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

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

How Vermont plans to defend the nation’s first GMO law

Expect two things to happen now that Vermont’s legislature has passed H.112.
Any day now, Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin (D) is expected to make history by signing that bill into law as he has suggested, making his the first state to require genetically modified food to be labeled as such. Then, maybe not too long after that, expect the state to be sued over it.

There’s no guarantee of legal action, but legislators, officials and advocates are preparing for it. Earlier this month, state Attorney General Bill Sorrell told Vermont Public Radio that he would be “very surprised” if the state isn’t sued over the law. And officials were so sure of a challenge that the measure itself creates a $1.5 million legal defense fund, to be paid for with settlements won by the state. They think it’s coming, but they also say they’re ready.

“The threat of a lawsuit worked for a while, but now it doesn’t work anymore,” says Ronnie Cummins, national director of the Organic Consumers Association, whose organization has for years worked with activists and lawmakers in Vermont on the issue. “I think they may go ahead and sue and do it rather quickly in the hopes that it may gather momentum,” he added, referring to biotech industry groups.

Other states have pursued similar measures, but Vermont’s law will be the first of its kind. Connecticut and Maine passed labeling requirements, but with trigger clauses requiring multiple other states to pass labeling requirements before their own go into effect. At least 25 states have considered such legislation, according to a Monday report on labeling requirements from the nonprofit Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. And advocates are hopeful they will get a measure on the Oregon ballot this year.

JUMP for more

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

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!

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

GMO Just Label IT Bill Introduced – BREAKING NEWS

The national Just Label It coalition applauded the introduction of bipartisan legislation today to require food manufacturers to inform consumers when packaged food contains genetically engineered ingredients.

The Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act was introduced today by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-OR).

“Americans want to know more, not less, about their food,” said Katey Parker of Just Label It, which has more than 650 partner organizations. “More than 90 percent of Americans want the same rights as consumers in 64 countries around the world.  It’s time to trust American consumers with information about genetically engineered ingredients so they can make the best choices for themselves and their families.”

More than 1 million Americans have petitioned FDA to require labeling on packaged food containing GE ingredients.

To view the Senate version of the bill, click here.

To view the House version of the bill, click here.

JUMP for live links