Yale University Study: GMO Mosquitoes Bite Back

Photo: Pexels

Originally Appeared in Presence Marketing News, October 2019
By Steven Hoffman

What happens when a U.K.-based biotech company, Oxitec Ltd., releases tens of millions of mosquitoes in Brazil that were genetically engineered to produce sterile offspring with the intent to combat the spread of diseases such as Zika and malaria? “The idea would be that when these males mated with females, the offspring would die. And therefore, the overall population size of the mosquitoes would decline,” said Yale University professor Jeffrey Powell, who led a research study to assess the results of the experimental release of the GMO mosquitoes into the Brazilian rainforest. “What we found was unexpected. Unpredicted,” he said. According to the study published in September 2019 in Nature, the researchers found hybrids of the GMO mosquitoes and the native mosquitoes – signifying that some of the offspring weren’t sterile, reported WSHU Public Radio. “Evidently, rare viable hybrid offspring between the release strain and the Jacobina population (native mosquito species in Jacobina, Bahia, Brazil) are sufficiently robust to be able to reproduce in nature,” the study’s authors concluded. “We don’t know what the effect of having this hybrid population is. These could be stronger mosquitoes, harder to control,” Powel said. Editorial note: Why do these scientists sound surprised? Anyone in the organic and non-GMO movement could have told you what would happen. In fact, we did. Can you say “Unintended consequences?”

GMO Labeling Fight Goes to Washington

Source: Wikimedia Commons

Alarmed that pro-GMO labeling advocates may be gaining ground, opponents of GMO labeling took their money and influence to Washington, DC, in December to try to outlaw states from passing GMO labeling bills, and allow manufacturers to call their GMO products “natural.”H.R. 4432, called the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2014 by bill sponsor Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), and backed by corporate agribusiness and mainstream food industry interests, seeks to prohibit states from exercising their right to label GMOs. Further, the bill would allow manufacturers to call GMO foods “natural.” Additionally, Pompeo's legislation, if passed, would create a “voluntary” labeling system over mandatory labeling, and would nullify GMO labeling laws already passed by Maine, Vermont and Connecticut.

While many in the food industry favor uniform national GMO labeling legislation over a patchwork of state laws, Pompeo’s bill, dubbed the DARK Act, or the “Deny Americans the Right to Know Act,” by opponents of the bill, seeks to take the teeth out of GMO labeling. Backers of H.R. 4432 hope to do away with mandatory labeling, while codifying FDA's voluntary labeling system. Currently, FDA does not require labeling for genetically modified foods. However, voluntary labeling has been in place since the mid-1990s, and yet few
to no companies have ever voluntarily labeled their products as containing GMOs.

On December 10, the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s health panel held a hearing in Washington, DC, entitled “Examining FDA’s Role in the Regulation of Genetically Modified Ingredients.” Despite a growing body of scientific research pointing to environmental and health risks associated with GMOs, when asked by Congressional panel member George Butterfield (D-NC), “Is there a scintilla of evidence that would suggest that these foods are unsafe?,” FDA official Michael Landa responded, “Not to our knowledge, no.”

Representatives at the hearing were skeptical of the need for GMO labeling, claiming it would confuse consumers or that it was simply “illogical” and “irrational.” Rep. Pompeo claimed that GMO labeling would raise food prices dramatically for consumers.

In testifying at the Congressional hearing, Kate Webb, Assistant Majority Leader in the Vermont House of Representatives, cautioned that H.R. 4432 would ultimately undo the work of Vermont’s recently passed Act 120, the law that requires genetically engineered products sold in Vermont to be labeled as such. Webb was one of the primary sponsors of Act 120, which passed 28-2 in the state Senate and 114-30 in the Vermont House.

“Most people would greatly prefer a national mandatory labeling system and national rules designed to restrict misleading claims of products being ‘natural,’” Webb said at the hearing.

“One of the great strengths of a capitalist democracy is not only do we cast a vote at the polls, we also do so in selecting the products we purchase,” she said. “Transparency allows us to see how things work, be it government, financial institutions or the foods we eat—what is in them, where they come from, and how they are produced. This transparency allows us to make informed decisions, and ultimately build trust.” Webb urged the subcommittee to oppose H.R. 4432 and support the mandatory labeling of genetically engineered products.

Webb and Scott Faber, Vice President of Government Affairs for the Environmental Working Group, were the only two witnesses to testify against H.R. 4432. Other witnesses included Michael Landa, Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, FDA; Alison Van Eenennaam, PhD, Biotechnology and Genomics Cooperative Extension Specialist, University of California, Davis; Stacey Forshee, Fifth District Director, Kansas Farm Bureau; and Tom Dempsey, President and CEO of the Snack Food Association.

“Poll after poll shows that consumers want the right to know what’s in their food and how it’s produced,” said Scott Faber. “Because our food choices have such a significant impact on our lives, this is a trend that should be welcomed, not frustrated. So it’s disappointing that some members of Congress, led by Rep. Mike Pompeo, are fighting to deny Americans the right to know whether their food contains genetically modified ingredients.”

FDA Approves Genetically Engineered Salmon

Source: Wikimedia Commons

It’s been a whirlwind month of GMO developments, and health-conscious consumers, GMO labeling proponents, fishermen, non-GMO food producers and others are resting a bit uneasy as the nation heads into the year-end holiday season. First, without requiring any labeling and insisting that it’s safe, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on November 19 approved the world’s first genetically engineered animal for human consumption – the AquAdvantage salmon, produced by AquaBounty Technologies in Waltham, MA.

Saying that it “rigorously evaluated extensive data submitted by the manufacturer…and other peer reviewed data,” FDA concluded, "there are no biologically relevant differences in the nutritional profile of AquAdvantage salmon compared to that of other farm-raised Atlantic salmon.” The GE salmon is expected to enter the market, including restaurants and retail stores, in about two years, reported ABC News.

Saying No to “Non-GMO”

On the same day, FDA also announced it is not in favor of the term “non-GMO,” used by hundreds of companies on tens of thousands of product labels. In guidelines published for voluntary labeling of food from genetically engineered sources, FDA said “GMO” conveys an overly broad and inaccurate meaning when applied to food products. “Most foods do not contain entire organisms,” the agency said.

FDA indicated it would prefer food labels to say “Not bioengineered,” or “This oil is made from soybeans that were not genetically engineered,” reported the New York Times on November 20. The Times also reported that FDA remains opposed to mandatory disclosure of genetically modified ingredients on food labels.

Consumers want to know, however. Driven by market demand, the Non-GMO Project Verified seal is the fastest growing seal in the natural products channel. In 2015, 34,000 products representing $13.5 billion in annual sales featured the Non-GMO Project Verified seal on the label, reported the Non-GMO Project. Additionally, the market for certified organic products, where GMOs are prohibited, grew 11% to $39 billion in annual sales, Organic Trade Association reported in April 2015. And, in a June 2015 ABC News poll, an overwhelming 93% of U.S. consumers said the federal government should require labels on food saying whether it's been genetically modified or "bio-engineered" (the poll used both phrases). “Such near-unanimity in public opinion is rare,” ABC News said.

Senate Grapples with GMO Labeling

Also in late October, Senate Agriculture Committee ranking member Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) announced she would deal with the GMO labeling issue once and for all, hopefully seeking a compromise before the end of the year. Depending on whom you talk to, this would either provide some semblance of mandatory labeling – perhaps by requiring cryptic QR codes on the label, a move that would require consumers to have smart phones and the time to check each product – or Stabenow’s efforts could potentially pre-empt Vermont’s mandatory GMO labeling law, set to take effect in July 2016, in favor of a national voluntary labeling system. Such a move would be seen by GMO labeling proponents as an extension of the DARK Act (Safe and Affordable Food Labeling Act, H.R. 1599), passed in the House of Representatives this past summer, and backed by the biotech industry and the Grocery Manufacturers Association.

“Senator Stabenow believes that for any solution to pass the Senate, it must establish a national system of required disclosure that would ensure consumers get the information they want about their food, while also solving the problem of a 50-state patchwork of regulations,” a spokesperson for Senator Stabenow said. Groups including Organic Consumers Association, Center for Food Safety, Food Democracy Now!, Food & Water Watch, Just Label It and others are urging industry and consumers to contact Senator Stabenow's office as well as their own senators and the White House to demand mandatory GMO labeling.

Spawning a GE Animal Market

From its first application in 1996, AquaBounty Technologies had been waiting nearly 20 years for commercial approval of its GE salmon, produced by combining the genes of Atlantic salmon and Chinook salmon with those of a different marine species, an ocean pout, to make it grow twice as fast as normal farmed salmon on 25% less feed.

“AquAdvantage salmon is a game-changer that brings healthy and nutritious food to consumers in an environmentally responsible manner without damaging the ocean and other marine habitats,” Ronald Stotish, CEO of AquaBounty, said in a statement.

One wrinkle, exacerbated by FDA’s refusal to require labeling disclosure in approving the GE salmon, is that the ocean pout, an eel-like fish, is not considered Kosher, creating an unprecedented conundrum for lovers of Kosher lox.

“The decision to approve GMO salmon without a mandatory disclosure is yet another example of how FDA’s outdated policy keeps consumers in the dark,” said Scott Faber, executive director of Just Label It, in a statement. “Consumers will have no way of knowing whether the salmon they are buying comes from nature or comes from a lab. It makes sense to give consumers the right to know and to choose whether this fish, or any other food that contains GMO ingredients, is right for their dinner table.”

Into the Wild

Producing the GE salmon eggs in Canada, and then shipping the fry to be raised in fish farms in Panama, AquaBounty ensures that it can keep its genetically engineered fish from escaping and potentially contaminating or outcompeting native salmon populations. The company also claims its GE salmon are sterile and would be unable to breed in the wild.

Yet, Canadian scientists in 2013 reported that AquaBounty’s GE salmon could crossbreed with a closely related species, brown trout, and pass on the GE traits to the hybrid offspring. Also, Dana Perls of Friends of the Earth pointed out to NPR that the company’s egg production facility, located on Prince Edward Island, is near an estuary that feeds into the North Atlantic, prime breeding waters for native Atlantic salmon.

Additionally, Center for Food Safety (CFS), Food & Water Watch and others expressed concerns over reports of negligence and mismanagement at AquaBounty’s Panama facilities that could increase the risk of escape. According to a complaint filed in November 2013 by the environmental group Centro de Incidencia Ambiental de Panama (CIAM), AquaBounty’s Panama production facilities were missing legally required permits and inspections, including a wastewater discharge permit.

“These allegations suggest a dangerous pattern of non-compliance and mismanagement by AquaBounty, raising the likelihood of an environmentally damaging escape of these fish,” said George Kimbrell, senior attorney for Center for Food Safety. Indeed, CFS also revealed that AquaBounty itself reported “lost” GE salmon, which resulted from extreme weather and frequent flooding in this region of Panama.

“We’ve been fighting against GMO salmon for 10 years,” Larry Collins, VP of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, told the San Francisco Chronicle. “It’s shockingly irresponsible of the FDA to allow this untested science to be tested on human guinea pigs.”

“This sets the bar incredibly low for engineered animals,” said Michael Hansen, senior scientist for Consumers Union. “There were serious problems with the safety assessment.” Hansen expressed concern that testing for potential allergens was only done on a very small sample size, and that the tested GE salmon actually did show a higher allergenicity.

AquaBounty was recently acquired by biotech billionaire Randal Kirk, reported Max Goldberg, editor and publisher of LivingMaxwell.com. In addition to owning the AquAdvantage GE salmon, Kirk is reported to own Okanagan Specialty Fruits, producer of the recently approved GMO Arctic apple; Oxitec, a company that wants to release genetically engineered mosquitoes to fight dengue fever; and Intrexon, a company pursuing synthetic biology, an extreme form of genetic engineering, said Goldberg.

A number of major retailers have announced they won't sell the GE salmon, including Whole Foods Market, Costco, Trader Joe's, Safeway, Target, and Kroger. Leading restaurants including Legal Sea Foods, Red Lobster and others also announced they wouldn’t be offering GE salmon on the menu.

Photo: AquaBounty Technologies

Lawsuits Seeking to Overturn GMO Laws in Hawaii and Vermont

Source: Wikimedia Commons

In a 5 to 4 decision, Hawaii County Council voted on December 17 to appeal a decision by a U.S. Magistrate Judge who had ruled to protect Monsanto and GMO testing and production on the Big Island of Hawaii, reported the Hawaii Tribune Herald. Hawaii County voters in 2014 elected to ban the cultivation of GMOs on the island. The new ordinance prohibits growing GMO crops in open-air conditions, with some exceptions including GMO papaya.

Monsanto swiftly sued Hawaii County over the new law, and on November 27, U.S. Magistrate Judge Barry Kurren moved to invalidate the GMO ban, saying that state law pre-empts county law on agricultural issues. Paul Achitoff, attorney for Earthjustice, disagreed, saying, “The Legislature never intended the existing state laws we have in Hawaii to govern genetically engineered crops.” Judge Kurran has a long history of ruling in favor of Monsanto and agribusiness, claims journalist Christina Sarich in a report in the Natural Society.

Based on the Hawaii Council’s vote, the issue will now be taken up by a higher court. “This is an important decision with far-reaching impact on home rule,” said Councilwoman Margaret Wille, author of the original bill limiting GMOs in Hawaii.

Meanwhile, in Maui County, proponents behind the passage on November 4 of a referendum placing a moratorium on GMO cultivation and experimentation on the islands of Maui, Molokai and Lanai have been given the “green light” to intervene in a federal lawsuit filed by Monsanto challenging the measure, reported Maui Now on December 16. Honolulu attorney Michael Carroll, representing the authors of the Maui GMO initiative, said the group won standing on Monday to intervene in a lawsuit filed by Monsanto, which seeks to delay enforcement of the measure and ultimately to have it declared unenforceable. Carroll is representing the SHAKA Movement and others who led the effort to suspend the cultivation and testing of GMO crops in Maui County until an environmental and public health study can show that they are safe.

“We look forward to advancing our position with the Federal Court in order to validate the ordinance that the majority of Maui voters passed into law in November,” Carroll told Maui Now. A federal judge will consider arguments on March 10, 2015, regarding whether to throw out Monsanto’s lawsuit challenging Maui County’s newly approved moratorium on cultivating genetically engineered crops, reported the Honolulu Civil Beat.

In related news, in Vermont, oral arguments are tentatively set to begin in January 2015 regarding a lawsuit filed by the Grocery Manufacturers Association to overturn Vermont’s mandatory GMO labeling law, passed by the state Legislature in May. Vermont's law doesn't go into effect until July 1, 2016, however, the GMA is asking the U.S. District Court in Vermont to grant a temporary injunction to prevent the state from moving forward with implementation of the law. Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell's team, which includes high-powered Washington, D.C., law firm Robbins, Russell, will argue to dismiss the lawsuit.

Oregon GMO Labeling Bill Defeated by 837 Votes in Election Recount

After an official recount, Oregon’s Secretary of State announced on December 16 that Measure 92 to require mandatory labeling of GMO foods in the state was defeated by a razor-thin margin of 837 votes out of a total 1.5 million votes cast. The Yes campaign’s last-ditch legal challenge to approve 4,600 invalidated ballots due to signature discrepancies was rejected on December 9 by a Multnomah County Judge, sealing the defeat of the measure. The narrow defeat came as anti-labeling interests, including Monsanto, DuPont, Conagra and others, outspent the pro-labeling side by more than two to one, pumping nearly $21 million into the state to defeat the bill, while the pro-GMO labeling campaign raised more than $9 million.

Additionally, while they were pouring millions into the No on 92 campaign, out of state agribusiness companies and trade groups including Monsanto, Dupont, Coca-Cola, the Grocery Manufacturers Association and others contributed $80,000 to Oregon legislators’ campaigns and to Oregon political action committees, reported the Statesman Journal.

Out of the No campaign’s total contributions, over 99.99% came from out-of-state corporations, led by Monsanto’s $5,958,750 and DuPont’s $4,518,150, noted Rick North of Blue Oregon.

“The initiative was about a lot of things – consumers’ right to know what’s in their food, voter turnout, the recount, mismatched signatures, and the continuing controversy over the safety of genetically engineered food. But more than anything else, Measure 92 was about money,” he said. “Only one actual human being donated more than $100 to the No campaign. In contrast, over 17,900 individuals contributed to the Yes campaign.”

The Oregon GMO labeling bill would have required labels on product packaging, bins and shipping containers of genetically modified foods and foods made with genetically modified ingredients. Measure 92’s failure follows voter rejections, also by narrow margins, in California in 2012 and Washington in 2013, and by a wider margin in Colorado in 2014, after being vastly outspent by the anti-labeling side in each of these campaigns.

Supporters of the Oregon measure conceded defeat on December 11, but pledged to keep fighting for GMO labeling. "We draw strength from the fact that we came so achingly close to winning this vote," the Yes on 92 Campaign said. "We will continue working until Oregonians and all Americans – like the residents of 64 other countries around the globe – have the information they need to make informed choices about the food that they feed their families."

Colorado is Underdog in GMO Labeling Election Battle

Photo: Pexels

With more than $25 million poured in to defeat statewide GMO labeling ballot initiatives in 2014, a small cabal of multi-national biotech, pesticide and junk food companies seeks to buy the elections in Colorado and Oregon.

Seeking to crush a groundswell movement in the U.S. to label genetically modified (GMO) foods, a small group of multi-billion-dollar pesticide, biotech and junk food companies have poured more than $14 million into Colorado in September and October to defeat Proposition 105, a grassroots voter initiative to label GMO foods.

Just 10 corporations, including Monsanto, DuPont, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Kraft, General Mills, Hershey, Smucker, Dow and Kellogg, are responsible for more than $13 million of the $14.3 million total contributed to kill the Colorado GMO labeling bill.

Also of note among the donors seeking to defeat the Colorado GMO labeling bill are Abbot Nutrition and Mead Johnson, companies that make nutritional formulas for infants and the elderly – companies that do not want mandatory GMO labeling on their packaging.

In contrast, while more than 170,000 Coloradans signed petitions to place the bill on the November statewide ballot – nearly twice the number of signatures needed – the underdog Right to Know Colorado campaign has raised less than $1 million in cash and pledges, mostly through small business donations along with hundreds of $5, $10, and $25 contributions to the campaign from primarily Colorado citizens.

“I can’t understand why these corporations would put over $14 million into a Colorado campaign where the pro-labeling side has less than $1 million,” said Larry Cooper, Co-chair of the Right to Know Colorado campaign. “What are they trying to hide?”

More Biotech Funds Targeted to Colorado than Oregon Ironically, while a similar GMO labeling voter bill in Oregon, Measure 92, has been able to raise significantly more funding - $6.3 million in total - biotech has pumped more into Colorado than Oregon to defeat the GMO labeling measure - although that gap is closing rapidly as Election Day approaches. Monsanto, PepsiCo, Kraft, Coca-Cola, Land O'Lakes, General Mills, Hershey and other chemical and food multinationals top the list of donors to the No on 92 campaign in Oregon. To see the list of donors to both the Yes and No sides in Oregon, visit http://gov.oregonlive.com/election/2014/finance/measure-92/.

Delayed until the Colorado Supreme Court finally cleared the initiative to move forward in March following a complaint filed by the anti-labeling opposition, the Right to Know Colorado campaign got a late start but surprised industry followers by collecting more than twice the number of signatures needed to place the bill on the November ballot.

The Yes on 105 campaign has received important media endorsements from the Daily Camera, Colorado's second largest newspaper, and BizWest, one of the state's leading business journals. Additionally, in September, a 20-member Citizens Initiative Review panel endorsed Colorado’s Prop. 105 to label GMOs by a vote of 11-9. (A similar panel in Oregon voted 11-9 against Measure 92.)

In Colorado, Chipotle Mexican Grill, Natural Grocers by Vitamin Cottage, and Whole Foods Market have provided significant support for the Yes on 105 campaign, helping to get out the vote through their stores and via endorsements and social media.

Major contributors to Colorado's Yes on 105 and also the Oregon pro-labeling campaign include Presence Marketing/Dynamic Presence, Food Democracy Now, Organic Consumers Association, Annie's Inc., Dr. Bronner’s, Boulder Brands and others. For a complete list visit www.righttoknowcolorado.org/donors and www.oregonrighttoknow.org/endorsements.

Grassroots organizations endorsing the Right to Know Colorado ballot initiative include Moms Across America, Rocky Mountain Farmers Union, Colorado Moms for GMO Labeling, Conservation Colorado, Alliance for Sustainable Colorado, Hazon, and others.

Seeing this rising tide of grassroots consumer and citizen support for GMO labeling as a threat to profits, Monsanto, Dow, DuPont, Pepsi, Coke, Kraft, Grocery Manufacturers Association, and other pesticide, biotech and junk food companies have teamed up to spend more than $125 million over the past three years to defeat GMO labeling ballot initiatives in California and Washington in 2012 and 2013, and in Oregon and Colorado this year.

More than 93% of Americans want GMO labeling, according to a 2013 New York Times survey, and in late September, before the anti-labeling ad blitz on TV, 71% of Colorado voters favored GMO labeling, yet less than three dozen chemical, pesticide and junk food companies continue to fight history with a withering amount of cash to barrage the airwaves in Oregon and Colorado with deceptive advertising to confuse voters about GMO labeling - and to buy our elections.

To donate, volunteer, or for information and to support the GMO labeling campaigns in Colorado and Oregon, visit www.righttoknowcolorado.org and www.oregonrighttoknow.org.

Steven Hoffman has served as lead fundraiser for GMO labeling campaigns including Prop. 37 in California in 2012, Washington State's I-522 in 2012, and Proposition 105 to Label GMO Foods in Colorado in 2014.

Historic Mainstream Cereal Brands Make Non-GMO News

Food giants General Mills and Post Foods both announced in the same month that their flagship Original Cheerios and Original Grape Nuts cereals will now say “Non-GMO” on the label, however, consumer watchdog groups fear that voluntary non-GMO claims may be meant to pre-empt any prospective state and federal mandatory GMO labeling efforts.

After contributing millions of dollars in campaign funding in 2012 and 2013 to oppose GMO labeling bills in California and Washington state, mainstream food manufacturer General Mills announced in early January 2014 that it has reformulated its flagship Original Cheerios cereal to remove GMOs from the product. The company said it had spent the past year sourcing non-GMO ingredients and changing some manufacturing practices, and beginning this month, Original Cheerios will now bear a non-GMO claim on the package.

General Mill’s non-GMO claim has not been verified by any third party agency, and the Original variety is the only Cheerios flavor to make the non-GMO claim. To respond to consumer questions, the company posted a non-GMO FAQ web page here.

Taking it one step further, cereal maker Post Foods announced just days later that its Original Grape Nuts variety is now Non-GMO Project Verified and U.S. consumers will see the familiar blue butterfly non-GMO seal on the front of the package in supermarkets across the country. Both Post and General Mills are members of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), a mainstream food industry lobby group that has opposed mandatory GMO labeling measures.

Proponents of GMO transparency lauded the news, including the nonprofit GMO Inside, a project of Green America, which has targeted Cheerios for not disclosing its GMO ingredients in widespread social media campaigns. Given the historic stature of the brands - Grape Nuts was first introduced in 1897 by mainstream food pioneer C.W. Post, and General Mills first launched Cheerios in 1941 - plus their dominant position in the cereal aisle, the moves were heralded as a major step forward in GMO labeling and in exposing a far greater number of consumers to the issue of GMOs in food and agriculture.

GMO Inside continues to press General Mills; its current campaign calls for removing GMO ingredients from Honey Nut Cheerios, and for General Mills to engage a third-party verification service such as Non-GMO Project to ensure the authenticity of the company's non-GMO claims.

A Toe in the Non-GMO Water Granted, the main ingredients in Original Cheerios and Original Grape Nuts - oats and wheat, respectively - are essentially non-GMO, making the products relatively easy to reformulate. Yet, in sourcing non-GMO corn starch, non-GMO sweetener from sugar cane instead of GMO sugar beets, and other non-GMO ingredients, and investing in segregating production, these mainstream cereal giants for the first time are responding to clamoring consumer demand for GMO labeling and transparency. While the Original flavors of Cheerios and Grape Nuts are the only non-GMO offerings, Post said it is pursuing other potential non-GMO products.

It is a testament to the efforts of sustainable food and farming organizations, consumer advocacy groups, natural and organic industry supporters, and grass-roots campaigns behind mandatory GMO labeling bills in states and federal government over the past few years that prompted these mainstream food corporations to finally acknowledge GMO transparency by announcing their non-GMO product claims.

Too Good to be True? Industry watchdogs, however, warn that the claims made by General Mills and Post are strictly voluntary non-GMO claims only, while consumers remain largely unaware that the majority of conventionally processed foods contain GMOs without requiring any disclosure on the label. While non-GMO claims are laudable, proponents of GMO labeling transparency wonder if this may be part of a roundabout move by the mainstream grocery lobby to pre-empt mandatory state and federal GMO labeling measures in favor of being able to make voluntary non-GMO claims, or abide by voluntary or watered-down GMO labeling standards that will likely be full of exemptions and loopholes.

Food Safety News reported in early January that GMA lobbied Congress and federal regulators to allow foods containing GMOs to be called "natural." Also, in an internal letter outlining GMO talking points intended for food industry lobbyists, GMA warned that, "The first state to implement a GMO labeling law will be sued on the constitutional grounds seen in IDFA v. Amestoy. Litigation in this area could be long, costly and will probably be decided by the Supreme Court," the letter stated. However, GMA's claims that state GMO labeling efforts are unconstitutional are baseless, according to legal experts and reported by Organic Consumers Association on January 23.

"If we’re to follow Cheerios and Grape Nuts down the rabbit hole, then states and federal GMO labeling laws will never happen," notes journalist Jill Ettinger in EatDrinkBetter.com. "Instead of mandatory labeling, with defined parameters, we’ll end up with a sugar-coated self-regulated system that’s about as healthy for you as the average breakfast cereal. In the long run, we’re much better off with tangible labeling laws instead of voluntary proclamations," she wrote.

One bright spot is that “now that Original Cheerios has gone non-GMO, it has proven one thing we've known all along and that is that GMO labeling doesn't cost the consumer any more money," said David Bronner, CEO of Dr. Bronner's and a longtime GMO labeling advocate. Bronner noted at a recent GMO labeling meeting in Portland, OR, that prices have not gone up for non-GMO Cheerios or Grape Nuts, despite repeated claims by GMO labeling opponents that mandatory labeling requirements would increase food prices for consumers.

This post originally appeared in the January 2014 issue of Presence News, a leading industry newsletter published by Presence Marketing / Dynamic Presence, the nation's largest independent natural and organic products brokerage.

Steven Hoffman is Managing Director of Compass Natural LLC, a full-service marketing, branding, public relations and business development agency serving natural, organic and sustainable products businesses. As a GMO labeling proponent, he served on the finance committees of California’s Prop 37 and Washington State’s I-522 voter campaigns to label GMO foods. Hoffman is former Editorial Director of New Hope Natural Media and former Program Director of Natural Products Expo. A co-founder of the annual LOHAS Conference for the $300-billion “Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability” market, and former Director of The Organic Center, Hoffman also served as Rocky Mountain Sales Manager and National Marketing Director for Arrowhead Mills, now a leading organic division of the Hain-Celestial Group. Contact steve@compassnatural.com, tel 303.807.1042.

USDA, FDA to Heap More GMOs on Consumers’ Plates

Source: Wikimedia Commons

Following the narrow defeat of Washington's I-522 to label GMO foods, the USDA moved to deregulate two new GMO soy varieties and a GMO apple genetically engineered to resist browning. Reports also indicate FDA may soon approve GMO salmon – the first GE animal for commercial food production.

What’s next for consumers and industry after November's narrow election loss of the I-522 GMO labeling bill in Washington State? While GMO labeling initiatives are emerging in states like Oregon, Colorado and elsewhere, and Just Label It and other organizations continue to press for advancement of federal GMO labeling legislation, there’s a different agenda at USDA and FDA.

The priority of these government organizations in charge of our food and agriculture is the approval and commercialization of more GMO crops, including more GMO soy varieties and a GMO apple that resists browning when sliced. Plus, approval of GMO salmon - the first genetically engineered animal proposed for human consumption – may be imminent.

On November 6, just one day after Washington State’s I-522 GMO labeling bill was narrowly defeated in a statewide election, USDA announced it deregulated for commercial use a new soybean genetically engineered by Monsanto to produce a higher yield. At the same time, USDA recommended deregulating an herbicide-resistant GMO soybean made by BASF, plus a GMO apple genetically engineered to resist browning when sliced. The comment period for the BASF herbicide-resistant GMO soy and the GMO apple ended on December 10.

In approving Monsanto’s GMO soy, MON 87712, genetically engineered to produce higher yield by splicing in a light-sensitive gene from Arabidopsis thaliana or the mouse-ear cress plant, a common weed in Europe, USDA said in a Federal Register notice that it evaluated data submitted by Monsanto, an analysis of available scientific data, and public comments in determining that the GMO soybean is "unlikely to pose a plant pest risk" and is of “no significant impact.”

Monsanto also hopes to garner approval in 2014 of GMO corn, soy and cotton genetically engineered to be tolerant to applications of dicamba and 2,4-D (also known as Agent Orange), two potent and toxic synthetic herbicides that growers have had to resort to, as weed resistance to glyphosate, or “Roundup” has increased dramatically as a result of its overuse in GMO crop production.

More GMOs, More Pesticides
Toxic pesticide usage, in fact, including herbicides and insecticides, has grown by more than 400 million pounds as a result of widespread adoption of GMO agriculture. Herbicide-tolerant and Bt-transgenic crops now dominate U.S. agriculture, accounting for about one in every two acres of harvested cropland, and approximately 95% of soybean and cotton acres and more than 85% of corn acreage.

In a study published in October 2012 in Environmental Sciences Europe by noted Washington State University researcher Dr. Chuck Benbrook, “Impacts of Genetically Engineered Foods on Pesticide Use in the U.S. – the First 16 Years,” GMO crops have increased overall pesticide use in the U.S. by 404 million pounds from 1996 through 2011. According to the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, glyphosate use alone increased by more than 6,500% from 1991 to 2010. Contrary to biotech’s claims that GMOs reduce the need for chemicals, overall pesticide use in 2011 was 20% higher on each acre planted to a GMO crop, compared to pesticide use on acres not planted to GMO crops, reported Benbrook.

Driving the increased herbicide usage are a growing number of “super weeds” – now estimated at more than two dozen – that have developed resistance to glyphosate, the major herbicide used on herbicide-tolerant GMO crops. Benbrook notes that many of these weeds are spreading rapidly in primary agricultural areas in the U.S., and that millions of acres are infested with more than one glyphosate-resistant weed. The presence of resistant weeds drives up herbicide use by 25% to 50%, and increases weed control costs for farmers by at least as much, Benbrook noted.

Apples That Don’t Brown…No Matter How Old They Are!
For generations, folks have used lemon juice to keep apple slices from browning, but now USDA wants to approve a new genetically engineered apple marketed under the “Arctic” brand by Okanagan Specialty Fruits in British Colombia for commercial production and sale in the U.S.

USDA said the GMO apples – in which the gene that turns apples brown has been silenced using licensed technology originally developed in genetically engineered potatoes – were “unlikely” to pose a plant pest risk. Additionally, USDA said that it conducted a nutritional analysis that establishes the safety of the GMO “apples and their products to humans, including minorities, low-income populations, and children who might be exposed to them through agricultural production and/or processing."

The GMO apple's creator says browning has economic costs and that it has already engineered Golden Delicious and Granny Smith apples, with Fuji and Gala varieties next in line. Opponents of the GMO apple say browning is a natural indicator of an aging piece of fruit, and along with organic growers are concerned about GMO contamination of orchards, both organic and non-GMO, while also fearing that negative consumer perception may lead to a decline in apple sales in general.

Also, independent studies have found risks associated with this new kind of GMO technology. While most existing GMOs are designed to make new proteins, reports Melody Meyer, VP of Policy and Industry Relations for UNFI and President of the Organic Trade Association, in her blog Organic Matters, GMO apples make dsRNA in order to alter the way genes are expressed. Recent research has shown that dsRNA can transfer from plants to humans and other animals through ingesting food or by inhaling dust from the plant or absorption through the skin. While RNA is a normal component of all cells, in dsRNA form it can have effects that depend on the species and tissues exposed to it, reports Meyer.

GMO Salmon – But Is It Kosher?
Most alarming for non-GMO advocates are recent reports indicating that FDA may be poised to approve GMO salmon before the end of the year or in early 2014. The AquAdvantage salmon, created by Massachusetts-based biotech firm Aqua Bounty, is genetically engineered with a Chinook salmon growth gene and an “antifreeze” gene from an eel-like fish called the ocean pout, which makes the fish grow twice as fast as naturally occurring salmon. The AquAdvantage salmon would be the first genetically engineered animal ever approved for human consumption.

Paving the way for the prospect of imminent approval in the U.S., in late November Canada became the first country to approve commercial production of genetically engineered salmon eggs, stating that a panel of independent transgenics and fish containment technology experts found no risk to the environment or human health when the eggs are produced in contained facilities. Canada has not yet approved GMO salmon for human consumption.

Aqua Bounty assures regulators the safety of its production system, which includes producing the GMO salmon eggs in containment facilities on Prince Edward Island in Canada and then shipping them to a facility in Panama for maturation and processing before shipping cut fillets to the U.S. and other markets that allow genetically engineered foods. However, opponents stress that GMO salmon could escape into nature and threaten native species, and that there may be higher risk of cancer and allergies associated with consumption of GMO salmon.

“We are alarmed and disappointed by the short-sightedness of [Canada’s] decision. GE salmon production, in Canada or anywhere else, threatens native salmon survival around the world,” said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety. “FDA has thus far refused to rigorously analyze the impacts of GE salmon. It must do so before even considering any approval.”

A number of recent reports have documented troubles at Aqua Bounty’s facilities in Panama, including lack of legally required permits and inspections, including a wastewater discharge permit, “lost” GMO salmon, and routine, destructive flooding in the area of the facility.

Several major retailers, including Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, Aldi and Target, have announced they will not sell the GMO salmon in their stores. Also, in November, U.S. Senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Jon Tester (D-MT) and Mark Begich (D-AK) co-sponsored a petition calling for the FDA not to approve the GMO salmon. To date, nearly 100,000 people in all 50 states have signed the petition.

Regarding the Kosher question, the Orthodox Union (OU) says GMO salmon is kosher, because it has fins and scales. However, eels, which lack scales, are not considered Kosher, creating a dilemma for observers who enjoy salmon lox with their bagels. “Creation of a part-fish, part-eel seems impermissible as a violation of the Torah’s prohibition to mix species,” says writer Lisa Kassner in the Jewish Journal. One Kosher certifier, Natural Food Certifiers, announced in April that it would not allow its “Apple K” logo to appear on products that contain GMOs, including the proposed GMO salmon.

Article was previously published in the Presence Marketing / Dynamic Presence December 2013 Newsletter.

Research Documents Risks Associated with GMOs

Source: Pexels

The biotech industry works hard to discredit any science demonstrating the health and environmental safety risks associated with the widespread adoption of genetically engineered crops and foods. However, a growing body of published scientific research shows clear and present risks to humans, animals and the environment as a result of GMOs and the pesticides used in GMO agriculture that are now pervasive in our ecosystem, diet and food production system. There are nine genetically modified (GM or GMO) food crops currently on the market: soy, corn, cotton (oil), canola (oil), sugar from sugar beets, zucchini, yellow squash, Hawaiian papaya, and alfalfa. However, in November 2013, USDA recommended that GMO apples be approved for commercial production, and FDA may approve GMO salmon - the first genetically engineered animal ever allowed for human consumption - in late 2013 or early 2014.

Please see the executive summary of key research findings below. Also, for a more comprehensive reference, you can download for free GMO Myths and Truths, published by Earth Open Source.

• GMO DNA could cross-transfer into genes of plants, animals and humans; there is scientific evidence that it could jump species: GM DNA can persist in plant debris and soil residues long after the GMO crop has been cultivated, plus the GM transgene for glyphosate tolerance was found in human digestive systems after eating GMO soy; scientists also found that the GM genes transferred to bacteria in the human gut, according to a June 2010 report by the Institute of Science in Society. In fact, said the report, due to its inherent design to be able to “jump” into genomes, genetically engineered DNA may actually be more successfully transferred into other organisms. Institute of Science in Society, June 2010.

• Research carried out by a team at Sherbrooke University Hospital in Quebec and accepted for publication in February 2011 in the journal Reproductive Toxicology found that the toxic Bt insecticide protein Cry1Ab, engineered into GMO crops, was present in blood serum of 93% of pregnant women tested. The Bt toxin was also present in 80% of umbilical blood samples taken from fetuses, and in 67% of non-pregnant women. The researchers suggest that the most probable source of the toxin is GM food consumed as part of a normal diet in Canada, where GM presence in food is unlabeled. “To our knowledge, this is the first study to highlight the presence of pesticides-associated genetically modified foods in maternal, fetal and nonpregnant women’s blood. 3-MPPA and Cry1Ab toxin are clearly detectable and appear to cross the placenta to the fetus. Given the potential toxicity of these environmental pollutants and the fragility of the fetus, more studies are needed,” say the researchers. Aris A, Leblanc S. Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec. Reprod Toxicol (2011), doi:10.1016/j.reprotox.2011.02.004.

• Bt toxins derived from the Bacillus thuringiensis bacteria, traditionally used in topical applications on plants in organic gardening, were thought to be toxic only to insects. However, now that genetically engineered crops are designed to produce Bt toxins at the cellular level of the plant itself, recent studies are showing that such prolonged exposure to increased levels of Bt toxins in the diet could lead to red blood cell damage and possibly leukemia in mammals. In the 2013 Journal of Hematology & Thromboembolic Diseases, study author Belin Mezzomo of the Department of Genetics and Morphology and the Institute of Biological Sciences at the University of Brasilia reported that Bt toxins found in Monsanto’s GMO corn and soy crops are more toxic to mammals than previously thought. Tests demonstrated that “Cry” proteins resulting from Bt toxin were toxic to red blood cells and bone marrow cells. Scientists tested levels ranging from 27 mg to 270 mg over a seven-day period and found that the Cry toxins were hemotoxic, even at the lowest doses administered. Hemotoxins are known to destroy red blood cells, disrupt blood clotting and cause organ degeneration and tissue damage. Journal of Hematology and Thromboembolic Diseases, 2013.

• Citing USDA research data, Environmental Protection Act records, medical journal reviews, and international research, a team of specialists including Stephanie Seneff, Senior Research Scientist at MIT, and Dr. Tom O'Bryan, internationally recognized expert on gluten sensitivity and Celiac Disease, in September 2013 proposed that genetically engineered foods may be an important trigger for gluten sensitivity, estimated to affect 18 million Americans. In the report, “Can Genetically Engineered Foods Explain the Exploding Gluten Sensitivity,” published by the Institute for Responsible Technology, the authors relate genetically modified foods to five conditions that may either trigger or exacerbate gluten-related disorders, including the autoimmune disorder Celiac Disease: intestinal permeability; imbalanced gut bacteria; immune activation and allergic response; impaired digestion; and damage to the intestinal wall. Jeffrey Smith, Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, explained that genetically engineered Bt-toxin in corn “is designed to puncture holes in insect cells, but studies show it does the same in human cells. Bt-toxin may be linked to leaky gut, which physicians consistently see in gluten-sensitive patients." Although wheat has been hybridized through natural breeding techniques over the years, to date no GMO wheat has been approved for commercial planting and human or animal consumption.

• French scientists revealed in November 2012 in a study published in the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology that rats fed on GMO corn sold by US firm Monsanto suffered tumors and other complications including kidney and liver damage, in the first two-year study conducted on GMOs and health. Researchers from the University of Caen, led by Gilles-Eric Seralini, found that rats fed on a diet containing NK603 – a GMO seed variety made tolerant to amounts of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide – or given water mixed with Roundup, at levels permitted in the US, died earlier than those on a standard diet. Fifty percent of male and 70% of female rats developed numerous tumors and died prematurely, compared with only 30% and 20%, respectively, in the control group. Under intense criticism by the biotech industry for publishing Seralini's findings, In November 2103, editor Wallace Hayes was compelled to ask Seralini to withdraw his research or it would be "retracted." Seralini responded that his peer-reviewed study followed international research guidelines. "We maintain our conclusions," Seralini refuted, claiming that "a factual comparative analysis" of the rat feeding trial by his group and safety trials conducted by multinational biotech corporation Monsanto "clearly reveals that if the Seralini experiments are considered to be insufficient to demonstrate harm, logically, it must be the same for those carried out by Monsanto to prove safety."

• In a study published in October 2012 in Environmental Sciences Europe by Washington State University researcher Chuck Benbrook, Ph.D., “Impacts of Genetically Engineered Foods on Pesticide Use in the U.S. – the First 16 Years,” GMO crops have increased overall pesticide use in the U.S. by 404 million pounds from 1996 through 2011. According to the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, glyphosate use alone increased by more than 6,500% from 1991 to 2010. Contrary to biotech’s claims that GMOs reduce the need for chemicals, overall pesticide use in 2011 was 20% higher on each acre planted to a GMO crop, compared to pesticide use on acres not planted to GMO crops, reported Benbrook. Herbicide-tolerant and Bt-transgenic crops now dominate U.S. agriculture, accounting for about one in every two acres of harvested cropland, and approximately 95% of soybean and cotton acres and more than 85% of corn acreage. Driving the increased herbicide usage are a growing number of “super weeds” – now estimated at more than two dozen – that have developed resistance to glyphosate, the major herbicide used on herbicide-tolerant GMO crops. Benbrook notes that many of these weeds are spreading rapidly in primary agricultural areas in the U.S., and that millions of acres are infested with more than one glyphosate-resistant weed. The presence of resistant weeds drives up herbicide use by 25% to 50%, and increases weed control costs for farmers by at least as much, Benbrook reported.

• Nancy Swanson, Ph.D., former staff scientist for the U.S. Navy and former professor of physics at Western Washington University, analyzed data in April 2013 related to the increased use of the synthetic herbicide glyphosate (Roundup®), an endocrine disruptor widely used in GMO agriculture, to the incidence of autism in children. Her findings indicated a strong direct correlation between the increased use of glyphosate in agriculture and the increased incidence of autism in children. Swanson also noted direct correlations between the use of glyphosate, which appears in the air, rain and water throughout the Midwest, with increases in other neurological diseases including ADHD, Bipolar Disorder, Alzeimer’s Disease, and senile dementia. See Swanson’s charts here: http://www.examiner.com/slideshow/gmos-glyphosate-and-neurological-disorders#slide=1.

• Dozens of cases of pesticide poisonings have been documented throughout Argentina that have been linked to industrial-scale, GMO agriculture and largely un-policed pesticide application in major agricultural areas of the country, according to an investigation conducted by the Associated Press and published in October 2013. Additionally, the nation’s agricultural areas are seeing dramatic spikes in the incidence of cancer, birth defects, miscarriages and other illnesses that may be related to “chemical cocktails” in the environment. Argentina is the world’s third-largest soybean producer, virtually all of which is genetically engineered to withstand applications of Roundup® (glyphosate) and other toxic, synthetic herbicides, including 2,4-D, or Agent Orange, which farmers are increasingly relying on as weeds and pests are becoming resistant to the GMO crops. Pesticide use in Argentina has increased nine-fold from 9 million gallons in 1990 to more than 84 million gallons today. Overall, Argentine farmers apply an estimated 4.3 pounds of agrichemical concentrate per acre, more than twice the amount U.S. farmers use, according to an AP analysis of government and pesticide industry data. Additionally, the AP investigation found that pesticide spray drifts often into schools and homes and settles over water sources; farmworkers mix poisons with no protective gear; villagers store water in pesticide containers that should have been destroyed. Now doctors are warning that uncontrolled pesticide applications could be the cause of growing health problems among the 12 million people who live in the South American nation's vast farm belt. In Santa Fe, researchers found cancer rates are two- to four-times higher than the national average, including breast, prostate and lung cancers. Researchers also found high rates of thyroid disorders and chronic respiratory illness. In Chaco in northwest Argentina near Paraguay, birth defects quadrupled in the decade after biotechnology dramatically expanded farming in Argentina, claim clinicians and researchers. One researcher, molecular biologist Andres Carrasco, Ph.D., of the University of Buenos Aires, published in the journal Chemical Research in Toxicology in 2010 findings that linked glyphosate to spinal defects, findings that were later rebutted by Monsanto.

• Monsanto’s corn that’s genetically engineered to kill insects may be losing its effectiveness against rootworms in four states, the EPA said. Rootworms in IA, IL, MN and NE are suspected of developing tolerance to the plants’ Bt insecticide, based on documented cases of severe crop damage and reports from entomologists, the EPA reported in a memo dated Nov. 22, 2011, and posted on a government website. Monsanto’s program for monitoring suspected cases of resistance is “inadequate,” the EPA said. Monsanto now recommends farmers use Smartstax corn, which the company claims kills rootworms with two types of Bt.  Bloomberg News, Dec. 2, 2011.

• Weeds that are no longer killed by Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, used heavily in genetically engineered crops, have invaded 14 million acres of U.S. cotton, soybean and corn, the vast majority of which is GMO, according to data presented by Swiss chemical maker and biotech giant Syngenta. A 2011 Dow Chemical Co. study found as many as 20 million acres of GMO corn and soybeans may be infested with Roundup-resistant “superweeds.”Bloomberg News, Dec. 2, 2011.

• In a study published April 10, 2013, in the scientific publication Entropy, researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology linked the use of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup®, the most widely used herbicide in the world and the one most closely associated with genetically engineered agriculture, to increases in the incidence of diabetes, autism, infertility and cancer in humans. Through the inhibition of a crucial enzyme, Cytochrome P450, glyphosate enhances the damaging effects of other food borne chemical residues and environmental toxins. Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body, report the researchers, leading to gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases, Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff, Entropy 2013, Vol. 15, April 10, 2013.

• Glyphosate (Roundup®) is consistently found in rain, rivers, surface water and air throughout the entire growing season in agricultural areas in the Mississippi River watershed, according to USGS studies released in August 2011. Glyphosate is used in almost all agricultural and urban areas of the US. The greatest glyphosate use is in the Mississippi River basin, primarily for weed control on GMO corn, soybeans and cotton. Overall, agricultural use of glyphosate has increased from less than 11,000 tons in 1992 to more than 88,000 tons in 2007. "Though glyphosate is the mostly widely used herbicide in the world, we know very little about its long term effects to the environment," says Paul Capel, USGS chemist. The degradation product of glyphosate, aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), which has a longer environmental lifetime, was also detected in streams and rain. USGS found glyphosate in more than 60% of air and rain sampled at locations in MI, IA and IN, with AMPA found in more than 50% of samples. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey Technical Announcement, Aug. 29, 2011.

• Don M. Huber, Ph.D., an emeritus professor at Purdue University who has done research for Monsanto on chemical herbicides, alleges that he has found a link between genetically modified crops and crop diseases and infertility in livestock: an "unknown organism" he and other researchers claim to have discovered in 2010 on Midwestern farms. Huber reported that the organism that raised his concern was found in much higher concentrations in corn and soybeans grown from genetically engineered Roundup Ready seeds than in grains grown from conventional seed. He believes the pathogen has made GMO soybeans more susceptible to “sudden death syndrome” and corn to Goss’ wilt; and reaffirmed his suspicion that it is linked to spontaneous abortions and infertility in livestock fed on GMO crops. "This organism appears new to science," Huber wrote in a letter in January 2011 to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. "I believe the threat we are facing from this pathogen is unique and of a high-risk status. In layman's terms, it should be treated as an emergency," Huber wrote. Los Angeles Times, April 2, 2011.

• European researchers at the University of Caen studied data on 90-day feeding trials on rats. They concluded that three varieties of GMO corn—Mon 810, Mon 863 and NK 603—which were approved for consumption by U.S., European and other food safety authorities—are linked to organ damage in mammals, including “adverse impacts on kidneys and liver, dietary detoxifying organs, as well as different levels of damages to heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system.” de Vendômois J.S., et. al., A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health, International Journal of Biological Sciences, Vol. 5, December 2009.

• Genetically engineered Bt corn may constitute a risk for pollinators, such as honeybees, because of the presence of Cry1Ab endotoxin in corn pollen. Honeybee feeding behavior was affected when exposed to the highest concentration of Cry1Ab protein, with honeybees taking longer to imbibe contaminated corn syrup. Moreover, honeybees exposed to 5,000 ppb of Cry1Ab had disturbed learning performances in that they continued to respond to a conditioned odor even in the absence of a food reward. Results showed that GMO crops expressing Cry1Ab protein at 5,000 ppb may affect food consumption or learning processes and thereby may impact honeybee foraging efficiency. R. Ramirez-Romero, et. al., Does Cry 1 Ab protein affect learning performance of the honeybee Apis mellifera L., Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, Feb. 2008.

• The American Academy of Environmental Medicine, in May 2009 called for a moratorium on genetically modified (GM) foods, stating: “Avoid GM foods when possible... Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food... There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation... The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies." Genetically Modified Foods, American Academy of Environmental Medicine Position Paper, May 2009.

• Research by scientists in Mexico found transgenes from Bt corn had contaminated local native varieties of maize in Mexico, the birthplace of corn. This is the second time GMO contamination was found in the genes of native species of corn. The first paper reporting the presence of transgenes in traditional varieties of Mexican corn was published in Nature in 2001. Modified Genes Spread to Local Maize, NatureNews, November 12, 2008.

• According to results from a long-term feeding study with mice, researchers in Austria concluded that consumption of a genetically modified corn developed by Monsanto (NK603 x MON810) may lead to lower fertility and body weight and impaired gene expression. The study has not yet been peer-reviewed but was released on Nov. 11, 2008, by the Austrian Ministry of Health, Family and Youth. Austrian Ministry of Health, Family and Youth.

• Italian researchers found significant disturbances in the immune system of young and old mice fed GM maize (MON810), and elevated levels of a cell type known to be associated with asthma and food allergies in children. Finamore A., et. al., "Intestinal and peripheral immune response to MON810 maize ingestion in weaning and old mice," Journal of Food and Agricultural Chemistry, November 16, 2008.

Research compiled by Compass Natural Marketing, updated November 29, 2013. For more information contact info@compassnaturalmarketing.com, tel 303.807.1042.

After Narrow GMO Labeling Defeat in Washington State, What’s Next?

After all the votes were counted, the Yes on 522 campaign in Washington State to label genetically engineered foods acceded defeat in mid-November by a margin of 48.9% to 51.1%, recalling the narrow defeat in 2012 of Proposition 37 to label GMO foods in California. The anti-GMO labeling side won by a slim 2% of the vote, but they won dirty. Proponents of GMO labeling knew they would be outspent, but they did not count on the fact that the No on 522 side would resort to illegal tactics to win the election, as alleged in an ongoing lawsuit filed by Washington’s Attorney General against a major food industry lobby group for concealing corporate contributions to the campaign, thus violating the state’s campaign finance disclosure laws (see below).

In all, 1.75 million people voted, comprising 45% of Washington’s electorate, the lowest statewide turnout in a decade, with some analysts citing a stronger turnout by more conservative, rural voters along with a poor turnout among younger, progressive voters, with some critics claiming the Yes on 522 campaign didn’t do enough to reach out to rural voters. Or, according to Grist writer Nathanael Johnson, “The Washington vote seems to be telling us that concern about GM food is broad and shallow. That is, lots of people are vaguely worried about transgenics, but it’s not a core issue that drives majorities to the polls.”

Still, said Johnson, the actual amount of money spent on advertising made “all the difference” in turning around polls indicating that Washington voters strongly favored GMO labeling going into the election. Blitzing voters with television advertising and direct mail, and dominating the airwaves in an off-election year with claims that voters didn’t need a confusing labeling law that would cost them more at the grocery store, the anti-GMO labeling lobby outspent the Yes on 522 side more than three to one, or $22 million vs. $8 million – a record for the state in overall campaign spending.

The No on 522 campaign to defeat the GMO labeling bill was supported with multi-million-dollar contributions from just a handful of multinational pesticide/biotech seed companies that donated directly to the No campaign, including Monsanto, Dow, Dupont, BASF and Bayer – and a number of food corporations that until late October remained hidden under the guise of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a Washington, DC-based industry lobby group.

"Defense of Brands" Scheme Backfires on GMA; Trade Group Faces AG Lawsuit In addition to the $11 million supplied by biotech to defeat the GMO labeling bill, more than three dozen mainstream food corporations – led by Nestle, Pepsico, Coca Cola, General Mills, McCormick, J.M. Smucker, ConAgra and others that purvey GMO foods without labels – matched biotech’s contributions to kill the labeling bill with nearly $11 million of their own.

Except…fearing the consumer backlash, brand tarnishing and PR disaster that many of these companies experienced when they were identified as contributors to defeat Prop 37 in California, they are alleged to have conspired to conceal their donations to the No on 522 campaign through an illegal slush fund, the “Defense of Brands” fund, secretly established n early 2013 by the GMA specifically to hide the names of the corporate campaign contributors from the public.

According to a lawsuit filed on October 16 by Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson, the GMA pumped $10.6 million into defeating the I-522 GMO labeling bill without first registering a political action committee, in violation of the state’s campaign finance transparency laws. Two days after the lawsuit was filed, the GMA registered a committee and finally disclosed the donors behind $7.2 million it had received from large food manufacturers.

However, the lawsuit is ongoing: in an amended lawsuit filed on November 20, Ferguson alleges that the GMA continues to violate the state’s campaign finance laws by not disclosing an additional $3.4 million in concealed contributions.

But the junk food industry’s game plan goes further, and that is to stop the state level GMO labeling movements “at any cost,” said public health attorney Michele Simon. In reviewing internal documents obtained as a result of the Attorney General’s lawsuit, Simon reported that the mainstream food industry's “ultimate game plan to stop the bleeding in the state-by-state onslaught of GMO labeling efforts is to lobby for a weak federal law that simultaneously preempts or trumps any state-level policy. Rather than a federal compromise, where industry would agree to a weak form of labeling in exchange for stripping state authority, what industry wants instead is to stop state laws to require labeling, while not giving up anything in return,” Simon wrote.

“In their own words, the game plan is to ‘pursue statutory federal preemption which does not include a labeling requirement.’ Let me repeat that,” Simons said: “The junk food lobby's ‘federal solution’ is to make it illegal for states to pass laws requiring GMO labeling. Period. End of story.”

Some good news is that not all major food companies are on board with this plan, and at least 30 companies that contributed to defeat Prop. 37 in California stayed out of the I-522 fight in Washington State, reported Ronnie Cummins of the Organic Consumers Association. “Some major food companies, including Unilever and Mars, bruised by bad publicity and consumer boycotts, have broken ranks with the GMA and the biotech industry, arguing that GMO food labels are inevitable and must be accepted, just as they’ve had to accept them in Europe and dozens of other countries,” Cummins said. GMO foods are required to be labeled in 64 countries, but not in the United States. In fact, in a 180-degree shift, Unilever, via its Ben & Jerry’s brand, was demonstrably active in promoting the Yes on 522 campaign to label GMO foods.

What’s Next: Oregon in 2014? Washington in 2016? Mandatory Federal Labeling? Yes on 522 campaign organizers, while disappointed in the narrow loss, vowed in a statement, “While it is unfortunate I-522 did not pass, it has set the stage for victory in 2016.” Trudy Bialic, director of public affairs for natural foods retailer PCC in Seattle and co-chair of the Yes on 522 campaign, said the voter turnout “was the lowest ever recorded, skewing older and more conservative, and away from younger, more progressive voters driving the GE labeling movement. We are disappointed with the results, but the polling is clear that Washingtonians support labeling and believe they have a right to know. This fight isn’t over. We will be back in 2016 to challenge and defeat the out-of-state corporations standing in the way of our right to know.”

Currently, GMO labeling language is being prepared and filed in Oregon and Colorado for 2014 ballot initiatives, according to Denver-based political consultant Rick Ridder and David Bronner, CEO of Dr. Bronner’s, a leading supporter of the Yes on 522 campaign and GMO labeling. Local legislatures in Hawaii have recently passed laws requiring biotech companies to reveal what GMO crops and pesticides they are applying to experimental fields. In Vermont, labeling legislation is still active and pro-GMO labeling supporters are not shying away from scientific research that demonstrates that there are, indeed, clear and present risks to human, animal an environmental health associated with genetically engineered food and agriculture.

On the federal front, the Senator Barbara Boxer’s (D-CA) and Congressman Peter DeFazio’s (D-OR) bill to label GMO foods, introduced in April 2013, is still pending. However, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) in mid-November announced that she was joining 13 other senators as a co-sponsor of Senator Boxer’s Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act.

Just Label executive director Scott Faber said, “We welcome the opportunity to work with food industry leaders and the FDA to devise a federal mandatory labeling system that alerts consumers to the presence of GE ingredients in their food.” However, Faber added, “The results in Washington State do not change the fundamental fact that consumers deserve the right to know about the presence of GE ingredients in their food. Just Label It will continue to fight to give American consumers the same rights as consumers in 64 other nations via a federal solution requiring mandatory labeling, while at the same time continuing to work with state legislators to give this basic right to consumers.

This article appeared in the November 2013 Presence News, a leading natural and organic products industry newsletter published by Presence Marketing/Dynamic Presence.