Over 80 percent of Americans support “mandatory labels on foods containing DNA”

By Ilya Somin January 17, 2015 - Washington Post:

A recent survey by the Oklahoma State University Department of Agricultural Economics finds that over 80 percent of Americans support “mandatory labels on foods containing DNA,” about the same number as support mandatory labeling of GMO foods “produced with genetic engineering.” Oklahoma State economist Jayson Lusk has some additional details on the survey. If the government does impose mandatory labeling on foods containing DNA, perhaps the label might look something like this:

WARNING: This product contains deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). The Surgeon General has determined that DNA is linked to a variety of diseases in both animals and humans. In some configurations, it is a risk factor for cancer and heart disease. Pregnant women are at very high risk of passing on DNA to their children.

The Oklahoma State survey result is probably an example of the intersection between scientific ignorance and political ignorance, both of which are widespread.The most obvious explanation for the data is that most of these people don’t really understand what DNA is, and don’t realize that it is contained in almost all food. When they read that a strange substance called “DNA” might be included in their food, they might suspect that this is some dangerous chemical inserted by greedy corporations for their own nefarious purposes.

Polls repeatedly show that much of the public is often ignorant of both basic scientific facts, and basic facts about government and public policy. Just before the 2014 elections, which determined control of Congress, only 38 percent realized that the Republicans controlled the House of Representatives before the election, and the same number knew that the Democrats control the Senate. The public’s scientific knowledge isn’t much better. A 2012 National Science Foundation survey even found that about 25% of Americans don’t know that the Earth revolves around the sun rather than vice versa. Issues like food labeling bring together political and scientific knowledge, and it is not surprising that public opinion on these subjects is very poorly informed.

It would be a mistake to assume that widespread political and scientific ignorance are the result of “the stupidity of the American voter,” as Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber put it. Political ignorance is not primarily the result of stupidity. For most people, it is a rational reaction to the enormous size and complexity of government and the reality that the chance that their vote will have an impact on electoral outcomes is extremely low. The same is true of much scientific ignorance. For many people, there is little benefit to understanding much about genetics or DNA. Most Americans can even go about their daily business perfectly well without knowing that the Earth revolves around the sun. Even the smartest people are inevitably ignorant of the vast majority of information out there. We all have to focus our time and energy on learning that information which is most likely to be instrumentally useful, or at least provide entertainment value. For large numbers of people, much basic political and scientific information doesn’t make the cut.

Unfortunately, this is a case where individually rational behavior leads to potentially dangerous collective outcomes. While it doesn’t much matter whether any individual voter is ignorant about science or public policy, when a majority (or even a large minority) of the electorate is ignorant in these ways, it can lead to the adoption of dangerous and counterproductive government policies. In this case, excessive and unnecessary warning labels on food products could confuse consumers, and divert their limited attention from real dangers.

Although Jonathan Gruber was wrong to believe that American voters are necessarily stupid, he was right about the pervasiveness of public ignorance, and the dangers it poses.

UPDATE: In the initial version of this post, I forgot to include a link to economist Jayson Lusk’s post on the Oklahoma State survey. I apologize for the oversight, which has now been corrected.

How GMO Farming and Food Is Making Our Gut Flora UNFRIENDLY

Boycott PepsiCo… Here Is Why and Why You Should Be Concerned For More Than One Reason!

11 Food Ingredients Banned Outside the U.S. That Americans Eat

Do you like M&Ms and Nutrigrain Bars? They both contain ingredients banned in other countries.  From ABC NEWS:

A recently published list of foods banned in countries outside the U.S. has riled the plates of many in the food industry.

Last week, Buzzfeed published a list of 8 ingredients banned outside the U.S. that are found in foods in America. The list was derived from the book, Rich Food Poor Food: The Ultimate Grocery Purchasing System (GPS)/(Kindle), written by husband and wife team Jayson Calton, who has a Ph.D. in nutrition, and Mira Calton, a licensed certified nutritionist.

Said Mira Calton: "We call it our GPS of grocery purchasing system: how to identify dangerous ingredients -- so people can shop safe and smart in the grocery store."

The book includes a list of banned foods and dangerous foods, which they call "poor food..."

Calton said manufacturers are not putting these ingredients in their food to be "bad people."

"It might have been part of their original formula and sometimes they don't know," Calton said.

The Food and Drug Administration assures the public that despite the frenzy over the list of ingredients banned in some countries outside the U.S., it is doing its job of monitoring food safety.

"As part of FDA's overall commitment to ensure the safety of the food supply, the agency uses an extensive, science-based process to evaluate the safety of food additives," the agency said in a statement to ABC News. "The law requires that the FDA determine there is reasonable certainty that an additive does not cause harm when it is used as intended. The agency continues to monitor the science on food additives and is prepared to take appropriate action if there are safety concerns. When determining that a food or ingredient is 'generally recognized as safe' or GRAS for its intended use in food, the same quantity and quality of evidence is required as is needed to approve a food additive."

Derek Lowe, a chemist who has a Ph.D. from Duke University, said the list is an example of "chemophobia." He told ABC News his reaction to the viral online list was "incredulity and revulsion."

"The thing is, I'm not reflexively saying people should eat all the food additives they can find. I don't myself. But the amount of understanding in the article was so minimal, it really pushed my buttons as a scientist," Lowe said.

The Caltons said they are not calling on the FDA to ban these ingredients, but they said "all of the ingredients on the list pose a potential danger to consumers and we feel the consumer should be made aware so that they can make an informed decision as to whether or not they want to buy a product with these ingredients."

Julie Jones, a professor emeritus with St. Catherine University in Minnesota and author of the textbook, Food Safety, said what drives one country to ban a food and not another often has to do with as much politics as it does science.

If one believes Paracelsus's principle, "the dose makes the poison," Jones said she believes these products have gone through the correct due diligence in the U.S.

"We have science and politics and they are different in each country," Jones said.

Here are 11 ingredients noted as banned in other countries and what some experts have to say about them:

Amazon inage

Blue #1 food coloring

Banned in Norway, Finland and France, Blue #1 and Blue #2 can be found in candy, cereal, drinks and pet food in the U.S., the Caltons say.

Kellogg's did not reply to multiple requests for comment about its use of Blue #1 listed as an ingredient in some Nutrigrain bars.

Michael Pariza, professor emeritus of food science and past director of Food Research Institute at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said most food dyes are not dangerous, with the exception of Yellow #5, but they can influence our perception of food -- for better or worse.

"Taste, appearance and smell all go together. You can have the most fantastic, nutritious thing in the world, but if it looks bad and smells bad, you're not going to eat it," he said.

Blue #1 was at one point banned in several other European countries, but the EU later certified it as safe, said Lowe. Norway banned almost all food dyes from 1978 until 2001, but since then, they have had virtually the same regulations as the EU, he added.

Lowe said synthesized compounds, when used in food, "are often things that are effective in small amounts, because they're so expensive," as is the case with artificial dyes.

"People see the bright colors in cake icing and sugary cereals and figure that the stuff must be glopped on like paint, but paint doesn't have very much dye or pigment in it, either," Lowe writes in his blog.

M&Ms

Getty Images

Blue #2 food coloring

"Until the twentieth century, food coloring was obtained from natural sources," Jayson and Mira Calton write in "Rich Food, Poor Food." "People gathered spices, like saffron and turmeric, to add rich hues to their otherwise bland-colored foods. While this method may have been somewhat limiting in shades, at least it was safe. Today, most artificial colors are made from coal tar."

Blue #2 is listed as an ingredient in Mars' M&Ms. In a statement from Mars, the company said, "Around the globe there can be slightly different formulations and products available based on both local requirements and consumer preferences. All the colors we use in our products, no matter where they are sold, comply with our own strict internal quality and safety requirements as well as all applicable laws, regulations and safety assessments relating to colors added to food. All colors are declared on the label in accordance with applicable national laws and regulations and always meet the highest safety standards."

Lowe said the concern about blue food dye's connection to brain cancer is "unproven," referring to studies in the 1980s with Blue #2. Lowe said rats were fed the dye over a long period in much larger concentrations -- up to 2 percent of their total food intake -- than even the most dedicated junk-food eater could encounter.

"Gliomas were seen in the male rats, but with no dose-response, and at levels consistent with historical controls in the particular rat strain. No one has ever been able to find any real-world connection," Lowe wrote.

Kraft Macaroni and Cheese

Amazon image

Yellow #5 (Tartazine), Yellow #6 food coloring

Yellow #5 is banned in Norway and Austria due to compounds benzidine and 4-aminobiphenyl, the Caltons say.

"Six of the eleven studies on yellow #5 showed that it caused genotoxicity, a deterioration of the cell's genetic material with potential to mutate healthy DNA," the book, "Rich Foods, Poor Foods," states.

Companies in the U.S. are required to list Yellow #5 in their ingredients because some people have sensitivity to it.

"Companies are so sensitive about allergies, but peanut allergies would be far more common than Tartazine," Pariza said.

Yellow #6 is banned in Norway and Finland, the Caltons say, but Lowe said the dye is approved across the EU.

Lowe said benzidine and 4-minobiphenyl are two different names for the same compound, which is known as a human carcinogen.

"But it's not a component of any food dye, certainly not of yellow #5, and it's not even any part of its chemical structure," Lowe said.

A spokeswoman for Kraft provided a statement to ABC News, stating, "The safety and quality of our products is our highest priority. We carefully follow the laws and regulations in the countries where our products are sold. So in the U.S., we only use ingredients that are approved and deemed safe for food use by the Food and Drug Administration."

The International Food Information Council has said food ingredients are "carefully regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure that foods containing them are safe to eat and are accurately labeled."

Kraft Catalina Dressing

Amazon image

Red #40

"Red #40 may contain the carcinogenic contaminant p-Cresidine and is thought to cause tumors of the immune system," according to "Rich Food, Poor Food". "In the UK, it is not recommended for children," the Caltons write, but it is approved for use in the EU.

The ingredient can be found in fruit cocktail, maraschino cherries, grenadine, cherry pie mix, ice cream, candy and other products, the Caltons say.

Lowe said he can't find evidence for risk of tumors due to Red #40 and Cresidine "is certainly not a contaminant in the dyestuff" but is one pure compound.

"There is a possibility for cresidinesulfonic acid to be produced as a metabolite, but that's a very different substance than Cresidine itself," Lowe said.

Jones said high amounts of some ingredients could be damaging to some people, but that depends on the amount of consumption and the content of one's diet in general.

"Unless you are crazy and you do drink 8 liters of pop a day, your diet is so disordered already, no wonder what you eat is toxic-- eating things in a way that never intended to be eaten," she said.

Kraft said, "The safety and quality of our products is our highest priority" and the company "carefully follow the laws and regulations in the countries where our products are sold."

Mountain Dew

Amazon image

Brominated vegetable oil

Brominated vegetable oil, or BVO, acts as an emulsifier in soda and sports drinks, preventing the flavoring from separating and floating to the surface. The ingredient is banned more than 100 countries because it contains bromine, a chemical whose vapors can be corrosive or toxic, the Caltons say.

Aurora Gonzalez, a spokeswoman for PepsiCo, which owns Mountain Dew, said, "We take consumer safety and product integrity seriously and we can assure you that Mountain Dew is safe. As standard practice, we constantly evaluate our formulas and ingredients to ensure they comply with all regulations and meet the high quality standards our consumers expect."

Lowe said the same chemical dangers of consuming a bromine directly can be said of chlorine.

Bromine-containing compounds can indeed cause bad reactions in people but not because bromine is a corrosive gas, he said.

"When a bromine atom is bonded to a carbon, as it is in BVO, it's no longer bromine-the-pure-element, any more than the chlorine in table salt is the World War I poison gas, or the phosphorus in your DNA is the burning white phosphorus found in military tracer shells," Lowe said.

Getty Images

Azodicarbonamide

This ingredient, which can bleach flour, is banned in Australia, the U.K. and many European countries, said the Caltons, who call it an "asthma-causing" allergen. Up to 45 parts per million is considered safe in the U.S. and it's found in a wide range of breads and baked goods here.

While Lowe acknowledges the chemical can be used to "foam" foamed plastics, "the conditions inside hot plastic, you will be glad to hear, are quite different from those inside warm bread dough," he said. In that environment, azodicarbonamide doesn't react to make birurea - it turns into several gaseous products, which are what blow up the bubbles of the foam, which is not its purpose in bread dough.

While repeated or prolonged contact to the chemical may cause asthma and skin sensitization, Lowe said that refers to the pure chemical and not 45 parts per million in uncooked flour.

"If you're handling drums of the stuff at the plastics plant, you should be wearing protective gear. If you're eating a roll, no," Lowe writes.

flatbread and bagel chips

Getty Images

Potassium Bromate (Bromated flour)

Potassium bromate, which strengthens dough, contains bromine, is also in brominated vegetable oil.

"The good news is that American bread manufacturers tell us that it disappears from the product during baking and deem that potassium bromate is safe as there is only negligible residue," the Caltons write in their book. "However, the pastry chefs in Paris disagree. In fact, government regulatory bodies in Europe, Canada, China, and many other regions have banned the use of this additive. In California, if potassium bromate has been added, a product must carry a warning label."

Lowe points out that bromate is different from bromide and bromine.

"Chloride is the anion in table salt, but it's also the anion in hydrochloric acid. Hypochlorite anion is laundry bleach," said Lowe. "Perchlorate anion is in solid rocket fuel. They're all different; that's the point of chemistry."

Olestra (Olean)

Olestra fat substitute is banned in the U.K. and Canada because it causes a depletion of fat-soluble vitamins and carotenoid, the Caltons say, "robbing us of vital micronutrients that our foods should be delivering."

It is found in Ruffles Light and Lay's WOW chips. Frito-Lay did not return a request for comment about its use of Olestra.

Lowe acknowledges that the non-caloric fat substitute interferes with the absorption of fat-soluble vitamins, "but potato chips are not a very good source of vitamins to start with," he writes.

He also points out that Olestra is found only in two brands of potato chips, "since it was a major failure in the market."

"And vitamin absorption can be messed with by all kinds of things, including other vitamins (folic acid supplements can interfere with B12 absorption, just to pick one). But I can agree with the plan of not eating the stuff: I think that if you're going to eat potato chips, eat a reasonable amount of the real ones," he writes in his blog.

Chex

Getty Images

Butylated Hydroxyanisole (BHA) and Butylated Hydroxytoluene (BHT)

Banned in England, and other European countries, "these waxy solids act as preservatives to prevent food from becoming rancid and developing objectionable odors," the Caltons write.

The state of California lists this ingredient as a possible carcinogen.

General Mills did not respond to a request about its use of BHT in Chex cereals.

Lowe said that BHT is approved by the EU and, "Animal studies notwithstanding, attempts to correlate human exposure to these compounds with any types of cancer have always come up negative."

Some dairy

Getty Images

rBGH and rBST

Recombinant bovine growth hormone and recombinant bovine somatotropin, a synthetic version of bovine growth hormone, can be found in nonorganic dairy products unless noted on the packaging.

"However, several regions, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, and the European Union, have banned rBGH and rBST because of their dangerous impacts on both human and bovine health," the Caltons say.

American dairy producer, Stonyfield, opposes the use of rBST because of economics and cow health.

"An increase in milk supply generally leads to a drop in the price paid to farmers," Stonyfield says on its website. "Price drops have put many farms out of business."

In 1993, the FDA approved the use of rBST in dairy cows based on a review of existing scientific studies.

Beth Meyer, a spokeswoman for the American Dairy Association and Dairy Council Inc (ADADC), a regional organization representing dairy farmers in New York, northern New Jersey and northeastern Pennsylvania, said over the last 20 years rBST has been heavily researched and separate reviews by the National Institutes of Health, the joint World Health Organization/Food And Agriculture Organization Committee, the American Medical Association, as well as regulatory agencies in Canada and the European Union have corroborated the FDA's conclusion.

"RBST is one of many management tools used by U.S. dairy farmers to provide a safe, affordable food supply," she said.

Canada and several European countries have affirmed that milk produced from rBST cows is safe for human consumption. These countries don't allow the sale of rBST to local farmers for reasons including economics, social customs and general opposition to technological advances used to promote efficient food production, not human health concerns.

Bovine growth hormone (rBGH) is given to dairy cattle to increase milk production, Lowe said, and BGH levels in the milk of treated cows are not higher than in untreated ones.

"Secondly, BGH is not active as a growth hormone in humans - it's selective for the cow receptor, not the human one," he said.

Lowe points out BGH was banned in some countries due to animal welfare concerns. "As far as human health, there doesn't seem to be any evidence it's bad for humans," he said.

Chicken feed

Getty Images

Arsenic

The Caltons warn about traces of arsenic, which has been banned in all foods in the EU, that can be found in some chicken feed.

Last month, Johns Hopkins University scientists said they found amounts of arsenic in chicken that exceeded naturally occurring levels.

But the National Chicken Council says chickens raised for meat or broilers (for meat production) are no longer given any feed additives containing arsenic.

"Broilers used to be given a product called Roxarsone which contained trace amounts of arsenic, but it was pulled from the market in 2011 and is no longer manufactured. No other products containing arsenic are currently fed to broilers in the U.S." said Tom Super, spokesman for the council.

Lowe points out that 100 parts per billion of inorganic arsenic have been found in white rice, though he said that doesn't pose a human health risk.

Arsenic can be found in groundwater supplies in a number of countries, according to the World Health Organization.

"It's very hard to have a diet anywhere in the world that doesn't have a trace amount of arsenic," Jones said.

h/t to Tim Conway Jr. and TLA

Related: 

Is This Why the Europeans Don't Get Sick Like Americans Do? 

How Cells from an Aborted Fetus are Used to Create Novel Flavor Enhancers 

Stop Junk Food Marketing to Kids 

Americans Eat the Cheapest Food in the World, But What is It Really Costing? 

Some Baby Foods are Worse Than Junk Food 

Mad moms to food police: We'll eat what we want 

OBESITY CONSPIRACY: The U.S. Government Scandal that's Really Making You Fat 

Japan Cancels GMO Wheat Order After Concerns Over U.S. Grain Developed By Monsanto

Also checkout:  Wheat Belly: Lose the Wheat, Lose the Weight, and Find Your Path Back to Health/(Kindle) 

Perils of Peanuts and Peanut Butter… Even Organic 

Margarine Verses Butter 

Splenda - safer than aspartame but is it really safe? 

You Are What You Eat: 7 Food Additives That Are Secretly Making Us FAT 

12 Food Additives to Remove From Your Diet 

Whole Foods Vows to Label GMO’s by 2018   

The Dangers of Genetically Modified Ingredients in Pet Food 

Dr Mercola: Bill Gates: One of the World’s Most Destructive ‘So-Called’ Do-Gooders? (Plus: Monsanto and GMO Foods) 

Monsanto Shill And USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack Says Government Will Change The Way Citizens Eat 

World Wide Obesity Epidemic 

Are You Eating, Drinking and Breathing Monsanto’s New ‘Agent Orange’?  

GM Foods Not Served in Monsanto Cafeteria 

Would You Vote for a Food Bill Monsanto Supports?

George Soros and Food Safety 

PDF File:  Liar, Liar: FDA Secrets, Scandals & Slip Ups! 

Dumbing Down Society Part 1: Foods, Beverages, and Meds (Media and Education) 

Senate Bill S.510 Passed… Quickly Explained Here

Technorati Tags: nutrition,banned foods,healthy food choices,food choices,Knowledge Is Power,educate yourself,junk food,Europe banned foods,Monsanto,Bill Gates,GMO,Aborted Fetus,GMO Foods,food additiaves,flavor enhancers,margerine,peanut butter,aspertame,Big Government,Big Business,JOMP,Big Agri-business,watch the other hand,you be the judge,food Czar,GM Foods

Whole Foods Vows to Label GMO’s by 2018

Video: The World According to Monsanto GMO Documentary

Story at-a-glance

• Whole Foods has announced it will make labeling of genetically engineered (GE) ingredients mandatory in its American and Canadian stores by 2018. Many expect other retailers to follow suit
• About 20 major food companies, including Wal-Mart, recently gathered for a meeting in Washington to discuss potential lobbying for a national GMO labeling program
• The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) recently announced the creation of a new nationwide campaign called the Organic Retail and Consumer Alliance (ORCA). The mission of the new alliance includes exposing and eliminating the misleading practice of “natural” labeling and marketing
• Organic food and products, by law and by third-party certification, are produced without the use of synthetic pesticides and chemical fertilizers, animal drugs, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), irradiation, nanoparticles, or sewage sludge, whereas so-called “natural” products are completely unregulated
• A critical assessment of the consequences of commercial cultivation of GE plants in the US for 20 years advises the EU to NOT follow the path of the US, as it has had profound negative impacts on farmers, seed markets, and consumers. Among the eight final recommendations, the report concludes that “There must be no large-scale, commercial cultivation of GE herbicide-tolerant or insecticide-producing crops,” and that all potential situations must be retrievable

By Dr. Mercola

Whole Foods recently announced the health food giant will make labeling of genetically engineered (GE) ingredients mandatory in its American and Canadian stores by 2018.

(Whole Foods stores in Great Britain already require GE foods to be labeled.) Many expect other retailers to follow suit.

Despite the five-year deadline, which may seem long for some, this announcement is incredibly encouraging and represents a major sign that all the efforts most of you put into the Proposition 37 campaign have paid off. We may have lost that battle but this, and other signs, strongly suggest we are winning the war.

Prop 37 raised an enormous amount of awareness about genetically engineered (GE) foods (a.k.a. genetically engineered organisms, or GMO’s). Many Americans didn’t even know they existed prior to the California campaign to require GE foods to be labeled.

The Prop 37 campaign also ushered conversations about food to the front pages of mainstream media. Over the past year, we’ve not only seen an increase in the number of stories on genetically engineered foods, more people are now also talking about other truth-in-labeling issues, and food safety in general.

People are waking up to the fact that we really don’t understand what we’re eating anymore, and they’re taking control of their food again. Now, other states, including Washington State and Missouri, are taking up the baton to label GE foods. In all, 22 states now have some sort of pending labeling legislation.

Seeing the writing on the wall, the National Cooperative Grocers Association (NGCA)¹ recently wrote a letter to their members that now also urges food manufacturers to stop funding or opposing GMO labeling. This is an absolutely stupendous victory for our side that finally vindicates the hard work so many of you put into this effort last year.

Whole Foods Responds to Consumer Demand for GMO Labeling

Whole Foods Co-Chief Executive Walter Robb recently told the Los Angeles Times:²

"This is an issue whose time has come. With cases like horse meat discovered in the U.K., plastic in milk in China, the recalls of almond and peanut butter in the U.S., customers have a fundamental right to know what's in their food.... 'The government has not been willing to take on this issue, so it's going to have to happen differently.'"

According to a February 2012 poll of potential voters in the 2012 US elections, 90 percent of responders were in favor of labeling GE foods. There’s really NO reason not to, aside from protecting the biotech industry’s profits. Americans are already responding favorably to those few products that are labeled. A. C. Gallo, president of Whole Foods, told the New York Times:³

“We’ve seen how our customers have responded to the products we do have labeled. 'Some of our manufacturers say they’ve seen a 15 percent increase in sales of products they have labeled [non-GMO].'”

According to the featured article:⁴

“Whole Foods' move will be copied by competitors, said Scott Faber, vice president for government affairs for the advocacy organization Environmental Working Group. 'Clearly, they're going to be the first of many retailers who will require labeling as a condition of sale in their stores.'"

It’s worth remembering that CA Prop 37 failed to be passed by just a few percentage points back in November, even though the food and biotech industry spent five times more money (a total of $46 million) on its propaganda campaign than the supporters of the measure. That’s really a good indication of how difficult this fight is for the industry. People want to know what they’re eating, and convincing Americans to lay aside their concerns about GE foods requires a lot of money and effort.

It’s a challenge they can overcome, no doubt. But people are increasingly seeing through the lame excuses, such as not wanting you to be “confused” by the labels, or that labeling would raise food prices, or that labeling is unnecessary because it’s “just as safe” as its conventional counterparts. It’s all nonsense, and fortunately, it’s not flying as well as it used to.

NCGA Urges All Vendor Partners to Support GMO Labeling Initiatives

As just mentioned, the National Cooperative Grocers Association⁵ (NGCA), a business services cooperative that represents 134 retail food co-ops across the US, sent out a letter on February 28 restating its support of GMO labeling, urging consumers to contact manufacturers directly with their concerns, and encouraging their vendor partners to “consider the kind of statement and negative impact that an organization makes by supporting or donating to campaigns designed to prevent the labeling of GMOs, whether on a state or national level.”

This is yet another sign that retailers and food manufacturers who opposed prop 37 have indeed been paying the price. Take the Cheerios fiasco, for example. General Mills spent over $1.1 million to deceive their customers by defeating Prop 37, and the backlash was significant. When General Mills' Cheerios brand released a Facebook app last December asking "fans" to "show what Cheerios means to you,” thousands used the app to express their disgust over the company's betrayal.

I believe we can expect far fewer brands to engage in biotech’s fight in future state initiatives. They really were not expecting the consumer backlash that followed in the wake of Prop 37, and are likely to be far less willing to take another bullet. The NGCA’s letter to their vendor partners reads in part:

“There was substantial consumer backlash from manufacturer financial support of campaigns to prevent GMO labeling in California. Now, campaigns calling for state level labeling of GMOs are active in a growing number of many other states. Many NCGA co-ops are supporting these campaigns and are also considering one or more of the following actions related to GMOs in food on a local level: discontinuing or boycotting items from companies that support antilabeling campaigns or whose products contain common GMO ingredients; excluding items that contain common GMO ingredients from store-level promotions and new item programs; and/or shifting more of their product assortment focus to certified organic brands.

...We believe GMO labeling will be a reality in the coming years and hope your organization will join us by showing leadership in this area through support of consumers' right to information to make informed purchase decisions.”

Organic Consumers Association Calls on Whole Foods to Move Up Labeling Timeline

Dave Murphy, founder and executive director of Food Democracy Now! who served as co-chair of Prop 37, has criticized Whole Foods timeline, saying “Americans need labeling of GMO foods today, not five years down the road,”⁶ adding that “had they supported Prop 37 sooner, Americans may have labeling right now.”

Similarly, the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) issued a response to Whole Foods’ plan on March 11⁷ stating that, while it is encouraged by the plan, the five-year timeline is too long. The OCA urges Whole Foods to move up its labeling deadline to July 2015, and to “take the lead in the organic industry to end deceptive labeling practices by requiring all the stores' products that include the word 'natural' in their labeling or packaging to be GMO-free.” According to the OCA press release:

“Washington's I-522 is expected to pass in November 2013, becoming the first statewide mandatory GMO labeling law. The law establishes July 2015 as the deadline for compliance. Whole Foods Markets already complies with the U.K.'s mandatory GMO labeling law in its seven stores in that country. Whole Foods came under fire last year when the company dragged its feet in supporting Proposition 37, California's Right to Know GMO Labeling citizens' initiative. In October, CEO John Mackey confirmed in a blog post that Whole Foods stores knowingly sell Monsanto's genetically modified corn, without labeling it.”

Monsanto Responds to 'Affluent Consumer' Concerns

On March 14, Monsanto President Brett Begeman discussed Whole Food’s move in an interview on NPR radio.⁸ According to NPR:

“Monsanto President Brett Begeman, speaking at an ag event this week in Decatur, Illinois, called the move 'Big' and said it shows that the agriculture industry needs to come together to address the concerns of what he called the 'affluent consumer.'

Begemann: ‘How do we address their concerns and provide them the choice that they’re asking for without driving up the cost on the large part of the population that cannot afford another increase in the cost of food.' The potential of higher costs is one of the concerns companies have raised about the Whole Foods plan. Begmann says the ag industry needs to figure how to cooperate and co-exist with those who have different food policy views.”

ORCA Takes Proactive Role to Address ‘Natural’ Products Intentional Mislabeling

In related news, the organic and fair trade standards watchdog the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), recently announced the creation of a new nationwide campaign called the Organic Retail and Consumer Alliance (ORCA). The announcement was made at the national Expo-West Natural Products convention. This new alliance includes public interest groups, food producers and retailers, including co-ops, natural food stores, farmers markets, Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) buying clubs and wholesalers.

ORCA’s mission is to “aggressively promote organic food and products, and expose and eliminate the misleading practice of 'natural' labeling and marketing that has slowed the growth of America’s $30-billion dollar organic sector.” In a press release, OCA’s National Director, Ronnie Cummins states:⁹

“Routine mislabeling and marketing has confused millions of U.S. consumers, and enabled the so-called ‘natural’ foods and products sector to grow into a $60-billion dollar a year powerhouse, garnering twice as many sales in 2012 as certified organic products. By exposing these misleading tactics, and promoting truth-in-labeling, we believe we can rapidly grow sales of certified organic and authentically natural food and products.”

This is indeed a huge problem, as numerous polls and surveys have shown that otherwise health conscious Americans do not understand the qualitative difference between organic and so-called “natural” products. Contrary to reality, the majority of consumers believe the “natural” label equates to “almost organic,” and many believe the “all-natural” label means a product is better than organic! That’s the power of word-association, and these industries are well aware of how the word natural “feels” to consumers who are in the dark about the regulatory differences between the labels... As stated by Cummins:

“This is outrageous, given that organic food and products, by law and by third-party certification, are produced without the use of synthetic pesticides and chemical fertilizers, animal drugs, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), irradiation, nanoparticles, or sewage sludge, whereas so-called 'natural' products are unregulated.”

To achieve its aims, ORCA members will use “a combination of public education, marketplace pressure, boycotts, class action lawsuits and state legislation to end misleading labeling practices in the 'natural' products sector.”

Consequences of 20 Years of Commercial Cultivation of GE Plants in the US

Just in time, as the GE issue is about to heat up once more, a critical assessment of the consequences of commercial cultivation of GE plants in the US was published. The report, published in Berlin, was commissioned in response to increasing pressure from biotech companies requesting broader authorizations to cultivate GE crops in the European Union (EU), where acceptance of such crops is much lower than the US. By looking at the effects that two decades worth of GE crop cultivation has had in the US, the report makes recommendations on how to best handle the technology in the EU. Presented by TestBiotech¹⁰ (which published the English version of the report),¹¹ some of the principal findings include the following damaging assessments:

• Consequences for farmers: Because the weeds have adapted to the cultivation of the genetically engineered plants, farmers are experiencing a substantial increase in both working hours and the amounts of herbicide they require. Cultivation of insecticide-producing plants have led to "an arms race in the field" against the pest insects, which have adapted quickly. Genetically engineered plants have been created to produce up to six different toxins. Costs for seeds have increased dramatically, without there being a substantial increase in yields or significant savings in the amounts of spray required.
• Impact on the seed market: The seed industry in the US is largely dominated by agrochemical industries such as Monsanto, Dupont and Syngenta. In the future, it has to be expected that developments in the US will be strongly influenced by the interests of agro-chemical companies pushing for the cultivation of genetically engineered plants.
• Consequences for producers who avoid genetically engineered crops: Contamination with non-authorized genetically engineered plants has already caused billions of dollars worth of damage in the US.
• Consequences for consumers: Consumers are exposed to a whole range of risks regarding unintended substances from plant metabolism, from residues from complementary herbicides and from the properties of additional proteins produced in the plants. As yet, there is no way of monitoring the actual effects that consumption of these products might have.

The final recommendations come as no surprise to those well-versed in the many issues involved. It’ll be interesting to see if the EU will follow them or cave to industry pressure like the US. The report concludes:

"In light of the effects caused so far as a result of GE crop cultivation in the United States, the following recommendations can be made:

1. There must be no large-scale, commercial cultivation of GE herbicide-tolerant or insecticide-producing crops. Such crop cultivation is unsustainable and will lead to a ‘race’ to step up their cultivation.
2. Ensure that all potential situations are retrievable. Cultivation of crops such as rapeseed, which is extremely susceptible to spread through the environment, should be banned as a matter of principle. An absolute prerequisite for any release of such crops is that it must be possible to control their spread and their persistence in the environment.
3. Prevent cases of contamination. A particular focus on clean seed is needed because otherwise farmers will lose control over the cultivation of GE crops in their fields and it will no longer be possible to adequately differentiate between products in the subsequent stages of the food production chain.
4. Risk assessments and risk research should not be geared to economic interests. Under EU law, environmental and consumer protection clearly take precedence over other interests. This must be applied more rigidly in practice. Directives based on EFSA risk assessments must be tightened up significantly and the preconditions for independent risk research must be specifically fostered.
5. The health effects of consuming products made from GE crops must be monitored. Under EU law, the monitoring of the impact on public health and the environment of products authorized for marketing in the EU is compulsory, but has only been partially implemented.
6. To allow for the differentiation of products on the feed markets, labeling should be extended to include animal products. The EU should also focus specifically on the search for alternatives to existing feed production and import markets.
7. To prevent further concentration on seed markets, seed patenting must be stopped.
8. A plan for research into alternatives must be mapped out. In many areas conventional breeding is a cheaper, more productive and safer alternative for the production of new seed varieties. This approach should be specifically fostered in the future."

Keep Fighting for Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods

While California Prop. 37 failed to pass last November, by a very narrow margin, the fight for GMO labeling is far from over. The field-of-play has now moved to the state of Washington, where the people's initiative 522, "The People's Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act," will require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it contains genetically engineered ingredients. As stated on LabelitWA.org:

"Calorie and nutritional information were not always required on food labels. But since 1990 it has been required and most consumers use this information every day. Country-of-origin labeling wasn't required until 2002. The trans fat content of foods didn't have to be labeled until 2006. Now, all of these labeling requirements are accepted as important for consumers. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also says we must know with labeling if our orange juice is from fresh oranges or frozen concentrate.

Doesn't it make sense that genetically engineered foods containing experimental viral, bacterial, insect, plant or animal genes should be labeled, too? Genetically engineered foods do not have to be tested for safety before entering the market. No long-term human feeding studies have been done. The research we have is raising serious questions about the impact to human health and the environment.

I-522 provides the transparency people deserve. I-522 will not raise costs to consumers or food producers. It simply would add more information to food labels, which manufacturers change routinely anyway, all the time. I-522 does not impose any significant cost on our state. It does not require the state to conduct label surveillance, or to initiate or pursue enforcement. The state may choose to do so, as a policy choice, but I-522 was written to avoid raising costs to the state or consumers."

Remember, as with CA Prop. 37, they need support of people like YOU to succeed. Prop. 37 failed with a very narrow margin simply because we didn't have the funds to counter the massive ad campaigns created by the No on 37 camp, led by Monsanto and other major food companies. Let's not allow Monsanto and its allies to confuse and mislead the people of Washington and Vermont as they did in California. So please, I urge you to get involved and help in any way you can, regardless of what state you live in.

• No matter where you live in the United States, please donate money to these labeling efforts through the Organic Consumers Fund.
• If you live in Washington State, please sign the I-522 petition. You can also volunteer to help gather signatures across the state.
• For timely updates on issues relating to these and other labeling initiatives, please join the Organic Consumers Association on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.
• Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to actively support the Washington initiative.

Technorati Tags: GM crops,GM foods,GE labeling,Monsanto,Whole Foods market,GMO foods,GMO labeling,Dr. Mercola,Monsanto GMO documentary

Whole Foods Market Takes Huge Stand Against GMOs: Mandatory Labeling by 2018

Image: Whole Foods Market

Organic Authority: Whole Foods Market, the nation’s leading supermarket chain focused on organic and natural foods, has announced that it will begin labeling all products containing genetically modified ingredients throughout its U.S. and Canadian locations by 2018.

This moves makes Whole Foods the first national grocery chain to set such a deadline and commit to total transparency on the prevalence of genetically modified ingredients.

“We are putting a stake in the ground on GMO labeling to support the consumer’s right to know,” said Walter Robb, co-CEO of Whole Foods Market, in a press release. “The prevalence of GMOs in the U.S. paired with nonexistent mandatory labeling makes it very difficult for retailers to source non-GMO options and for consumers to choose non-GMO products. Accordingly, we are stepping up our support of certified organic agriculture, where GMOs are not allowed, and we are working together with our supplier partners to grow our non-GMO supply chain to ensure we can continue to provide these choices in the future.”

Whole Foods came under scrutiny last year for its slow commitment to support California’s Proposition 37, which would have made it the first state to require labeling of genetically modified foods had it not lost by a narrow margin last November. The retailer came under attack in 2011 when an investigation found genetically modified ingredients in its private-label cereal brands. And it was also targeted last year by the faceless organization, Organic Spies, in undercover video encounters that showed an overwhelming number of Whole Foods employees (in California) who were misinformed about genetically modified ingredients, particularly when it came to whether or not Whole Foods Market actually carried foods containing GMOs.

Genetically modified foods are widespread in the U.S.; the Grocery Manufacturers Association estimates that 75-80 percent of processed foods contain genetically modified ingredients. Five major U.S.-grown crops: soy, corn, canola, cotton and sugar beets are overwhelmingly genetically modified.

While organic foods by definition cannot be genetically modified, organic ingredients can be mixed with non-organic, potentially GMO ingredients in processed food products. And Whole Foods has admitted that their stores most definitely carry products that contain GMO ingredients.

Currently, the U.S. is the only developed nation without any regulations on GMOs, making it a difficult task for consumers to determine which foods are GMO free. The Non-GMO project is the only third-party verification program in the country.

Proponents of GMO labeling cite a number of reasons for wanting labels on genetically modified foods, mainly so consumers concerned about the human health and environmental impacts can make informed purchasing decisions. “While we are encouraged by the many mandatory labeling initiatives, we are committed to moving forward with our own GMO transparency plan now,” said Robb.

Keep in touch with Jill on Twitter @jillettinger

Technorati Tags: genetically modified ingredients,GMO,gmo labeling,whole foods,whole foods market,gmos