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.

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.

GreenMoney Journal: GMOs in Our Food: Do We Have a Right to Know?

Test your knowledge on GMOs in food! Compass Natural's Steve Hoffman and Nikki McCord of McCord Consulting co-authored an article in the Fall 2013 edition of GreenMoney Journal: "If you’re anything like us, you’re probably enjoying a snack while checking your email and catching up on your blogs. If you’re eating a conventionally produced snack – that is, one that is not Certified Organic or Non-GMO Verified – chances are it could be full of GMOs. Check your packaging. Did you see the label informing you of this fact? Most likely you didn’t because companies are not required to tell you whether or not GMOs are in your foods. And yet, GMOs are in about 80% of commonly processed foods. So what are GMOs and what is their impact on human and animal health and the environment? . . ."

Read More: http://www.greenmoneyjournal.com/fall-2013/gmo/

GMOs in the News: 2 Million Rally Against Monsanto

More than 2 Million People Rally in 52 Countries to Protest GMO Giant Monsanto
From a single Facebook page started in February, the March Against Monsanto held on May 25 drew more than 2 million people in 52 countries and 436 cities to protest chemical giant Monsanto and the genetically engineered seeds it produces. "If I had gotten 3,000 people to join me, I would have considered that a success," protest organizer Tami Canal told USA Today. "It was empowering and inspiring to see so many people, from different walks of life, put aside their differences and come together," she said. The group plans to harness the success of the event to continue its anti-GMO cause. "We will continue until Monsanto complies with consumer demand. They are poisoning our children, poisoning our planet," she said. "If we don't act, who's going to?" Protests were held in Los Angeles, Portland, OR, Buenos Aires, Argentina, Amsterdam in the Netherlands, and elsewhere around the globe. “As a single company, Monsanto is the tip of the iceberg representing the threat that unchecked corporate power has in corrupting our democratic institutions, driving family farmers off the land, threatening human health and contaminating our environment,” said Dave Murphy, executive director of Food Democracy Now, in a May 28 commentary in the Huffington Post.

Washington State Yes on 522 Launches GMO Labeling Campaign into Full Gear
With a new website, www.yeson522.com, the recent hiring of professional campaign management staff, and $1.1 million in contributions received, the Yes on 522 campaign to label GMO foods in Washington State is swinging into full gear and is appealing to natural and organic products business leaders to help fund what many experts say is the best opportunity to achieve mandatory GMO labeling in 2013. At a recent press conference, Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO), co-sponsor of the Boxer-DeFazio federal GMO labeling bill, said it is critically important to support the Washington State initiative to give greater weight to the Washington, DC, federal GMO labeling efforts, given biotech’s strong lobbying presence in the nation’s capitol. In a letter to donors, Yes on 522 finance chair David Bronner of Dr. Bronner’s reported that the campaign has launched an ambitious grassroots outreach program called “Kitchen Conversations,” in which advocates can receive a kit containing information to host informal gatherings among voters, and is rolling out a “Dining Out for 522” chef’s fundraising campaign. The campaign scheduled its first stakeholder meeting for May 31 in Seattle. Presence Marketing/Dynamic Presence is among the leading supporters of the Yes on 522 GMO labeling bill. Steven Hoffman of Compass Natural Marketing is helping lead fundraising efforts and outreach to natural and organic products industry leaders. For information and to contribute, visit www.yeson522.com.

Whole Foods Market Endorses Washington State’s Yes on 522 GMO Labeling Bill Joining a coalition of leading Washington State-based retailers including PCC Natural Markets and Marlene’s Natural Foods Market and Delis, among others, Whole Foods Market on April 25 announced its support for the Yes on 522 (www.yeson522.com) campaign to label genetically engineered, or GMO, foods. In support of Yes on 522, Whole Foods Market launched a grassroots effort, Will Vote for Food (www.willvoteforfood.com) to engage consumers and build support for the ballot initiative. “This issue is about transparency and the consumer’s right to make informed decisions,” said Joe Rogoff, president of Whole Foods Market’s Pacific Northwest region. “We believe that growers using genetically modified seed, and producers using the products grown from those seeds, have an obligation to share that information with their public. And the price paid by the food industry for relabeling is a pittance compared to the distrust that increasingly results from their concealment. We support Yes on 522. At Whole Foods Market, we will vote for food.”

New Leaf Markets Require GMO Labeling; Terra Organica Labeling GMO Products Following in the footsteps of Whole Foods Market, Santa Cruz, CA-based natural retailer New Leaf Community Markets announced it would require labeling of foods containing GMO ingredients in its seven stores by 2018. New Leaf was an early retail member of the Non-GMO Project and a strong supporter of California’s Prop 37 2012 GMO labeling measure, which was defeated by a narrow margin. New Leaf co-owner Scott Roseman commended Whole Foods for taking the lead on the labeling issue and said the five-year deadline gives manufacturers time to update packaging or research alternative ingredients. In related news, Stephen Trinkaus, owner of Terra Organica in Bellingham, WA, asked his customers what they wanted in terms of GMO labeling. The choices were: do nothing, label products that contain GMO ingredients, or get rid of the items altogether. Customers overwhelmingly chose labels, so Trinkaus began labeling products in the store that are likely to contain GMO ingredients. “I thought it would be simpler than it is,” Trinkaus told the Seattle Times. He wants customers to know if a manufacturer is working to replace GMO ingredients with non-GMO alternatives – many are after Whole Foods Market’s announcement to require GMO labeling in 2018, he said – and is revamping labels in his store to display more complex information.

Vermont, Maine Advance GMO Labeling Legislation
On May 14, despite concerns over lawsuit threats from the biotech industry, Maine's House Agriculture Committee passed a GMO labeling measure on an 8-3 vote. The bill, LD 718, offered by Rep. Lance Harvell (R-Farmington) wouldn’t go into full effect until 2018, and only after four of the nine northeastern states approve similar laws. However, they may be one step closer to realizing that goal: on May 10, the Vermont House passed a mandatory GMO labeling bill by an overwhelming 107-37 vote, again, despite massive lobbying efforts by the GMO biotech industry and threats to sue the state. If approved by the state Senate and signed by the governor, the bill, H 112, could make Vermont the first state in the nation to require labeling of genetically modified foods. But the measure likely wouldn’t go into effect for two years, and it would not affect meat, milk or eggs from animals that were fed or treated with genetically engineered substances, including GMO corn and the rBGH cattle hormone. While GMO labeling is not required in the U.S., according to the Center for Food Safety, 64 countries, including China, Russia and all EU nations currently have GMO labeling laws in place.

Monsanto CEO Blames Social Media for “Elitist” Anti-GMO Sentiments
Citizens who are against genetically modified foods or are calling for mandatory labeling of GMO foods are guilty of “elitism” that is fanned by social media, and they fail to consider the needs of the rest of the world, said Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant in a May 15 interview with Bloomberg Press. “This place is getting busier and more crowded,” Grant said. “As long as you’ve got money in your back pocket and you drive your station wagon to the supermarket on weekends, then it’s out of sight, out of mind, so far.” The advent of social media helps explain why many people in the U.S. have come to oppose genetically engineered crops in recent years, Grant told Bloomberg. Grant feels that GMOs are the answer to feeding the world’s growing population, while opponents point to increased use of toxic synthetic pesticides associated with GMO agriculture, the fact the farmers can no longer save seed if they are practicing GMO farming, the potential contribution of GMO farming to global climate change, and peer-reviewed studies that warn of risks to human, animal and environmental health. In related news, executives from Monsanto, DuPont and Dow Chemical – among the world’s largest producers of GMO crops and pesticides, and owners of a significant majority of the world’s seed companies – told Reuters that they are developing a national promotional campaign aimed at turning the tide on growing public sentiment against GMO crops. With GMO labeling measures before the federal government and more than 20 states, the biotech firms seek to limit the spread of such initiatives, which the companies say would only confuse consumers and upset the food manufacturing industry, according to Reuters. The biotech industry is still working out details of their marketing campaign, but it will likely have a large social media component, the company executives said.

Supreme Court Rules for Monsanto in Seed Case Rejecting an Indiana farmer’s argument that his planting of seeds he had bought second-hand did not violate Monsanto’s GMO seed patent, the U.S. Supreme Court on May 12 ruled unanimously that farmers must pay Monsanto each time they plant the company’s genetically engineered soybeans. Farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman asserted that because the company’s herbicide-resistant, Roundup Ready soybeans replicate themselves, he was not violating the company’s patent by planting progeny seeds he had purchased elsewhere. However, the justices unanimously rejected that claim, with Justice Elena Kagan writing there is no such “seeds-are-special” exception to the law. But Kagan warned that the Monsanto decision was a limited one and did not address every issue involving a self-replicating product. The court ordered Bowman, a conventional farmer, to pay nearly $85,000 in damages to Monsanto. The Supreme Court's decision implies that Monsanto has the legal right to stop farmers from saving seeds from patented genetically modified crops one season, and plant them the next season.

UNPA Hosts GMO Symposium for Supplement Manufacturers Despite what happens on a legislative and regulatory front, what is certain is that consumers want GMO labeling, and Whole Foods Market is requiring GMO transparency from all of its vendors by 2018, said Loren Israelsen, Executive Director of the United Natural Products Association (UNPA), a Salt Lake-based trade association serving the natural and nutritional products industry. To help companies understand the challenges and implications of GMOs in nutritional supplements and food products and to prepare for GMO labeling, UNPA hosted on May 23 a day-long symposium, “The Non-GMO Future: How to Source, Test, Label and Market Food and Supplement Ingredients.” “If you sell into Whole Foods [Market] or aspire to sell to them, you need to understand the GMO supply chain,” said Israelsen in a recent interview with Nutra-Ingredients. “We sense that the issue is substantially more significant than dietary supplements companies think,” he said. Speakers at the symposium included Courtney Pineau, assistant director of Non-GMO Project; Robert Craven, CEO, FoodState/Megafood; John Fagan, Ph.D., founder of Global ID; Sandy Kepler, CEO of Foodchain Global Advisors; Adam Ismail, executive director of GOED; Steven Hoffman, managing director of Compass Natural Marketing; and Ken Roseboro, editor and publisher of The Organic & Non-GMO Report. For info visit www.unpa.com.

After Being Rejected by Consumers, Will GMO Spuds Make a Comeback? While the FDA weighs approval of GMO salmon, a dozen years after Monsanto ditched its GMO potato after disappointing sales, an Idaho company, J.R. Simplot, asked FDA in mid-May to approve five varieties of GMO potatoes. The varieties have been genetically engineered to avoid black spots and designed to have less acrylamide, a naturally occurring but potentially toxic chemical. Simplot, according to MSN News, sells potatoes to McDonald’s for its French fries, and McDonald’s rejects potatoes with black spots. The FDA is also reviewing the “Arctic” apple, genetically engineered by Canada-based Okanagan Specialty Fruits to resist turning brown when cut. While Simplot said 20 field trials demonstrate that GMO potatoes are virtually identical to their unmodified cousins, Bill Freese, senior policy analyst with Washington, DC-based Center for Food Safety, said that genetic engineering is a “noisy, unpredictable process,” where the best-intentioned genome tinkering could be accompanied by unforeseen effects on human health and the environment. "The biotech approach is to change the food on a genetic level in quite frankly risky ways with inadequate regulation to adapt a crop to an industrial food system that's really unhealthy in so many ways," he said.

Market Research: Fruit Flies Say Organic is Better

You may have heard, of all things, about recent research related to organic food and fruit flies published in the respected scientific journal Plos One. The study, conducted by Dallas middle-school student Ria Chhabra, tracked the effects of organic and conventional diets on the health of fruit flies. By nearly every measure, including fertility, stress resistance and longevity, flies that fed on organic bananas and potatoes fared better than those who dined on conventionally raised produce, according to the New York Times. The study, which earned 16-year-old Chhabra top honors in a national science competition, provided “evidence that organically raised food may provide animals with tangible benefits to overall health.”

U.S. families, too, are flocking to organic foods, with 81% of families reporting that they purchase organic at least sometimes, says the Organic Trade Association (OTA) in its survey, “U.S. Families’ Organic Attitudes and Beliefs Study,” conducted in January 2013. Nearly half (48%) of those who purchase organic foods said they do so because “they are healthier for me and my children.” Among the top reasons to purchase organic are the desire to avoid toxic and persistent pesticides and fertilizers, antibiotics and growth hormones, and genetically modified organisms or GMOs. More than four in 10 parents (42%) said their trust in organic products increased, vs. 32% who indicated this point of view a year ago. “More and more parents choose organic foods primarily because of their desire to provide healthful options for their children,” said Christine Bushway, Executive Director of OTA.

However, in a March 2013 Harris Interactive poll of 2,276 U.S. adults, more than half (59%) agreed that labeling food or other products as organic is just an excuse to charge more. "What surprised us most was that while Americans are showing more concern for the environment, they aren't necessarily willing to pay more to do anything about it," said Mike de Vere, Harris president. "While Americans feel better about the economy, many are wary of the 'greenwashing' concept that gives companies a chance to cash in on consumers who want to help the planet but are confused by all the eco-friendly jargon." Manufacturers who convey the true value of organic while offering a fair price will be better positioned to win over this skeptical consumer.

Similarly, the Hartman Group discovered in its 2012 Organic and Natural Report that only slightly more than half (54%) of consumers surveyed believe “organic” means non-GMO. While GMOs are prohibited in certified organic production, the proliferation of non-GMO seals, often appearing next to the USDA Organic seal on packaging, may have diluted the consumer’s perception that organic also means non-GMO.

However, OTA reports that U.S. families are becoming increasingly aware of the presence of unlabeled genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in foods in the marketplace, with one-third (32%) of U.S. households turning to organic to avoid GMOs.

Graphic: Courtesy of The Hartman Group, www.harman-group.com.

Video: GMO Labeling - We Have a Right to Know

This 60-second video, produced by Boulder-based Whizzbang Studios and Compass Natural Marketing, made its debut at Natural Products Expo West, the world's largest natural and organic products trade exhibition, at a GMO labeling seminar and press conference held on March 7, 2013. http://youtu.be/biuMH9L1-tU

With GMO labeling and consumer transparency a key issue at this year's trade show, the seminar, moderated by Compass Natural Marketing Managing Director Steve Hoffman, was standing room only. Featured speakers included public health attorney Michele Simon; Ken Cook, president of Environmental Working Group; Lori Lively, Washington State I-522 campaign executive committee member and education director for Marlene's Market and Deli; Gary Hirhberg, Chair of Stonyfield Farm and founder of Just Label It; Jessica Lundberg of Lundberg Family Farms; and David Bronner, CEO of Dr. Bronne'rs and I-522 campaign executive committee member.

For more information on the Washington State I-522 People's Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Labeling Act, visit www.labelitwa.org.

GMO Update: Whole Foods Market to Require GMO Transparency

This past month marked a number of important developments in the ongoing debate to label genetically engineered or GMO foods, including the following news items.

Whole Foods Market Announces Mandatory GMO Labeling in Stores by 2018
Not waiting for the government to take the lead in the labeling of genetically engineered or GMO foods, Whole Foods Market announced at Natural Products Expo West that it will require GMO transparency for any products sold in its stores by 2018, making it the first national grocery chain to set a deadline to label foods that contain GMO ingredients.

Whole Foods also will require labeling for meat and dairy products if the animals were fed GMO grains. Certified organic foods will not have to carry the label since by definition, organic foods are prohibited from using GMO crops or ingredients. According to Co-CEO A.C. Gallo, the nation’s leading natural and organic products grocer is seeing sales increases of 15% to 30% for non-GMO verified products. Whole Foods told USA Today that is currently sells more than 3,000 products that have gone through the non-GMO verification process, more than any other retailer in North America. Additionally, Whole Foods Market, Aldi’s and Trader Joe’s announced that they would not sell genetically engineered salmon, if FDA approves it. “We are committed to full GMO transparency within five years,” said Whole Foods Co-CEO Walter Robb.

Washington State’s I-522 Leads State GMO Labeling Efforts
After submitting more than 300,000 signatures, Washington State’s I-522, the People’s Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act, is considered by many to be the best bet to achieve mandatory GMO labeling in 2013. In February and March, Washington State legislators held hearings, which included testimony from Robert Maquire, an attorney for the pro-GMO biotech lobby, who argued that GMO labeling is not in the public interest. George Kimbrell, an attorney for the nonprofit Center for Food Safety who helped create the GMO labeling measure, disagreed, saying the issue is “a far cry from mere consumer curiosity.” Kimbrell asserted that I-522 would not lead to frivolous lawsuits or increase costs to consumers. Unless the state legislature passes the measure as it stands, which is a rare occurrence, according to the Seattle Times, the I-522 bill will go before voters in the November election. A number of other states are pursuing GMO labeling legislation, including Vermont, Connecticut and Oregon. Efforts in other states, however, including Hawaii, New Mexico, Arizona and Colorado, were defeated or postponed in legislative committees before ever seeing the light of day. However, GMO labeling advocates in both California and Colorado say they’ll be back in 2014. To support and contribute to I-522, visit www.labelitwa.org or contact Steven Hoffman, steve@compassnatural.com.

NPA Calls for National GMO Labeling Standard
After taking heat for coming out against California’s Prop 37 GMO labeling bill in 2012, the Natural Products Association in March called for national GMO labeling. “This is really very simple – people have a right to know what’s in their food,” said NPA’s Executive Director John Shaw. Shaw indicated that a national standard would be best and that different state and local requirements would be counterproductive. Mark Squire, owner of Good Earth Natural Foods in Fairfax, CA, and a proponent of Prop 37, told New Hope 360 that he applauds NPA’s stand, however he hopes to see NPA back Washington State's I-522 GMO labeling bill "because there is a great deal of precedent for laws starting at the state level and then being adopted at the national level. The Obama administration could require labeling immediately, but the question is does anyone in D.C. have the political backbone to listen to the American people when it would require ignoring such a powerful and moneyed lobby as biotech? It may be that passing a law in a state is the only way to get national regulation on this topic," he said.

NPA’s position statement contains five points:

• NPA believes consumers have the right to be informed whether genetically modified components are in their foods.

• NPA supports and encourages the voluntary labeling on non-GMO foods.

• NPA believes that consideration of federal law promoting a uniform standard is warranted to avoid separate standards for GMO labeling at the state level.

• NPA opposes a private enforcement provision, which encourages abusive litigation, to impose compliance.

• NPA supports the FDA consistently reviewing the concept of bio-equivalency of genetically modified ingredients in light of the most recent scientific studies.

Rep. Jared Polis Announces Federal GMO Labeling Bill
US Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO) announced in late February that he will introduce a federal bill to require mandatory labeling of genetically engineered or GMO foods. The GMO Labeling Bill will be co-sponsored by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and in the Senate by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA). “I am proud to help lead the GMO Labeling Bill, which is all about consumer choice and information. It’s important to empower people with the information they need to make their own healthy choices. People have the right to make consumer decisions based on accurate transparency in labeling, and knowledge is power,” Polis said in a press conference held in the new Alfalfa’s Market in Boulder. More than 90% of Americans support labeling of GMO foods, according to a 2012 Mellman Group survey.

Last Minute “Monsanto Protection Act” Takes Away Courts’ Right to Limit GMO Crops In an era of 11th hour budget battles in Washington, D.C., non-GMO advocates are railing over a section introduced at the last minute by an “anonymous” congressman in a federal agricultural appropriations bill called HR 933. The short-term resolution, signed on March 26 by President Obama, contains language dubbed the “Monsanto Protection Act.” Specifically, section 735 of the bill “would limit judges to stop Monsanto or the farmers it sells genetically modified seeds from growing or harvesting those crops even if courts find evidence of potential health risks,” according to the New York Daily News. Advocates are primarily upset over the seemingly blatant collaboration with the biotech industry on the rider in the bill. “Why is this such a big deal?” asked public health attorney Michele Simon in her blog Appetite for Profit. “The court system is often our last hope, with Congress, the White House and regulatory agencies deep inside industry’s pocket. Several legal challenges have resulted in court decisions overturning USDA’s approval of new GMO crops, for example, sugar beets,” she said. Despite the best efforts of Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) – the only organic farmer in Congress – the biotech rider was pushed through. “These provisions are giveaways, pure and simple, and will be a boon worth millions of dollars to a handful of the biggest corporations in this country,” he said.

Note: This article was originally published in the March 2013 issue of Presence News, published by Presence Marketing/Dynamic Presence.

Prop 37: A Battle Lost, A Movement Just Begun

Originally published on Nov. 8, 2012 in Supply Side Community by Virgo Publishing. Once a diversified industry comprising hundreds of independent producers, in less than 20 years, ownership of nearly 90% of the global agricultural seed industry has been consolidated into a handful of multinational chemical pesticide companies, including Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, Dow and DuPont.

These same names, the dominant forces in getting their genetically engineered crops into more than 80% of all processed foods, and in selling the pesticides that go along with their patented crops, are also familiar as the leading contributors to the No on 37 campaign, which poured nearly $50 million into killing Proposition 37, the California Right to Know Ballot Initiative to Label Genetically Engineered Foods, this past election day.

Outspending a grassroots Yes on 37 campaign by 6 to 1, biotech and multinational food corporations bankrolled $1.5 million a day during the month of October to inundate the California voter with a deluge of deceptive television, radio and direct mail advertising to defeat Prop 37. Monsanto alone sank more than $7.5 million into killing the initiative, nearly as much as was raised overall by the Yes on 37 campaign to label GMO foods.

The Prop 37 ballot measure was narrowly defeated in the statewide election by a margin of 52% vs. 48%, however, the campaign to label genetically modified foods accomplished a lot in going toe to toe with the chemical companies and multinationals who sought to suppress the consumer’s right to know. Yet, the defeat of Prop 37 is a clear example of the power of corporate money to buy elections in the age of “Citizens United” and unlimited campaign contributions, despite a heroic grassroots effort by the Yes on 37 campaign.

With a coalition of more than 3,800 endorsers, including farm and labor groups, consumer, health and trade associations, organic and non-GMO food and nutritional supplement companies, physicians and healthcare advocates, and more than 10,000 volunteers, the Prop 37 campaign to pass the GMO labeling initiative was successful in raising more than $8 million, and in coordinating a massive awareness-building and get-out-the-vote campaign that has put GMO labeling squarely into the national conversation. Now, post election, the battle to label GMOs will continue via a ballot initiative in Washington State in 2013, and on the national front through JustLabelIt.org, which will continue to pressure FDA and legislators in Washington, DC, for federal labeling of GMOs in food.

Devil Was in (Misinterpreting) the Details Prop 37’s overarching goal was to label foods sold in California supermarkets that contained genetically engineered ingredients. Contrary to the biotech opposition’s relentless argument that it would raise food costs by up to $400 per year, the fact is that there is insignificant additional cost in adding words to the label that say “Contains” or “May Contain Genetically Engineered Ingredients.” From then on, it’s up to the food producer to decide to use GMO ingredients or not. All Prop 37 would have required them to do is to label it. And with a grace period of 18-months allowed under the bill, food producers could easily transition to a newly printed label at little added cost.

The natural products industry was also divided over Prop 37 by varying interpretations and misinterpretations of the use of the term “natural” under Prop 37 ballot language, exacerbated by propaganda from the opposition, which claimed that no processed foods could be called natural. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In essence, under the initiative, if a food producer were to include GMO ingredients in a processed food product, they would not be able call that product “natural.” However, if a food producer can demonstrate that no GMO ingredients were used, either through certificates (e.g., organic, Non-GMO Project Verified) or affidavits from suppliers, then they can call their product “natural” all they want. Period.

This misinterpretation, despite the recommendations of a number of attorneys who issued legal briefs on the subject, ultimately lead to an unfortunate endorsement by the Natural Products Association of No on 37, thus siding the nutritional supplement industry’s leading trade association with DuPont, Dow and Monsanto against the consumer’s right to know.

Losing sight of the forest through the trees, the NPA, with a mission since 1936 to promote the highest quality health food products and protect the consumer’s right to know, missed the mark. Getting hung up in misinterpreted details, NPA and some other supplement and natural foods producers actually advocated against Prop 37, thus hurting fundraising efforts and the vote among a core market segment that should, above all, be protecting the consumer’s right to know – a cornerstone mission of the natural and organic products industry.

Fortunately, the Organic Trade Association’s board of directors, seeing the overall importance of the initiative in protecting the integrity of our food system, galvanized much of the organic industry by endorsing Prop 37 and publicly advocating in favor of the Yes on 37 campaign. OTA remains committed to federal GMO labeling requirements, as well.

Consumers Are Getting Smarter About GMOs Yet, Prop 37 revealed to core consumers and organic advocates that a number of leading organic brands are actually owned by parent companies that contributed millions of dollars to defeat the GMO labeling measure, while their organic brands profited from offering non-GMO options. This has resulted in a lot of negative comments and backlash from consumers in the social media about these wholly owned organic brands, negative publicity and word of mouth that will require much effort to repair. The trouble is, these organic subsidiary brands remained largely silent during the entire campaign, despite numerous appeals to support Prop 37.

Prop 37 also revealed that just because a product calls itself “natural” doesn’t mean that there are no genetically engineered ingredients in the product. In walking the aisles of Natural Products Expo East recently, I was dismayed to see a number of food and supplement companies displaying products that contain genetically engineered ingredients, yet seeking to profit by calling their products “natural.”

More than 90% of consumers surveyed in America say they want labeling of genetically modified foods. Prop 37 furthered this issue not only in California, but also across the US and the world, where many watched the outcome, including natural and organic industry leaders from some of the 61 countries where GMO labeling is required.

Food producers who use GMOs yet profit by calling their products natural, or supplement producers who don’t take a stand on GMO ingredient standards, will ultimately be on the wrong side of history. Prop 37 failed because large money interests massively outspent a grassroots ballot initiative and employed negative, deceptive advertising to obfuscate the truth.

But just as marriage equality finally garnered victories in this past week’s election after failing in numerous states over recent years, the movement toward federal labeling of genetically engineered foods will ultimately succeed. Prop 37 was but the beginning.

Steven Hoffman, Managing Director of Compass Natural Marketing, a full service marketing, business development, PR and communications agency based in Boulder, CO, served on the Prop 37 campaign Steering Committee, and directed fundraising and outreach efforts on behalf of Prop 37 to the natural, organic and sustainable products community.

University of Colorado Scientists are Wrong on GMO Data

Source: Wikimedia Commons

This blog was originally submitted to the Boulder Daily Camera in response to an opinion piece the paper ran on May 25, 2012, stating that GMOs are safe. In the following letter, we present peer-reviewed evidence on why the commentator - a University of Colorado biotech professor - is wrong about GMOs.

University of Colorado professors who benefit from the multi-billion-dollar biotech industry do the community a disservice by spreading misinformation, hubris and slanted opinion in their guest commentaries of Jan. 8, 2012, and also May 25, 2012, in the Boulder Daily Camera. Meanwhile,the Camera itself has presented little balance from non-GMO experts, and in fact the newspaper endorsed GMOs on Boulder open space land.

While Prof. Andrew Staehelin in his May 25 commentary criticizes one particular study, conducted back in 1999, he fails to acknowledge a growing body of research that clearly demonstrates the significant health and environmental risks associated with genetically engineered (GMO) foods.

In May 2011 researchers at the Sherbrooke University Hospital in Quebec reported finding insecticide toxins caused from dietary intake of GMO grains in the bloodstreams of 93% of pregnant women and 80% of fetuses tested. What will be the effect of long-term ingestion of GMO crops that produce their own pesticides on human health? There have been no studies done, so how are these CU professors so sure GMOs are harmless?

One Professor Emeritus, Dr. Don Huber of Purdue University, a lifelong expert in agriculture, reported on June 16, 2011, on ABC News that he has identified an alarming unknown new disease infecting plants and animals that is strongly associated with GMO agriculture. GMOs now control more than 90% of our major food and feed crops; could such a disease create a crop collapse? Additionally, the Institute of Science in Society reported in June 2010 that GMO genetic material can persist in plant debris and soil residue and literally cross-transfer, or jump into the DNA of plants, animals and humans.

The US Geological Survey reported in August 2011 that the use of Roundup herbicide (glyphosate)—the main pesticide associated with GMO agriculture—is so pervasive and persistent in the environment that it has contaminated the rain, rivers and air throughout the Midwest during the entire growing season. In 2009, The Organic Center and the Union of Concerned Scientists found that GMO crops have been responsible for an increase of nearly 400 million pounds of herbicide use in the U.S. over the first 13 years of commercial adoption of GMO food crops. Yet, Bloombergreported on Dec. 2, 2011, that more than 20 million acres of GMO fields are now infested by Roundup-resistant superweeds, according to research conducted by Monsanto and Syngenta themselves.

In November 2011, the US Environmental Protection Agency revealed that Monsanto’s GMO corn also is rapidly losing its effectiveness against insect pests, and EPA admonished Monsanto that it isn’t doing enough to control growing insect resistance to the very insecticides it is splicing into its crops. These same systemic insecticides used in GMO crops have also been identified by scientists as a dangerous contributor to honeybee colony collapse disorder.

Italian researchers in the Journal of Food and Agricultural Chemistry in 2008 reported that mice fed GMO corn developed compromised immune systems and elevated levels of a cell type associated with asthma and food allergies in children. However, there have been no long-term human health studies ever published on the safety of GMOs in our diet. In fact, 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."

Despite the fact that there have been no long-term health studies, GMOs now dominate our agriculture and food system: more than 80% of all grocery products now contain GMO ingredients, with no labeling required—basically, GMO corn, soy, canola, cottonseed oil and/or sugar is in nearly every conventionally processed food product. Yet, 91% of consumers surveyed by the JustLabelIt.org campaign want foods labeled if they contain GMO ingredients. Additionally, more than 971,000 California residents signed petitions to ensure that a measure to require mandatory labeling of GMO foods, the California Consumer’s Right to Know Initiative (www.carighttoknow.org), will be on the voter ballot in November.

In their commentaries, these CU professors did the same thing that a group of CSU professors did at the Boulder County Commissioners’ public hearings on GMOs in December – they presented absolutely no science, but voiced only arrogance and ridicule in seeking to discredit valid research and consumer and economic concerns over GMOs, and in discrediting the organic industry. Yet we need to understand that these same scientists depend on the biotech industry for funding, and they stand to enrich themselves through patents on life.

Organic food comprises only 5% of the overall food market, but it has the most to lose as GMO agriculture presents the greatest threat to the integrity of organic—the only food system in the world seeking to keep toxic chemicals and GMOs out of our food and the environment. Organic farmers have no choice when GMO genetic drift contaminates their crops.

Eat GMO food if you want, but put a label on it so I don’t have to. The consumer’s right to know is a fundamental right that is recognized in 40 countries outside the US that currently require GMO labeling. Until that happens in the U.S., it’s a stacked deck in favor of a handful of multinational biotech companies.

Steven Hoffman writes on issues in sustainable food and agriculture. He is Managing Partner of Compass Natural LLC, a full service marketing and public relations agency serving natural, organic and sustainable businesses. He is Cofounder of the annual LOHAS Forum green business conference, former Director of The Organic Center, former Editorial Director of the Natural Foods Merchandiser, a leading industry publication. As a Peace Corps Volunteer, Hoffman specialized in food, agriculture and education in Central America. He is a former agriculture extension agent and director of the Philadelphia Urban Gardening Program, and holds a M.S. in Agriculture from Penn State University. Visit his blog at www.compassnatural.com/blog.