chips sure are tasty. They also happen to be made by a company that hasn't fueled opposition to labeling genetically modified foods – according to the Buycott app I tried out today.

Another app, the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, tells me that these chips have been verified as fully compliant with the Non-GMO Product Standard (more on that later).

The same is not true for the Nature Valley bars my co-worker keeps at his desk for snacking.

I was curious about these apps I'd been hearing about that supposedly tell you whether the food you're eating was made by a company that opposes GMO product labeling.

This seemed especially relevant in light of the recent failure of Washington Initiative 522, which would have required companies to label foods that contain genetically modified organisms. Washington voters rejected the measure with about 55 percent opposed and 45 percent in favor. A similar measure in California, Proposition 37, failed last year by a similar margin.

Many argue one of the reasons the measures failed is because of the millions of dollars companies contributed to opposition campaigns. In Washington, opponents of Initiative 522 vastly outspent supporters nearly three to one. In California, the opposition campaign raised a whopping $44 million compared with just $7.3 million raised by supporters.

The Buycott app tracks which companies are associated with that spending. If you join GMO labeling campaigns, it allows you to scan the bar code of a product you're thinking about buying. It then checks to see whether the company that made that product opposed GMO labeling campaigns. I joined the "Buy Organic Brands That Support Your Right To Know" campaign to learn how the app worked.

My co-worker's Nature Valley granola bars are made by General Mills, which is a member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association. When I scanned the bar code on the box, I was told that I am avoiding General Mills because the association gave $1.2 million to the campaign that fought against California's GMO labeling measure Proposition 37. And because the app says, the association donated "illegally" to the campaign opposing the GMO labeling initiative 522 in Washington.

You can see here that the grocery association spent millions fighting Initiative 522. And you can see here that General Mills is a member of the association.

There was also a lawsuit filed against the association accusing it of concealing the names of retailers that gave money to the opposition campaign but didn't want their names to be released.

So, the Buycott app helps people choose not to buy food from companies that opposed GMO labeling through campaign contributions.

The Non-GMO Product Shopping Guide takes a different tack. It offers offers tips for avoiding GMO foods and provides a list of foods that meet a non-GMO product standard. It was created by The Non-GMO Project, which claims to be the only independent verification system that checks for genetically modified foods. It offers a seal of approval to products that meet its standard, though the group admits that label doesn't guarantee a product is GMO-free because of testing limitations.

OODLES of links here!

Huge GMO News

It hasn't been a good week for Monsanto and the rest of the biotech industry.

Just three days ago, Mexico banned genetically engineered corn. Citing the risk of imminent harm to the environment, a Mexican judge ruled that, effective immediately, no genetically engineered corn can be planted in the country. This means that companies like Monsanto will no longer be allowed to plant or sell their corn within the country's borders.

At the same time, the County Council for the island of Kauai passed a law that mandates farms to disclose pesticide use and the presence of genetically modified crops. The bill also requires a 500-foot buffer zone near medical facilities, schools and homes -- among other locations.

And the big island of Hawaii County Council gave preliminary approval to a bill that prohibits open air cultivation, propagation, development or testing of genetically engineered crops or plants. The bill, which still needs further confirmation to become law, would also prohibit biotech companies from operating on the Big Island.

But perhaps the biggest bombshell of all is now unfolding in Washington state. The mail-in ballot state's voters are already weighing in on Initiative 522, which would mandate the labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Knowing full well that 93 percent of the American public supports GMO labeling, and that if one state passes it, many others are likely to follow, entrenched agribusiness interests are pulling out all the stops to try to squelch yet another state labeling effort.

This time, however, things aren't going quite as planned. On Wednesday, Washington state Attorney General Bob Feguson filed a lawsuit against the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA). The GMA, a lobby for the junk food industry, has been by far the largest donor to efforts to defeat the labeling initiative. The lawsuit alleges that the GMA illegally collected and spent more than $7 million while shielding the identity of its contributors.

The source of the money has now been exposed, and it turns out to be Pepsico, Coca-Cola, NestleUSA, General Mills and a few other junk food companies. The lawsuit reveals that GMA leadership held a series of secret meetings to plot how to perpetrate a money laundering scheme and illegally hide member donations from Washington state voters, in direct violation of campaign disclosure laws.

Unlike the junk food companies that feared consumer backlash, Monsanto hasn't even bothered to hide the more than $4 million the company has given to the "no" campaign. In fact, GMA, Monsanto and a handful of other corporate donors have now broken a state record by pouring more than $17 million into their effort to stop Washington's GMO labeling ballot initiative.

Voting is already underway in Washington, and the final ballots will be cast on November 5. The "yes" side is ahead in the most recent polls, but supporters of the right to know fear that a barrage of heavily funded and misleading ads could sour voters to the initiative.

They remember that just last year, California's Proposition 37 was well ahead in the polls until Monsanto and its allies spent more than $46 million on their campaign in the Golden State.

All this label fighting and money laundering leads to some very significant questions. Why are Monsanto and the junk food industry willing to spend many tens of millions of dollars every year trying to keep you in the dark about your food? What doesn't big food want you to know? And what are they afraid might happen if you did?

Monsanto tells us that their products are about the best thing to come along since sliced bread. For years they've been promising that GMOs would reduce pesticide use, increase yields, reduce water consumption, and offer foods that are more tasty and more nutritious.

I wish they were right.

But in the 20 years since GMO crops first came on the market, studies have found that they have led to higher pesticide use, and no meaningful improvement in flavor, nutrition, yield or water requirements. Instead, what they've created are plants that are engineered to withstand massive dosing of toxic herbicides, and plants that function as living pesticide factories. Monsanto's Bt. corn, for example, is actually registered with the EPA as a pesticide.

With concern about GMOs growing fast, and with the public being pummeled with vast amounts of misinformation, there is a tremendous need for clear, accurate and reliable information about GMOs. In response, the 100,000+ member Food Revolution Network and the Institute for Responsible Technology are co-sponsoring a free online GMO Mini-Summit. From October 25-27, some of the top GMO experts on the planet will be providing insights and clear calls to action in this teleseminar that is also being broadcast without charge on the Internet. Monsanto probably isn't too happy about the prospect of tens of thousands of people getting informed and mobilized. But if you love life, safe food, and the truth, then you might want to check it out.

And if you want to lend a hand to getting out the vote in the state of Washington, you can sign up to volunteer here.

Nobody knows what's going to happen in Washington between now and November 5. But from Mexico, to Hawaii and to the 64 nations that already have GMO labeling, this tide just might be turning.

Maybe we, the people, do get a say in what we know, and what we eat, after all.
LINK

Pepsi, Coke, Nestle top multi-million-dollar campaign against I-522

Pepsico, Coca-Cola and NestleUSA have each put up more than $1 million to defeat Washington’s Initiative 522, money  the food industry giants channeled through a “Defense of Brands Strategic Account,” set up by the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) so companies would leave no footprints.

The initiative, which has drawn the ire of the food industry and agribusiness, would require the labeling of genetically modified food products, seeds and seed stocks sold on the shelves of Washington stores.

In yielding to a lawsuit brought by Attorney General Bob Ferguson, GMA agreed to list donors to what has become a $17.1 million campaign to defeat I-522.

The list is a who’s-who of America’s powerful food and agribusiness firms.  It was posted late Friday on the balky website of the state Public Disclosure Commission.

Coca-Cola and Pepsico have been here before.  The American Beverage Association, in 2010, spent $16.9 million on a TV blitz that rolled back a small soda pop-junk food tax enacted by the Washington Legislature in an effort to ease cuts in money to the state’s schools and colleges.

The “No on 522″ donations include:

– Soft drink manufacturers:  Pepsico is tops with $1.6 million, just as it was the lead contributor in the 2012 campaign that defeated Prop. 37, a similar measure on the California ballot.  Coca-Cola has given $1.047 million to No on 522.

– “Big Chocolate:”  NestleUSA has given $1.052 million through the Grocery Manufacturers Association.  The Hershey Company has donated $248,305 that’s gone to No on 522.

– The cereal industry:  General Mills tops out with $598,819 that has found its way into No on 522 coffers, followed by Kellogg Co. with donations of $221,852 through the “Defense of Brands Strategic Account” fund set up by the Grocery Manufacturers Association.

– Bread and Butter:  Bimbo Bakeries — its brands include Orowheat, Sara Lee and Ball Park buns — has given $94,093, while butter maker Land O’ Lakes has donated $99,803.

– Agribusiness:  Such firms as Monsanto ($4 million) have given separately to the record-setting No on 522 campaign.  But Cargill & Co. put in $98,601 through the Grocery Manufacturers Association, and Conagra — whose products include Hunt’s Tomatoes, Banquet foods and David seeds — has put up $285, 281 to defeat the Washington labeling initiative.

– Canned foods:  Del Monte put in $86,576 through the “Defense of Brand” fund, and Campbell Soup gave $265,140.  Campbell donated $500,000 directly to the anti-Prop. 37 campaign in California last year.

MORE

JUST LABEL IT! FDA Petiton

Tell the FDA and Congress WE HAVE A RIGHT to know if Genetically Engineered Organisms (GMOs) are in our food!

We have a right to know about food we eat and feed our families, but under current regulations, we don’t have that ability when it comes to genetically engineered (GE) foods.

The number and variety of GE foods reaching grocery shelves is accelerating without proper regulation or human health testing, and most importantly, without labels.

We need people like you to contact our policymakers in Washington, to demand the right to know about the food we are eating.

Fill out the email form below to add your name to our FDA petition and send an email to your members of Congress!

Please Sign Here- Thanks!

10 Ways to Spot and Avoid GMOs

A growing number of people are refusing to eat genetically modified food these days. Others don’t care one way or the other and don’t believe that their lives are affected by the issue. The vast majority of people are concerned about the increasing percentage of the nation’s foods that have been genetically modified, but have no idea how many of the foods they eat fall into that category.

At the very least, they deserve to know which foods are genetically engineered and which aren’t, but the U.S. is one of the world’s many countries that does not yet require GMO labeling.

Also known as biotech foods, GMO foods are those that are derived from genetically modified organisms. The aim of modifications – made through the insertion or deletion of genes – is usually faster growth, resistance to pathogens or production of extra nutrients. The commercial sale of GMO foods began in 1994. Between 1996 and 2011, the total surface area of land cultivated with GMOs increased to 395 million acres from 4.2 million acres. It’s estimated that today in the U.S., 95 percent of the planted areas of sugar beet, 93 percent of soybeans and 86 percent of corn are genetically modified varieties.

Check out the article below, “Top 6 Ways to Identify and Avoid GMO Foods.” (The article actually provides seven ways.) A poll is cited indicating that 90 percent of people would, if given a choice, actively seek to avoid genetically modified organisms in their food. But it’s also acknowledged that it’s very difficult to avoid GMOs unless you know what to look for.

http://bytestyle.tv/content/top-6-ways-identify-avoid-gmo-foods

If you want to avoid GMO foods, you’re going to have to make a very conscious effort to do so. I’ve added three ways to avoid GMO foods to the article’s seven to produce 10 Ways to Spot and Avoid Genetically Engineered Foods:

1)      Look at the stickers on fruit.
2)      Buy local and talk to your farmers.
3)      Avoid the top four GMO crops of soy, corn, canola and cottonseed.
4)      Encourage your favorite food providers to label their food “GMO free.”
5)      Buy organically grown food.
6)      Use conventional or organic sugar.
7)      Grow your own food.
8)      Buy whole foods.
9)      Purchase beef that’s 100 percent grass fed.
10)  Tell your lawmakers that you want GMO-free labeling to become mandatory.

LINK

Senators Angle for Monsanto-Friendly FDA Voluntary GMO Labeling "Guidance"

While consumers battle on for laws mandating the labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food products, some lawmakers are taking the GMO labeling debate in a different direction. And it’s a direction that’s anything but consumer friendly.

Last month, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) asked the U.S. Food & Drug Administration to finalize its 2001 guidance on voluntary labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

The senators advertised their request as a move intended to benefit consumers. But in fact, a federal voluntary labeling plan plays right into the hands of the biotech and big food industries. 

How? Worst-case scenario, once the FDA finalizes its GMO labeling guidance, industry uses the FDA guidance to preempt state laws requiring mandatory labeling of GMOs. Currently, states have the right to enact GMO labeling laws precisely because the FDA has not formally ruled on GMO labeling.

Second, the FDA’s guidance on voluntary GMO labeling could be used to put an end to existing, legitimate voluntary non-GMO labeling efforts. By allowing the FDA, which has previously (and controversially) ruled that GMO and non-GMO foods are “substantially equivalent,” the FDA could rule against non-GMO or GMO-free labels on the basis that they mislead consumers by implying that there’s a difference between GMO and non-GMO foods.

The operative word: ‘voluntary’

MUCH more after the jump

GMO Backlash Is About to Cause a Boom

As consumer awareness grows around the risks associated with genetically modifying the food chain, the rise of foods that have been certified as having not been altered in the lab grows accordingly. The folks at Packaged Facts say non-GMO foods could potentially account for 30% of all U.S. food and beverage sales, or $264 billion worth, by 2017 -- and if package labeling becomes mandatory, it could hit 40%!

GM food proponents say there are no safety concerns as the engineered goods have been studied for decades and there are little to no health risks. Because they allow farmers to grow crops in regions previously inhospitable to farming and can create cheaper and perhaps more nutritious foods, it's a boon to the world's hunger problems.

For those of us on the other side of the issue, we'd point to the fact there's been no long-term testing of GM foods on humans. It unnaturally introduces organisms, bacteria, and viruses into the food chain, creating Frankenfoods that have genetic materials from different species injected into them, that can cause unwanted side effects from overexposure.

Companies like Tyson Foods (NYSE: TSN  ) and Smithfield Foods (NYSE: SFD  ) have just agreed to stop injecting their cattle and hogs with weight-gain drugs just before slaughter because of the ill effects they were causing the animals. And the CDC released a report showing the threat to human health posed by overexposing livestock to antibiotics.

It's more than just a casual relationship that we have developed superweeds and superbugs through the overapplication of herbicides and pesticides. As I've pointed out before, there is a growing body of evidence that specific pesticides created by Bayer, Dow Chemical (NYSE: DOW  ) , and Syngenta (NYSE: SYT  ) are also causing the collapse of honeybee colonies, which is a grave risk to the food chain because they are the pollinators of the world that ensure our crops grow.

To think that a seed can be genetically altered to withstand the spraying of Monsanto's (NYSE: MON  ) powerful herbicide Round-Up and continue growing, and that it's still OK to eat, is a bridge too far for many.

Which is why GMO labeling is so important for consumers. It allows the individual to decide when, how, or whether she will choose to eat such products. Admittedly, today it's difficult to actually not eat lab-altered foods, so prevalent is the reach of the chemical agri-giants. Virtually all processed and packaged foods have been tainted, but despite the breadth of coverage, it wouldn't cause any increase in food costs as has been suggested. A just-released study called "Why Labels Don't Affect Food Prices," confirms consumer demographics and competitor pricing has more of an effect on prices than changing labels does, which is a regularly occurring process for manufacturers anyway.

With at least 85% of all soybeans, corn, sugar beets, and canola grown from GMO seeds, and most of them are made by Monsanto. If you're eating something that has those listed as ingredients on the label, there's a good chance it's been modified on a genetic level. It's estimated 60% to 70% of all food on the supermarket shelf is GMO.

The best way to counteract corporate agriculture's grip on the food supply is to grow as much of your own produce as possible, and failing that (or supplementing it), supporting local farmers markets. This isn't some "back to nature" 1960's hippie movement, but rather recognition that the more Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, Dow, DuPont, and others control what is grown, the less choice we have over what we can eat.

But as Whole Foods Market (NASDAQ: WFM  ) , Ben & Jerry's, and other companies commit to labeling their own products or ensuring they're GM-free, it will eventually becoming a much broader phenomenon we see take hold. The demand for natural, organic foods will drive their growth as Whole Foods is witnessing, reporting third quarter sales grew 12% from the year ago period, which is down only slightly from the 13% gains it recorded at the time.

Monsanto's not going away, as entrenched as they are, but investors should be on the watch for those companies on the forefront of ensuring the purity of their food as they will be the ones to reap the greatest rewards from the effort down the road.

LINK