Food Politics

In 2013, CNN ran a piece that told the story of Monsanto. It was seven minutes long.

As recent headlines hit about the World Health Organization’s announcement that the ingredient found in Monsanto’s glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic,” it’s worth revisiting the CNN story about Monsanto.

“Now you may not know exactly what Monsanto is, but you probably eat what they produce…every day.”

And with that statement, CNN’s Jake Tapper let Americans know that something had been slipped into our food.

In a riveting seven minute segment, the report teaches the country about a company that has quietly inserted its products into what we eat without our knowing it.

The company that makes these ingredients, a chemical company called Monsanto, may “have previously been best known as being one of the producers of the contributors to the chemical contributing to Agent Orange…believed to have caused disastrous health effects for those who came in contact with it,” reports CNN.

But as the segment goes on to say, “now Monsanto not only delivers pesticides designed to deliver a death blow to living things…it also produces seeds designed to resist those lethal chemicals. And now the company is under fire for these seeds that have been genetically modified and their legislative muscle….as they have defeated efforts to allow labeling of these genetically modified products.”

The company claims that their products are safe and needed to feed the world, but independent science and data out of the United Nations which has a global initiative addressing food waste called “Save Food” and our own USDA suggest otherwise. The USDA recently called for further research into these genetically modified food crops, and both organizations are drawing attention to the issue of food waste.

According to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization, “Roughly one third of the food produced in the world for human consumption every year – approximately 1.3 billion tonnes – gets lost or wasted globally” and “Every year, consumers in rich countries waste almost as much food (222 million tonnes) as the entire net food production of sub-Saharan Africa (230 million tonnes).”

Feed the world with a new product by a chemical company or focus on food waste? Obviously, a chemical company has the financial obligation to its shareholders to promote its products as the solution. Reducing food waste doesn’t make any money for a company that has genetically engineered foods to withstand increasing doses of their chemicals.

And while it doesn’t have to be an “either” “or” proposition, addressing the global challenge of feeding the world does require transparency.

So as this chemical company introduced their new products and this new technology into our food supply, a question asked on CNN is one that a growing number of Americans are asking, too: How could you know if you are eating genetically modified foods and feeding them to your family?

As CNN’s Tapper states, “Well, you can’t, and that’s the issue.”

These products and foods derived from them are labeled in over 60 countries around the world, but our very own FDA, relying on industry funded research, states that there is no need for labeling these ingredients because they are substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts, the soy, corn and canola that existed for thousands of years that are not patented by these large chemical companies.

But the patents on these new ingredients in our food supply, many filed for the first time in the mid 1990s, suggest that there is a substantial difference in these products, substantial enough to make a chemical company a $58 billion dollar corporation with field offices in over 60 countries around the world.

On top of that, there is mounting scientific concern over the health effects of consuming these products and chemicals, and a growing number of countries are choosing to opt out of them in their food supplies. The chemical companies will claim “no evidence of harm.” Without labels, there is no evidence, no way to document the effects of these ingredients on our health, and no accountability, traceability or liability.

So what’s an American to do? It’s worth seven minutes to watch this CNN clip and share it with those that you love.

Because while correlation is not causation, knowledge is power, and in order to address the escalating health care costs in our country and the runaway rates of allergies, asthma, cancer and other diseases in our families, we need to know what we are eating. And the only way that farmers can get an accurate read on consumer demand for their products is if they have a complete data set.

Without labels, there is no way for us to know that we are eating these products and no way for farmers to register consumer sentiment and demand.

The labeling of these ingredients in the food supply is a civil right that has been granted to citizens around the world and the farmers that feed them, and to protect the health of our country, our agricultural system and our economy, it is a freedom that Americans deserve, too.

Rumors are circulating that Starbucks teamed up with Monsanto to sue the state of Vermont over their law to label genetically engineered foods.

Starbucks obviously felt the heat and issued a statement to the press and said: “Starbucks is not a part of any lawsuit pertaining to GMO labeling nor have we provided funding for any campaign. And Starbucks is not aligned with Monsanto to stop food labeling or block Vermont State law.”

Both companies aren’t named in the lawsuit, but they are both members of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a lobbying group that filed the suit. And the truth is that Starbucks is part of the Grocery Manufacturers Association.

The Grocery Manufacturers Association is the voice of more than 300 large food, beverage and consumer product companies. But as controversy like this grows for its members, will it become a relic of the 20^th century?

A question that it starting to pop up is: Is the Grocery Manufacturers Association still delivering value to its members? Would members be better served by forming a new organization? What if a new group started? Let’s just hypothetically call it the Food Production Association, and its mission was to meet the needs of companies in the 21^st century?

A look back at the history of the Grocery Manufacturers Association suggests this might be a good idea.

Founded in 1908, the Grocery Manufacturers Association is a self-described, active, vocal advocate for its member companies and a trusted source of information about the industry and the products consumers rely on.

But do 21st century consumers actually turn to this organization today or is it a relic of the 20th century? And is it an advocate for its members?

The organization’s website goes on to say:

“A vital role of GMA is to serve as a central resource for our members, providing industry model practices and a means for collaboration between members, retailers and service providers on important challenges and opportunities facing the industry.”

The organization may have done that twenty years ago, but is it still doing that today?

The landscape of health has changed, and it is changing the landscape of food. Today, the rates of diabetes is skyrocketing, 1 in 4 children has a chronic condition, 1 in 13 children has a food allergy, 1 in 10 has asthma and 1 in 68 has autism, with cancer now the leading cause of death by disease in American children. The rates of these conditions are escalating, and parents are reading labels.

Did any of us expect motherhood or fatherhood to look like this? Not at all. No one would choose autism, life threatening food allergies or cancer. No one. But we find ourselves face to face with these conditions every day. It is changing so many things in our lives, and it is changing how we approach the grocery store.

Some companies want to spend millions of dollars debating how we got here. Parents don’t have time. Their hands are tied managing these health conditions. CNN/TIME reported that the additional costs of raising a child with food allergies is $4,200/year. Consumers want transparency and denying them basic information about what is in the food we are feeding our loved ones is out of touch.

Over the last year, more than 60 state laws have been introduced to label genetically engineered ingredients in foods. Consumers know about it, companies know about it. Companies inside the Grocery Manufacturers Association are producing product lines without these ingredients, and those product lines are profitable pieces of their portfolio. One look at the success of Kroger’s Simple Truth, “free-from” line demonstrates what a brand can do when it removes additives, GMOs, high fructose corn syrup and more.

Consumers want “free-from” food. It’s not about debating the “how” or the “why” we got here. It’s about meeting her where she stands in the aisle of the grocery store, holding onto a child with diabetes or food allergies, or shopping for parent with cancer.

Everyone is recognizing the need for food free from artificial ingredients. Panera Bread recently announced that they are pulling these ingredients from their products, Target’s Simply Balanced has committed to removing genetically engineered ingredients by the end of 2014, and Kroger is seeing record earnings growth with its Simple Truth product line, free from artificial ingredients and genetically engineered ingredients. The brand went from $0 to $1 billion in revenue in two years

So if companies that are dumping the junk are being rewarded by both consumers and the stock market, shareholders and stakeholders, what purpose does the Grocery Manufacturers Association serve by getting in the way of that? Is that in the best interest of its members?

As the Association spends record amounts filing a lawsuit against the state of Vermont which has just taken a big step towards bringing transparency to its food system for its consumers, you have to wonder if this is money well spent for its members. What if instead, these members decided to leave the organization and start another one, one that truly met their needs in the face of changing consumer demand and the changing health of American consumers. Or what if some got aggressive and filed a “loss of business” lawsuit against it given the decline that companies like Kellogg’s are seeing in sales and the resulting employee layoffs as they entrench on the GMO labeling issue?

21st century families want free-from food. It isn’t complicated, and shareholders and stakeholders are rewarding the companies that understand that and are delivering products that meet that need.

They’re not debating the science, they’re not filing lawsuits, they are simply meeting us where we stand: in the aisles of the grocery store shopping for the 1 in 3 American children that now has allergies, asthma, ADHD or autism. They are building a new food economy, becoming icons for the 21st century consumer, making the Grocery Manufacturers Association look like a relic of the 20th century.

The $2.1 trillion food, beverage and consumer packaged goods industry employs 14 million U.S. workers. As consumers opt out of food loaded with artificial ingredients, demand is growing. From 2013-2018, demand for organic is expected to grow 14%, but in the United States, less than 1% of farmland is under organic farm management which means that we have to turn to countries like China and Romania for non-GMO or organic food. We are literally outsourcing that entire economic opportunity. It is not in the interest of our food companies, our families or our farmers.

If the Grocery Manufacturers Association was true to its mission it would meet the 21st century consumer where she stands, and it would be addressing this supply chain issue for its members. But it’s not.

As it stands, it is quickly becoming a relic of the 20th century, opening the door for another industry organization to form.

Can you imagine if Kroger, Target and other retailers joined together to form the Food Production Association whose mission was to build out a clean and safe food system and to secure the supply chain for 21st century families? Instead of channeling member dollars into lawsuits, it could grow the base of US farmland under organic management, so that we don’t outsource this economic opportunity for our companies, farmers and country to our trading partners.

Cancer, autism, food allergies and other conditions we are seeing in the health of our loved ones are not “trends,” neither is the demand for transparency. American consumers have a right to know whether the EPA regulates their corn as a pesticide or not. Sixty percent of the world’s population has been given that right.

Imagine an organization for the food industry that actually focused on securing a non GMO supply chain for American companies, rather than fight this shift in consumer demand and outsource this economic opportunity to China and Romania. Here’s what a logo might look like. It’s food for thought.

If someone had ever suggested that this would be my life’s work when I was growing up in Texas, I would have laughed. As a kid, I wanted to be an architect. I was good at math. Then I went to business school and made plans to enter the finance industry. I went to work as an equity analyst on an investment team that managed billions in assets.

When our children got sick, none of it mattered, and I threw myself into protecting the health of children.

The early years of this work were so isolating that I can’t think of them and not physically remember how hard it was. It was stripping. But quitting wasn’t an option. I had learned information about our food that I couldn’t unlearn: mainly, that the United States was one of the only developed countries in the world to introduce new ingredients into its food system without informing its citizens. I also learned that our American food companies were making their products without these controversial new ingredients for families in other countries.

I could not unlearn that double standard. It challenged almost everything that I believed in.

It redefined friendships, and in that space, friends came into my life that I hope to never lose.

Fast forward, almost nine years later, and here we are on the eve of an election to label genetically engineered ingredients in our food, led by initiatives in Colorado and Oregon. Twenty eight states have introduced GMO labeling initiatives. These collective groups have brought the issue to the public. An extraordinary national team whose talents reach across industries.

To be part of such a patriotic and historic movement is inspiring.

I have no idea how tomorrow is going to shake out. I have entertained the thought: What if we win? What if a scrappy, love-fueled campaign can defeat an industry-funded $15 million one? But I truly believe that no matter what the election results are, we have already won.

We changed the conversation. A scrappy little, passionate campaign of brilliant minds forced multi-billion dollar corporations to change the way they play. We captured their shenanigans and highlighted their mistruths. We called them out when they lied, and we held together as they attacked. And we had fun. Perhaps that was the reason that so many people around the country asked: Can I vote on this? They saw what we were doing and wanted to be part of it.

We heard from moms overseas to dads in California. People sent material to us, cartoons, videos, and invited us to share our work on their sites. People we had never met from around the country cheered us on every step of the way.

There was a solidarity in it, a revolutionary patriotism that I have never felt before, and it meant a lot to all of us to be part of it.

As the campaign comes to a close and we head to the polls, it can’t pass without saying thank you. Thank you to those who have gone before us in California, Washington state, Vermont, Maine and Connecticut. We would not be where we are today without your work.

Thank you to those around the country and around the world that cheered us on.

To those that are coming after us, stand on our shoulders. We will lend our talents and expertise to your campaigns.

And to the food companies, let the chemical industry stand alone. You already label genetically engineered ingredients or make your products without them overseas. It will become increasingly hard to justify your position to your shareholders, because your shareholders have family members battling these conditions, too.

Our country is dealing with record rates of chronic conditions like allergies, autism, diabetes and now cancer. People want to know what they are eating.

Perhaps that is why it felt so patriotic: we are not one state fighting for the right to know what is in our food, we are one country. And as we work towards achieving this fundamental human right that has already been afforded to all of our key trading partners by our very own American companies, we will do it ever mindful of our future here.

Our children’s health is the foundation for the health of our country. It is in our hands to protect it, and love is a rocket fuel.

There is nothing more beautiful or patriotic that we could be doing.

Thank you to everyone around the country and around the world who joined us in this effort.

Yes on 105.