Ken Roseboro

About Ken Roseboro

Ken Roseboro is the publisher of the Organic and Non-GMO Report and is known as the nation’s reporter on all issues surrounding GMOs, organic foods and the growth on Non-GMO foods alike.

Posts by Ken Roseboro:

Genetic engineering, GMO and Gene manipulation concept. Hand is inserting sequence of DNA.

November 9 2018

New GMO Technologies Represent Major Challenges to Non-GMO Supply Chain and Certification

Ken Roseboro GMOs, Food Politics 0

Originally published at the Non-GMO Report by Ken Roseboro.

New genetic engineering technologies such as CRISPR gene editing, RNA interference (RNAi), and synthetic biology are presenting major challenges to the non-GMO supply chain and certifiers, as some products developed using those technologies are entering the market claiming to be “non-transgenic” or even non-GMO.

Cibus used oligonucleotide mutagenesis (ODM), a gene editing process, to develop a canola variety that the company claims is non-transgenic. Conagen developed a “next-generation natural preservative” using synthetic biology and claims it is non-GMO. Calyxt developed a gene-edited high-oleic soybean that was grown this year, and the harvested crop will be processed at two non-GMO and organic processing facilities in Iowa, American Natural Processors and KemX Global. While Calyxt doesn’t claim that its soybean is non-GMO, the company issued a press release saying it had “received a letter from the U.S. Department of Agriculture confirming that the Company’s high-oleic soybean variety is non-regulated, as the product contains no foreign DNA.” A synthetic biology sweetener, EverSweet, developed by Cargill, was even certified non-GMO by NSF’s True North non-GMO program.

“Being misrepresented to the supply chain as non-GMO”

“One of the biggest concerns is that these products are being represented to the supply chain as non-GMO. These companies are really taking advantage of the fact that these products are not transgenic and equating that with being non-GMO,” says Megan Westgate, executive director of the Non-GMO Project. “But they have been developed using genetic engineering techniques and they are GMOs.”

This muddying the waters of what is non-GMO creates challenges for food manufacturers who may not be aware that some ingredients were developed using new genetic engineering techniques.

“The lack of transparency coming from purveyors of these new techniques has put food companies in a vulnerable position. Getting out in front of this new dynamic has also created a strategic challenge for us,” Westgate says. “How do we help protect the supply chain so that people are not misled?”

To prevent misrepresentations of new GMOs as non-GMO, the Non-GMO Project requires that suppliers fill out affidavits that include a list of techniques that are prohibited in non-GMO verification. These include gene editing, synthetic biology, and RNAi.

“We are not just looking for them to say it is non-GMO,” Westgate says. “We are looking for someone with sufficient knowledge of the supply chain to attest that none of these techniques have been used.”

Westgate emphasizes that these so-called “GMO 2.0” technologies are genetic engineering.

“Gene editing still involves transgenics. They still use soil bacteria, to get the DNA into the nucleus of the host plant. It’s just that it is not there in the finished product. They have used genetic engineering to develop them. There is no possible way they can be non-GMO.”

The European Union Court of Justice has also ruled that products developed using gene editing should be subject to GMO regulations.

NSF’s True North non-GMO standard also prohibits gene editing and other new GMO technologies. “Gene editing and synthetic biology meet the definition of ‘genetic engineering’ under NSF’s Non-GMO protocol and are therefore not allowed, except in limited circumstances such as when enzymes are used as processing aids and are not present in the finished product,” says Steve Taormina, business unit manager for NSF International’s Consumer Values Verified Program

The Non-GMO Project does not allow such exceptions, considering products such as enzymes made using GMO microorganisms as GMO even if they are not found in the final product. This led to the Non-GMO Project objecting to NSF’s non-GMO certification of Cargill’s EverSweet sweetener made using a GMO yeast.

“If something is created using a fermentation microorganism, and if that microorganism is genetically engineered, then the product that it makes is genetically engineered,” Westgate says.

Taormina says NSF welcomes input on its non-GMO standard. “As with all standards, NSF’s Non-GMO True North certification program continues to evolve with science and technology. This certification program is currently under review, and we welcome additional key stakeholders—users, regulators, industry, and academia—to participate and provide their perspectives as part of the stakeholder review group.”

“Trying to distance themselves from consumer rejection of GMOs”

New GMO companies don’t want their products called GMO or genetically engineered because of negative consumer perceptions of the technology.

“We definitely see a huge trend of these new GMO companies trying to distance themselves from the consumer rejection of GMOs by basically saying that their products are not GMO,” Westgate says.

One of the challenges with products made from new GMO techniques is that they aren’t regulated by the government. As with Calyxt gene-edited soybean, the USDA considers these products “unregulated” so they can enter the market much faster than older GMOs, which must go through a regulatory process that can take several years.

To track all the products being developed using these new technologies, the Non-GMO Project employs a full-time research team. A research analyst says there are some 80 products she monitors along with 250 companies involved in genetic engineering, from “older” transgenic technologies to the newer techniques.

The research analyst finds new companies and products all the time, and this is likely to continue. “We can expect a significant increase in the quantity and range of biotechnology products over the next 5 to 10 years,” the analyst says.

But while new GMOs are entering the market, they still represent just a small segment of the GMO industry. “In the big picture, it is still the case that almost all GMOs are transgenic crops that are developed to be herbicide tolerant,” Westgate says.

Education is another key to dealing with threats posed by new GMO technologies to the non-GMO supply chain, particularly for the food industry and consumers.

“It is important to get that baseline understanding established, especially in the food industry, for people to understand how dishonest and unscientific it is when companies say that these things are not GMO,” Westgate says.

One of the biggest challenges is the fact that there are no tests to detect new GMO products developed using gene editing and synthetic biology. But that will change soon.

“There is really good progress being made with developments in being able to test for these things. We do expect that within the next couple of years most of these new GMOs will be testable, and as soon as there are quantitative tests for them we will be requiring those,” Westgate says

e034b90a2bf01c3e81584d04ee44408be273e5d519b910499df9_1280_farm-field

September 15 2016

Scientist: Claims that GMO Safety Is Settled Are Nonsense

Ken Roseboro GMOs, Health 1

Biotech proponents’ claims that the debate over the safety of genetically modified foods is settled is wrong, according to Sheldon Krimsky, co-editor of the new book, The GMO Deception: What You Need to Know about the Food, Corporations, and Government Agencies Putting Our Families and Our Environment at Risk.

As its title suggests, the book takes a very critical look at GM foods with articles written by leading scientists, educators, and environmentalists. Articles cover the whole range of the GMO debate from human and environmental health, labeling, and corporate control of agriculture to regulation, sustainability, and ethics.

Krimsky has sounded warnings about the risks of GM foods since the 1980s. He has written or edited 13 books that provide a critical examination of breaking issues in science and technology. He is also chairman of the Council for Responsible Genetics, which fosters public debate about the social, ethical, and environmental implications of genetic technologies.

Krimsky is the Carol Zicklin Visiting Professor of Philosophy at Brooklyn College, the Lenore Stern Professor of Humanities and Social Sciences at Tufts University, and adjunct professor in the Department of Public Health and Community Medicine at the School of Medicine at Tufts University.

What led to the publishing of the GMO Deception?

Sheldon Krimsky: Claims were being made that the health effects of genetically modified foods were resolved. The only issue was public perception.

But when I investigated the scientific literature, I found more than a dozen studies showing negative health impacts, and these have to be addressed. You can’t just throw them away.

When dealing with risks, it’s not about having more studies showing no harm than ones showing harm. One negative outcome is worth 99 positive outcomes because many positive outcomes are funded by industry.

When you want to prove something is safe, you have to set conditions that are most likely to find effects. When developing a new airplane, you don’t just fly at normal conditions; you fly at extreme conditions. In the same way, you have to test GMOs under more extreme conditions in order to have confidence that they are safe.

Unfortunately, every time a scientist shows an adverse effect (from GMOs), that scientist is vilified. We saw this most recently with (Professor Gilles-Eric) Séralini (who published a study showing negative impacts to rats fed GM corn and Roundup herbicide). The things that have been done to him are unprecedented in the history of science. Retracting a paper after a year when the editors initially supported the reviewers and retracting it because “the results are not definitive” is not really valid in the ethics of science. Based on that criterion a great amount of published work would also be retracted.

How did you gather the material for the book? What were your criteria for inclusion in the book?

SK: We tried to piece together good articles from the past with good recent articles.

The articles are written by well-respected scientists and environmental activists. There is a preface by Ralph Nader, and an introduction to the science of genetic engineering by John Fagan.

There are segments in the book that deal with environmental impacts. I published a book in 1996, Agricultural Biotechnology and the Environment, when the biotechnology industry was just starting. We raised the issue of herbicide resistant weeds; that if glyphosate were used ubiquitously, then weeds would become resistant to it. That is what has happened.

Readers of the book can see what scientists are saying and raising questions that aren’t raised in the media.

What are you trying to achieve with the book?

SK: I hope that readers of the book develop their own skepticism when they read articles from mainstream press, such as the Wall Street Journal, that have been persistent in calling skeptics luddites and don’t know what they are talking about.

The agricultural biotech business has tried to construct the science for its commercial interests. There is a lack of recognition of studies that don’t conform to their point of view and a vilification of scientists who produce results they don’t like.

Chapter three is a conversation with Árpád Pusztai (who conducted research showing negative impacts to rats fed GM potatoes), an internationally respected scientist and expert on lectins. He was literally driven out of the United Kingdom and lost his job. The things said about him were unconscionable. That story needs to be told.

What concerns do you have about genetically modified foods?

SK: The fact that we have been eating GM corn and soy for 15 years doesn’t convince me that they are safe. We had lead and PCBs in our environment for 40 to 50 years. You don’t determine something is safe by forcing it in the consumer market and then waiting a number of years to say it’s safe.

It is true that people aren’t keeling over. That’s all we’ve shown with the introduction of GM corn and soy.

But there are many ways that GMOs can affect consumers other than an immediate effect. They can produce chronic effects on the immune system and reduce or increase nutrients in food products. We need to know if we are getting the same nutrients from GM corn as from conventional or organic corn. We need to have transparency.

When scientists face controversy, they go to the literature review. I did this. I looked at articles on GMOs and health effects. I found seven from 2008 to 2014. I found that there was disagreement in the review articles. Reviewers arrived at different conclusions. One review article said that animals fed GM crops died. One or two said there were no problems, and several said there were problems.

To argue that there is no controversy left in this field is nonsense. That is what I found by going deep in the literature. You can’t just write it away.

The tobacco industry used to say that cancer is not caused from smoking; that it must be something else.

Skepticism is a really important part of being scientist. To say there is no controversy left and use a preexisting notion of what is safe and apply that to every product is not the way we do science.

Biotech proponents claim the technology is precise. Do you agree with that claim?

SK: When you put a gene into a plant genome you don’t know where it will go. It could cause gene expression of one part to rise or to diminish.

There are circumstances when you don’t want gene expression to rise. There are toxic effects in a plant that you don’t want to rise, but it could happen with GMOs.

We eat certain plants for their nutrient value. An inserted gene could cause gene expression for a nutrient to go down.

It’s a lot more complex than saying I fed it to the mouse and it survived. It’s a very simplistic view of what’s safe and not safe.

Originally published at the Organic and Non-GMO Report.

July 23 2016

Big Food’s Win Over GMO Labeling Bill Shows Failure of Democracy

Ken Roseboro GMOs, Food Politics 0

In 2014, Vermont passed the first legislation in the U.S. to require labeling of foods containing genetically engineered ingredients. A year earlier, Connecticut and Maine passed GMO labeling bills though these were dependent on several other states passing similar laws.

Best of Democracy: Lawmakers Respond to the People

Passages of these three bills were textbook examples of democracy in action. The states’ citizens lobbied their legislatures to introduce the bills, public hearings were held, experts spoke for and against the bills and lawmakers debated the measures. The bills ultimately passed because the lawmakers recognized that the People wanted them approved.

Vermont’s bill passed overwhelmingly in both the state’s House of Representatives and Senate and Gov. Pete Shumlin signed the bill shortly thereafter.

This is how democracy is supposed to work, right? Citizens see an issue of concern that needs to be addressed and they contact their elected representatives who respond by passing a law. This is what happened in Vermont, Connecticut and Maine.

As Tara Cook-Littman, who spearheaded Connecticut’s labeling initiative, said: “GMO labeling is about people taking back power and getting lawmakers to take action in the interests of the people and not corporations. If we don’t use our voices it’s not democracy. We proved in Connecticut that we do have power and can make democracy work.”

Worst of Democracy: Lawmakers Pander to Corporations

Contrast those initiatives with U.S. federal government action on GMO labeling in the past year. Heavy lobbying by large food and agriculture corporations and groups such as the Grocery Manufacturers Association led the U.S. House of Representatives to introduce the Orwellian-named “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act.”

The bill, dubbed the “DARK Act” (Deny Americans the Right to Know), aimed to stop Vermont and other state GMO labeling laws and establish a meaningless system of voluntary GMO labeling. The DARK Act passed the House but a similar bill failed to pass the U.S. Senate this past March mainly because the people told their senators to vote against it.

Following the Senate defeat and with Vermont’s GMO labeling law set to take effect July 1, Senators Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Pat Roberts (R-KS) drafted a compromise of the DARK Act, making GMO disclosure mandatory and not voluntary as in the House bill. But there was no requirement for an on-package statement as the Vermont law mandated.

Stabenow’s compromise essentially snatched defeat from the jaws of victory for labeling supporters because many major food companies were already putting GMO labels on their products sold nationwide to comply with Vermont’s law.

The Roberts-Stabenow bill has been described as a “non-labeling GMO labeling bill” since, among its many flaws, it allows food companies to continue their stonewalling of GMO information by putting QR codes on products that can only be read by smartphones. Imagine a busy mother at a supermarket with several children in tow pulling out her smartphone to read QR codes on 20 or 30 food products. Or imagine the many mothers that don’t even have smartphones trying to get GMO information. According to marketing communications expert Peter Quinn, the use of QR codes has virtually been abandoned because they have proven to be so ineffective and a “technology wild goose chase.”

“Needs of the People Have Been Ignored”

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said: “The Stabenow-Roberts GMO bill is confusing, misleading and unenforceable. It does nothing to make sure consumers know what they’re eating.”

In contrast to Vermont’s GMO labeling bill—the Roberts-Stabenow bill had no hearings, no public input, no committee debate and was rushed to be introduced—and passed in both the Senate and House. Behind the push were Big Food and Ag and their millions of dollars in lobbying.

So while the GMO labeling efforts in Vermont, Connecticut and Maine demonstrated the best of democracy—working for the people as America’s founders intended—the Roberts-Stabenow bill showed us the worst of democracy—with its pandering to the narrow interests of big business at the expense of the wishes of the people. And the bill makes the successful democratic efforts in those states null and void.

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) said the bill was “not what’s in the interests of the American consumer, but what a few special interests want.”

With their support for this bad piece of legislation and continued obfuscation of GMOs, Big Food and Ag have assured themselves more years of consumer distrust and targeting by advocacy groups, leading to PR disasters. A few food companies, such as Campbell’s and Dannon, have decided that transparency is the best policy, but for many others this may be a tough lesson to learn.

As of July 22, the Roberts-Stabenow GMO labeling bill, S.764, has not yet been signed into law by President Obama but the White House said after Congress passed the bill that he would sign it. More than 80,000 people have petitioned the White House urging Obama to veto the bill. Florida Republican Congressman Vern Buchanan also urged the president to veto the bill. In a letter to Obama, Buchanan called the legislation a “sham bill that pretends to offer disclosure but in truth has so many loopholes that it is meaningless.”

Originally posted at EcoWatch.com.

April 8 2016

Organic Farming Isn’t Just for “Hippies” Anymore

Ken Roseboro Food Financials, Real Food, Solutions 0

An old adage says that solving a big problem requires attacking it from all sides. That is what organic industry players—large and small—are doing to overcome organic crop supply shortages in the United States. Organic supporters have launched a range of initiatives to increase organic farming acreage—from big company initiatives and smaller company collaborations to a new organic transition certification and long-term contracts to help farmers transition to organic.

These initiatives aim to address a fundamental problem facing the organic industry: while demand for organic food continues to soar, the supply of organic crops to meet that demand is falling short, forcing companies to import organic crops from overseas. Organic food currently accounts for about 5% of all food sales in the U.S., but organic farming acres make up less than one percent of total U.S. farmland. The U.S. imported $184 million in organic soybeans and $35 million in organic corn in 2014.

The supply-demand situation was even worse in 2015, according to Laura Batcha, executive director of the Organic Trade Association (OTA). “The supply shortage is holding back the market; 2015 was the peak of the supply shortage,” she says.

“Not Just for Hippies Anymore”

On the bright side, Batcha sees new business coming into the organic market. “Organic certifiers are seeing record months for applications (for organic certification),” she says.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture figures, there were a record number of certified organic operations—19,474—in the U.S. in 2014. OTA reported that there were another 3,000 farms transitioning to organic.

Annie’s president John Foraker recently predicted that organic food will ultimately account for 20% of the U.S. food market.

Current market conditions are leading many conventional farmers to consider transitioning to organic. “Farmers are taking a second look (at organic) with commodity grain prices being low,” Batcha says.

Nate Lewis, OTA’s senior crop & livestock specialist, agrees. “There is a tremendous amount of interest from conventional producers who are really looking at organic as an option,” he says. “This marks an underlying shift from organic being a four-letter word to being a viable economic option for farmers. It’s not just for hippies anymore.”

Big Company Organic Initiatives: General Mills and Ardent Mills

Larger companies are putting their resources into increasing organic acres. General Mills recently announced plans to more than double the organic acreage from which it sources ingredients. General Mills plans to meet its goal of 250,000 acres by 2019, the same year the company aims to achieve $1 billion in sales from its natural and organic products.

Since 2009, General Mills has increased the organic acreage it supports by 120% and is now among the top five organic ingredient purchasers—and the second largest buyer of organic fruits and vegetables in North America.

Another big player with ambitious organic goals is Ardent Mills, which supplies wheat flours, mixes, blends and specialty products. The company aims to double organic wheat acres in the U.S. from the current 260,000 to 520,000 by 2019.

“About a year ago, we started getting inquiries from our flour customers who wanted to introduce new organic products and were concerned about supply,” says Shrene White, Ardent Mills’ director of specialty grains risk. “We saw there was a big gap in the supply of organic wheat.”

Since announcing their organic initiative last December, Ardent Mills has held farmer education meetings to discuss the project. “We talked to farmers about what they need to transition, what to expect during certification and the market for organic wheat,” White says.

The response from farmers has been positive, White says, not only from conventional farmers but also from existing organic farmers who want to add wheat to their crop rotations.

There are challenges for farmers transitioning to organic. “The biggest challenge is educating farmers,” White says. “They have to look at a whole new way of farming.”

Batcha says initiatives by large companies like General Mills and Ardent Mills are positive. “When big companies make investments in organic acres, it means there is confidence that the market is there and will stay there,” she says. “The more relationships there are with producers and end users, the less likely it will be that farmers will come and go in organic.”

US Organic Grain Collaboration

In addition to the big company initiatives to increase organic acreage, there is a collaborative effort involving several leading organic companies. The US Organic Grain Collaboration was launched in 2014 to address the supply shortage of organic grains. Participating companies include Annie’s, Stonyfield Farm, Organic Valley, Clif Bar, Whole Foods Market, Nature’s Path, Grain Millers, and Pete & Jerry’s Eggs.

“We have a progressive group of companies committed to growing the organic grain supply,” says Elizabeth Reaves, program director at the Sustainable Food Lab, which helped facilitate the collaboration.

The fact that companies that normally would compete with each other are working together is unique and necessary, Lewis says. “What’s needed is collaboration and relationship building. We all need to come together,” he says.

In 2015, the group launched pilot projects in Aroostook County, Maine and in the Northern Great Plains to test approaches needed to grow the supply of organic grain.

This year, group’s activities will be coordinated under a new Grain, Pulses, and Oilseed council sector within the Organic Trade Association. “It makes sense to coordinate strategy through the existing industry platform of OTA,” Reaves says.

Activities planned for this year include creating a strategic plan and holding organic opportunity events in the Pacific Northwest, Northern Great Plains, Midwest, and New England for all members of the organic supply chain.

Collaboration member Nature’s Path may be taking the most direct route to increasing organic acreage by buying land and converting it to organic. To date the company has purchased 6,600 acres of land in Saskatchewan and Montana to grow organic grains.

Nature’s Path, along with Clif Bar, Grain Millers, and General Mills, are also members of the Prairie Organic Grain Initiative, a similar collaborative industry effort to increase the supply of organic grains in Canada.

Certified Transition program

Perhaps the biggest challenge to increasing organic farming acres is the three-year transition farmers must make to become organic. During those three years, a conventional farmer cannot use chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and options for farmers to sell their transitional crops are often limited.

OTA is trying to ease that challenge by working with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to create a Certified Transition label program. Certified Transition food and animal feed products will contain ingredients made from crops harvested one year after the transition to organic has begun, but before the three-year transition period is completed.

Lewis says the standard for the Certified Transition program will be submitted to the USDA in early April. Existing organic certifiers will then apply to the USDA to be accredited to certify transitional farms and processing facilities.

Many organic certifiers already have some type of transition program for farmers. These will be harmonized under the USDA program.

Lewis hopes the program will be available to farmers by the end of this year’s harvest.

The Certified Transition program offers advantages for both farmers and processors. “This could really help farmers overcome the three-year transition barrier,” Lewis says. “For processors, having a transitional market is a way to pull farmers into organic. Instead of dangling the organic carrot (premium) three years down the road, they can dangle one-half of the carrot in one year.”

Batcha agrees. “It will help facilitate market connections during the transition period,” she says.

Long-term Contracts Help Farmers

Another incentive to help organic farming grow is for companies to offer long-term contracts to transitioning farmers. Ardent Mills is offering long-term contracts to farmers that cover the transition period and the first few years of organic certification. Clif Bar contracted a conventional fig producer for seven years to produce organic figs, which covered the three-year transition and another four years of organic production. Oregon-based Hummingbird Wholesale has purchased rice, beans and cranberries at premium organic prices from farmers transitioning to organic.

“People that invest in transition want to secure the supply,” Batcha says. “It’s a different model than conventional farming, which rides the highs and lows of the spot market. An organic farmer with a long-term contract may be passing up a higher price on the spot market but they may also be passing up a lower price.”

Originally published at the Organic and Non-GMO Report.

March 18 2016

USDA Whistleblower Demonstrates Farming Without Dangerous Chemicals

Ken Roseboro Food Heroes, Real Food, Solutions 0

Jonathan Lundgren built an international reputation as a leading entomologist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Now, after filing a whistleblower complaint against the USDA for blocking his research on negative impacts of insecticides, Lundgren is applying his science to regenerative agriculture at Blue Dasher Farm, a new research and demonstration farm in South Dakota.

Research showed neonicotinoids harmed butterflies

Lundgren has worked as a senior research entomologist at the USDA for 11 years, conducting risk assessment research on pesticides and genetically modified organisms. Last fall the agency suspended Lundgren, claiming he made an error in a travel authorization for a speaking engagement. Lundgren says the agency suspended him over his research showing negative effects on monarch butterflies from neonicotinoid insecticides.

“We discovered things that weren’t particularly convenient,” he says. “I saw there was a clear link to pesticide use.”

Lundgren filed a whistleblower complaint against the USDA, detailing attempts by USDA managers to block publication of new research, bar discussion of results with the media, and disrupt his lab’s operations.

Laura Dumais, staff counsel for Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which filed the complaint, said: “Dr. Lundgren is suffering the proverbial professional death by a thousand cuts precisely because of the implications of his scientific work for agribusiness.”

Lundgren says he had no research agenda. “If our data showed neonics had not caused problems with monarchs, I wouldn’t have any problems publishing that,” he says.

The USDA tried to dismiss Lundgren’s complaint, but in December a judge rejected the request, allowing it to move forward.

The legal battle may take months or years to be resolved.

Blue Dasher Farm to showcase regenerative agriculture practices

In the meantime, Lundgren is launching Blue Dasher Farm, which, according to the farm’s website, aims to be “the first of a network of research, education, and demonstration farms to bring scientific support to biodiverse food production.”

“There are certain topics for the food system that I can better address outside the USDA,” Lundgren says. “That drives what I am doing with Blue Dasher Farm.”

Inspiration for Blue Dasher Farm came from Lundgren’s research work with farmers who he says are on “the leading edge of food production,” and regenerating soils.“They didn’t need a lot of inputs, fertilizers, pesticides, and GMOs,” he says. “They were creating farming systems that are so much more resilient to pests and climate change. I came to realize that these farmers are leading the science.”

Lundgren wants to showcase regenerative agriculture methods on Blue Dasher Farm. These include cover crops to reduce weeds and insect pressure, diversified crop rotations, soil fertility practices, and conservation crops to increase pollinators, such as bees, among others.

Blue Dasher Farm aims to bridge the gap between farmers and researchers.

“We want to pair agroecologists with producers and train the next generation of farmers, ranches, beekeepers, and scientists,” he says. “We have so much we can learn from each other.”

Blue Dasher Farm won’t be organic, but will encompass organic methods. “A lot of what we are doing fits into the organic model,” Lundgren says. “But I don’t think farmers will need to be organic to be more profitable using regenerative practices.”

Changing agriculture from the ground up

Lundgren believes that changes in agriculture and food production will come from the grassroots and not from top-down approaches of government, universities, and corporations.

“Transformational changes need to be done to food systems and these changes come from the bottom up,” he says. “We need science to innovate agriculture and not maintain the current paradigm. We want to give scientific support to grassroots efforts in regenerative agriculture.”

Lundgren’s project has struck a chord at the grassroots level with a successful Indiegogo crowd-funding effort for Blue Dasher Farm. His goal of $75,000 was surpassed to more than $81,000. Lundgren has also received donations of equipment and even bees.

“The response we’ve had so far has been so positive,” he says. “Consumers and independent scientists can support the kind of research they want, instead of research that is traditionally done by government and universities, which can be easily controlled by major corporations.”

National network of research demonstration farms

The 53-acre farm in Deuel County, South Dakota will be a fully operational farm that Lundgren aims to make a model of regenerative agriculture.

“Farmers can come and see the practices being used on an operating farm,” he says. “We want to show how a farm can be profitable on a small acreage.”

Blue Dasher Farm will initially focus on three areas: helping to solve the challenges facing honey bees with pesticides and mites, improving diversity on cattle grazing lands, and enhancing soil health and crop production.

The first project will be to grow seeds for cover crops and conservation mixes.

“There’s a strong need for these seeds,” Lundgren says.

Looking to the long term, Lundgren aims to help establish similar research, education, and demonstration farms like Blue Dasher around the U.S.

“We need a national network of research demonstration farms that are adapted to local needs,” he says. “That’s the vision, that’s the goal.”

Lundgren and his wife Jenna, who has a degree in biology, recently completed the purchase of the farm and will launch Blue Dasher Farm this spring.

“We’re excited to get started,” he says. “Things are happening at a fast pace.”

Originally published at the Organic and Non-GMO Report.

March 9 2016

How Farmers Are Prospering by Going Organic

Ken Roseboro Food Financials, Real Food 0

Making the transition from conventional to organic farming can be a big leap, but Harn Soper will tell you—based on experience—that it is worth it in terms of better crops, soil and financial returns. Soper, a member of a four-generation Iowa farming family, is so convinced of organic farming’s value that he has launched a fund, Sustainable Farm Partners, to increase organic farming in Iowa.

Based in Emmetsburg, Iowa, Soper Farms is a century farm, having been in the family for more than 100 years. Both Harn’s grandfather and father farmed the land. Today Soper Farms, Inc. spans four generations with 73 family stockholders and 17 family board members, including Harn.

After working for 30 years as an entrepreneur in California’s Silicon Valley, Harn returned to manage the farms in 2007. At the time, the farms were producing genetically modified corn and soybeans. But that was about to change.

Tripled Net Income Switching from GMO to Organic

The Soper family voted to transition the farms, which comprise about 800 acres, to organic, starting in 2010.

“When we decided to go into organics it was unanimous,” Harn says.

After unsuccessful attempts to grow organic vegetables and raise grass-fed beef on a large scale, the Sopers decided to focus on row crops, such as corn, which they had grown successfully in the past. They began the three-year transition to organic by growing oats, alfalfa, and clover in the first two years, followed by corn in the third.

“We focused on soil restoration,” Harn says.

Soper Farms leased its land to organic farm operators as part of a crop share arrangement where the Sopers and farmers shared revenue generated from the crops.

Harn Soper (right), founder and CEO of Sustainable Farm Partners.

Net income from the first two years of the transition, 2010 and 2011, averaged $134 per acre, compared to $180 per acre from GMO corn and soybeans in 2008 and 2009. In 2012, the final year of the transition and first year of organic certification, net income from the organic corn crop soared to nearly $900 per acre. Continuing the rotation in 2013, the Sopers planted organic oats and alfalfa, and these produced $254 per acre.

Comparing the two years of GMO corn and soybeans with the first two years of organic certification, Soper Farms increased their net income from $180 per acre with GMOs to $578 with organics.

“We tripled our net operating income,” Harn says. “I consistently see premiums of organic that are two to three times greater than conventional crop prices.”

He emphasizes that the financial returns can vary according to the weather and market conditions.

Soper Farms also reduced their costs by as much as 40 percent by eliminating expensive GMO seeds and chemical pesticides and fertilizers.

Better Weed and Soil Management

The benefits of going organic were more than financial. “We don’t have superweeds,” Harn says. “We use nature and crop rotations to deal with weeds.”

Oats, alfalfa and clover are planted at the same time and grow in sequence to crowd out weeds.

“Our hay crop rotation inhibits the presence of weed seeds significantly,” Harn says. “By the second year of the rotation, weeds are much less in our corn crop, and this continues to improve.”

Perhaps the biggest benefit has been to the soil. “Our soil is our most important asset, and it gets healthier every year,” Harn says.

Based on his experience Harn is confident that other conventional farmers can successfully transition to organic.

“To me, it’s an economic win all the way around,” he says.

Sustainable Farm Partners

Harn’s experience inspired him to launch an investment fund to increase organic farming acreage in Iowa. He attracted several partners, and named the fund Sustainable Farm Partners (SFP), LLP. The aim is to raise money to buy conventional farms, find operators to farm the land organically, and then, after 10 years, sell the land, ideally back to the farmer who has been working it.

“The goal is to put the land in an organic easement to ensure it is farmed organically in perpetuity,” Harn says.

Investors, which can include individuals, endowments or even food manufacturers, will earn returns from revenue generated by organic crops and land appreciation.

The fund’s goal is to purchase 10,000-12,000 acres initially and add more over time.

“We would like to transition 30,000 to 40,000 acres over the next four years,” Harn says.

SFP currently has six organic farm operators spread throughout Iowa to work the land, and plans to attract more as farmland is purchased.

Harn has had discussions with food manufacturers that want to expand organic farming acreage and secure long-term supply contracts to meet the fast-growing demand for organic food.

Harn calls SFP a “triple bottom line investment” that can generate profits and a healthier environment through organic farming while helping to support rural communities. “It is also about stewardship of our world’s most valuable asset, our soil,” he says.

Originally published at EcoWatch.

February 29 2016

RoundUp Reality: Many Food Crops Are Sprayed with Glyphosate Before Harvest

Ken Roseboro Health, GMOs 1

Glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup^® herbicide, is recognized as the world’s most widely used weed killer. What is not so well known is that farmers also use glyphosate on crops such as wheat, oats, edible beans, and other crops right before harvest, raising concerns that the herbicide could get into food products.

Escalating use of probable carcinogen

Glyphosate has come under increased scrutiny in the past year. Last year the World Health Organization’s cancer group, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, classified it as a probably carcinogen. The state of California has also moved to classify the herbicide as a probable carcinogen. A growing body of research is documenting health concerns of glyphosate as an endocrine disruptor, and that it kills beneficial gut bacteria, damages the DNA in human embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells, and is linked to birth defects and reproductive problems in laboratory animals.

A recently published paper describes the escalating use of glyphosate: 18.9 billion pounds have been used globally since its introduction in 1974, making it the most widely and heavily applied weed-killer in the history of chemical agriculture. Significantly, 74% of all glyphosate sprayed on crops since the mid-1970s was applied in just the last 10 years, as cultivation of GM corn and soybeans expanded in the U.S. and globally.

Glyphosate used to speed up wheat harvest

Charles Benbrook, Ph.D., who published the paper on the mounting use of glyphosate, says the practice of spraying glyphosate on wheat prior to harvest, known as desiccating, began in Scotland in the 1980s. “Farmers there often had trouble getting wheat and barley to dry evenly so they can start harvesting. So they came up with the idea to kill the crop (with glyphosate) one to two weeks before harvest to accelerate the drying down of the grain,” he says.

The pre-harvest use of glyphosate allows farmers to harvest crops as much as two weeks earlier than they normally would, an advantage in northern, colder regions.

The practice spread to wheat-growing areas of North America such as the upper Midwestern United States and Canadian provinces such as Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

“Desiccation is done primarily in years where conditions are wet, and the crop is slow to dry down,” says Joel Ransom, an agronomist at North Dakota State University.

Originally published at The Organic and Non-GMO Report.

August 16 2015

Consumer Demand for Non-GMO Products Is Exploding and Is Here to Stay

Ken Roseboro GMOs, Real Food 0

Consumer concerns about genetically modified foods are increasing, while the market for non-GMO products continues to see exponential growth.

These were key messages of a recent education session: “Formulating from Seed to Shelf: GMO and Non-GMO Considerations” held at the IFT Expo in July in Chicago.

59 percent of consumers using non-GMO products

According to Steve French, managing partner at Natural Marketing Institute, the number of non-GMO product launches increased from 551 in 2012 to 1,992 in 2014, a growth rate of 262 percent. Product categories that saw the most non-GMO product introductions included bakery, snacks, and dairy.

The number of people using non-GMO products increased from 37 percent in 2012 to 59 percent in 2014.

Consumption of non-GMO products is increasing among all age groups—baby boomers, generation X, millennials, and matures, according to French whose company surveys consumer attitudes about GMOs and non-GMO foods. Millennials lead the way with 72 percent saying they used non-GMO products in the past year.

“Consumers are stating top of mind that GMOs are becoming one of the things they are looking for when choosing products,” French said.

In 2014, 58 percent of consumers surveyed responded “yes” to the following statement: “It is important for their store to carry products that do not include GM ingredients.”

Fifty-five percent of consumers would be less likely to buy a product if it contained GMOs, and one-third said they would stop buying a brand if they learned it contained GMOs.

French had a warning for food manufacturers. “If you are in the supply chain or a brand owner, you should think about what happens if a competitor is promoting their products as non-GMO,” he said.

It’s not about science; it’s about consumer choice”

French said that concerns about GM foods have increased dramatically in the past two years.

“Both awareness and concern about GMOs are up,” he said.

In response to a question from an audience member about GMO concerns vanishing as “consumers understand GMOs are not toxic,” French said “I think it’s definitely here to stay. This is part of a trend towards clean (food) labels and transparency. It’s not about science; it’s about choice. Consumers want to know they do have a choice.”

Originally published at the Organic and Non-GMO Report

July 30 2015

Mid-West Seed Company Becomes the Go-to Source for Non-GMO Corn Seed

Ken Roseboro GMOs, Real Food 2

“In 2000, we were approached by GMO technology providers about licensing GM seed,” said Gilbert, Hostetler’s grandson and now co-owner, with his brother Rodney, of Prairie Hybrids, a family-owned corn seed company in Deer Grove, Illinois.

This was in the days when Monsanto and other biotechnology companies were purchasing small seed companies, while others were driven out of business.

“My grandfather attended three meetings about licensing GM seed and after the third meeting he said: ‘They want to control the small seed companies. Farmers can no longer plant what they want. It’s too binding, they will control our destiny, and I can’t see us going down that road,'” Gilbert said.

With that, Prairie Hybrids refused to sell genetically modified corn seed.

“Go-to place for non-GMO seed”

Initially, Gilbert was concerned their business wouldn’t survive.

“We had customers who had previously purchased semi loads of seed walk out the door,” he said. “We joked about getting jobs as greeters at Wal-Mart.”

Gilbert consulted with a seed industry expert who encouraged them to focus on selling non-GMO seed.

“He said there will be a need for small seed companies that remain independent and stay non-GMO to supply the farmers that won’t grow GMOs,” he said. “We had to find a niche.”

The consultant also said that if GMO labels became a requirement then “the GMO party is over,” Gilbert said.

Prairie Hybrids focused on producing non-GMO corn seed, and today the company is reaping the rewards in the fast-growing non-GMO market.

“We saw big potential in non-GMO corn seed,” Gilbert said. “We are looked upon as the go-to place for non-GMO corn seed.”

Prairie Hybrids’ location in northwestern Illinois is ideal for seed production. An underground aquifer runs from Lake Michigan through central Illinois to the Mississippi River. As a result, Prairie Hybrids can use water from the aquifer to irrigate their fields when there is a drought. Larger seed companies also grow corn for seed in this region.

“There is good drainage and irrigation here,” Gilbert said.

Seed production

Prairie Hybrids grows non-GMO corn for seed on about 1000 acres. They also contract farmers in the area to produce seed.

Prairie Hybrids also produces organic corn seed; about 15 to 20 percent of their seed production is organic.

The seed is cleaned and conditioned at the company’s Deer Grove facility. Over the past 10 years they’ve added new equipment, including a new drying facility.

“The new equipment has helped us produce the highest quality possible,” Gilbert said.

Their seed is not treated with neonicotinoids, the insecticidal seed coating that has been linked to bee deaths. Gilbert said they stopped using neonics after some employees got sick from handling them. Also, the lack of neonicotinoids on the seed has not resulted in any yield drag in the corn, according to Prairie Hybrids’ customers.

GMO testing

Every seed lot is tested for genetically modified material using lateral flow “strip” tests and DNA-based PCR tests. Samples are taken and tested when corn is harvested and again when the seed is processed and bagged.

Prairie Hybrids’ seed meets a GMO threshold of three percent though some customers request a threshold of 1.5 percent.

“We try to accommodate,” Gilbert said.

Gilbert acknowledges that preventing GMO contamination of seed is very challenging. They will plant seed later than their neighbors to avoid cross pollination.

Having good relations with neighbors makes a difference.

“We have friendly neighbors that cooperate with us,” Gilbert said.

The demand for Prairie Hybrids non-GMO seed is strong. Sales increased 20 percent this year.

“I’m impressed with how many farmers are waking up and going back to non-GMO,” Gilbert said. “They are realizing that a $200 bag of (non-GMO) seed yields just as much or more than a $350 bag of (GM) seed.

Looking ahead, Hostetler wants to expand by building a processing facility to handle food-grade non-GMO corn.

Reports better animal health with non-GMO feed

Gilbert said farmers are seeing other benefits of growing non-GMO beyond the economics.

“Many times dairy farmers have called me to say they are seeing health problems from GMO feed and that these improve with non-GMO feed,” he says. “That happens over and over.”

Gilbert has compiled statements from dairy, livestock, and hog farmers documenting the health improvements after switching to non-GMO feed.

“I have too much evidence from too many farmers who say the same things about animal conception and digestive problems and sickness from GM feed,” Gilbert says.

Based on his experience and research, Gilbert is convinced GM foods are unhealthy for people also.

“GMOs are weakening the immune systems of children, which in turn is increasing diseases in children. The protein in the GM corn plant is killing the biology in our digestive tract,” he says.

Gilbert sees non-GMO as the future.

“When Similac (baby formula) went non-GMO, that gave me a good indication of where this is going,” he says.

Originally published at the Organic and Non-GMO Report

July 11 2015

Surfing the Tsunami of Demand for Non-GMO Ingredients

Ken Roseboro Real Food 0

At the 2013 Institute of Food Technologists tradeshow, a supplier of non-GMO ingredients told me that the “non-GMO tsunami is coming.”

Based on the growth of the non-GMO market in the past two years, the non-GMO tsunami is here. Sales of Non-GMO Project verified products have topped $11 billion per year; there are now more than 29,500 verified products. According to a report by Food Processing, new products with non-GMO claims increased by 45 percent in 2014.

Large mainstream companies are making non-GMO commitments. Chipotle recently announced that it had completed the transition to non-GMO ingredients in its foods. Ben & Jerry’s is transitioning to non-GMO ingredients in its ice creams. General Mills switched to non-GMO ingredients in its classic Cheerios cereal. Post Cereals’ iconic Grape Nuts is now Non-GMO Project verified. Buttery spreads Boulder Brands’ Smart Balance and Unilever’s “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter” are now made from non-GMO ingredients. Hellman’s now has a non-GMO version of its mayonnaise. Earlier this year, Hershey’s announced that it was switching to non-GMO ingredients in its famous Kisses and Milk Chocolate.

Non-GMO supply up 25 percent

With this rapid growth, can the supply of non-GMO grains and ingredients meet the exploding demand? Industry experts say yes. Kellie James, CEO of Mercaris, a market data service for non-GMO and organic grains, said that some non-GMO corn and soybeans are being sold as conventional, or stored in the hopes that premiums or buyers will increase at a later date.

“More farmers have grown than there is demand for,” said James, whose company is trying to fill the need for accurate reporting of non-GMO supply.

Lynn Clarkson, president of Clarkson Grain, agrees. “Supply is up 25 percent, and demand is up 15-20 percent. I don’t think there is a danger of non-GMO supplies running out.”

80 percent growth in demand for non-GMO and organic

Non-GMO ingredient suppliers also report strong demand and supply.

“Demand has been really good and growing,” said Kara VanKleek, marketing director at CHS, Inc., which supplies Non-GMO Project verified soy flours, flakes and oils.

VanKleek sees growing demand for non-GMO soybean oil in the food service industry, which includes hospitals, schools, and quick serve restaurants. She also reports strong demand for non-GMO soy flour from food manufacturers.

CHS doesn’t have supply challenges because it is a farmer owned cooperative and vertically integrated.

“Our farmers will grow whatever is needed,” Van Kleek said.

The Scoular Company also has sufficient non-GMO supplies. “For Non-GMO, we have been able to find supply and have been able to meet the demand,” said Joe Andrus, director of The Scoular Company’s Food Ingredients division, which supplies non-GMO and organic proteins, sweeteners, and oils to food and supplement manufacturers.

Andrus sees 80 percent growth in demand for both non-GMO and organic ingredients.

“Non-GMO is becoming more and more mainstream. It’s still a niche, but it’s coming,” he said.

Nate Yates, business director with Ingredion, sees a tighter supply situation.

“It’s not an unlimited supply. But for what we have wanted, we have not had a challenge sourcing raw material,” he said.

Ingredion sells non-GMO modified starches and sweeteners. Twenty of its products are Non-GMO Project verified.

“We are seeing demand across all food categories,” Yates said.

Debbra DeMarco, vice president of Canada-based Top Health Ingredients, also said interest in non-GMO has increased in the past year.

“In 2013, people were talking about non-GMO but now we are getting calls for non-GMO ingredients. Customers are getting more serious,” said DeMarco, whose company sells non-GMO sweeteners, proteins, and fibers.

Overall, non-GMO ingredients can cost around 20 percent more than their conventional counterparts.

“The increase in price is a function of identity preserving raw material from the farm all the way to the plant. This ranges from 10 percent to 25 percent,” Yates said.

Companies looking to build non-GMO supply chains

The non-GMO supply chain encompasses a wide range from grains, such as corn and soybeans and processed products, such as oils, flours, proteins, and meals, to sweeteners, starches, and minor ingredients such as lecithin, citric acid, enzymes, food colors, and flavors. There are now non-GMO sources for nearly all of those products, and many are becoming Non-GMO Project verified.

Minneapolis-based Captain Drake, LLC is the only supplier of Non-GMO Project verified citric acid, sodium citrate, potassium citrate, and organic cane sugar.

Company president Mark Anderson said demand for his non-GMO citric acid is strong now due to the recent court ruling upholding Vermont’s GMO labeling law.

“Large companies have been resistant but now everyone is trying to find non-GMO ingredients,” he said. “This is the largest and fastest movement I have ever seen in the 45 years I’ve been involved in the food and beverage industry.”

Anderson emphasized that his product, which is derived from sugar cane, doesn’t cost more than conventional citric acid, which is derived from GM corn.

“It’s not true that if food companies switch to non-GMO ingredients, their costs will increase,” he said.

Non-GMO food flavors are also becoming available led by California-based Blue Pacific Flavors, which became the first flavoring company to receive Non-GMO Project verification.

“More companies are looking to build supply chains that simplify the process of going non-GMO,” said CEO Donald Wilkes.

More non-GMO alternatives

Ingredient suppliers are offering more alternatives to GM corn- and soy-based ingredients. Iowa-based World Food Processing recently introduced PURISPea Non-GMO Project verified proteins for use in a wide range of products including protein powders, nutrition bars, and ready-to-drink beverages.

According to Tyler Lorenzen, vice president of business development, peas offer many benefits as an alternative protein.

“Peas are non-GMO, free of allergens, high in starch, and not processed with hexane (a chemical solvent),” he said.

Rice is also being used as a non-GMO protein source. Rice Bran Technologies sells products made from rice bran, including protein, fiber, and oil. The company’s RiBran food ingredient is Non-GMO Project verified.

Rice Bran Technologies’ CEO W. John Short said Non-GMO Project verification helps food manufacturing customers that are also being non-GMO verified.

“It makes the verification process easier because they can source verified ingredients,” he said.

Ingredients derived from sunflowers including oil, lecithin, and vitamin E have also become popular alternatives to GMO-risk soy products.

Rick Robbins, general manager at Colorado Mills, which processes sunflower oil, sees steadily growing interest in sunflower as a non-GMO alternative.

“From what we hear, companies are being asked by their customers: ‘are you using non-GMO products?’ ” he said. “Non-GMO is becoming as important as organic.”

Robbins sees a trend away from soybean oil to sunflower. “Sunflower is a healthier oil and can handle heat much better,” he said.

However, sunflower oil can cost twice as much as conventional soybean oil.

Recommendations for sourcing

Supply chain experts recommend that long-term planning is essential when buying non-GMO ingredients.

“Now is the time for companies to make commitments, not next spring. Good buyers have already made arrangements for next year,” Clarkson said.

Third-party verification of non-GMO ingredient sources is also becoming important, according to Andrus.

“Make sure you can verify your sources,” he said.

Originally published at The Organic and Non-GMO Report