Order Robyn's newest book, Seeding Innovation: BUY IT NOW
Order Robyn's newest book, Seeding Innovation: BUY IT NOW
Menu

Food Politics

gma

With Senate Defeat of DARK Act: Is the Grocery Manufacturers Association a 20th Century Relic?

0

Recently, Campbell’s broke with the Grocery Manufacturers Association and sided with their consumers, moving towards mandatory labeling of GMOs.

This week, the Senate did the same, breaking with what has been dubbed “the DARK Act,” a bill introduced by Senator Roberts of Kansas. Interestingly, though not surprisingly, several Republicans broke from Roberts, siding with 90% of Americans who want to see GMO labeling.  For a party who strongly believes in “personal responsibility,” labels matter. No one wants to be force-fed the chemical industry’s products without their consent. Americans, especially the Republican party, believe in freedom, the market place and personal responsibility.

In the last few weeks, a growing number of companies in the Grocery Manufacturers Association have announced that they are dumping artificial ingredients from their products. It is a growing trend in the face of consumer demand.

#dumpthejunk and #labelGMOs have become the rallying cry, as a growing number of consumers call on companies to remove artificial ingredients, as we find ourselves reading labels because of diabetes, food allergies, ADHD and so much more.

So why is this happening on a one-off basis? And should the Grocery Manufacturers Association be more in touch with the 21st century consumer? And is it a conflict of interest for the GMA to now represent both the chemical industry and the food industry when their interests are no longer aligned?

As these companies remove these ingredients, one by one in a slow and often reactionary process, it’s death by a thousand cuts.

The Grocery Manufacturers Association is the voice of more than 300 leading food, beverage and consumer product companies, but will it be a relic of the 20th century?  But it increasingly appears to be a voice of the chemical industry.  It’s goals seem to be destroying the food industry: to keep consumers in the dark.  The 21st century consumer is saying the exact opposite: tell us how our food is made and what is in it.

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 21st 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?

genrxThe 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.

krogerstock-2Everyone 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.

Screen Shot 2016-03-14 at 4.37.28 PMCampbell’s recent announcement to give 21st century consumers what they are asking for, both in terms of GMO labeling and an expanded product offering in organics has been met with incredible success in the marketplace.

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, Campbell’s and other food companies 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.

fpaImagine 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. Imagine if instead of pouring millions of dollars into hiding ingredients, a new organization built out the supply chain.

Here’s what a logo might look like. It’s food for thought.  And as the Senate moves with the 21st century consumer, it’s time for the food industry to do the same and give 21st century consumers what they want.

Let the chemical companies defend their own products.

gmo labeling suppression stopped in the senate

The “DARK Act” Suffers Bipartisan Defeat in the Senate

, 0

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today a bipartisan group of senators voted to block Sen. Pat Roberts’ (R-Kan.) legislation, dubbed the Deny Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act, which would have prevented Vermont and other states from labeling genetically modified foods. The bill would have put in place a discriminatory and voluntary system reliant on QR codes, websites and toll-free numbers to disclose GMO content. A similar bill, which passed last year in the House, took away states’ rights to label and regulate GMO crops.

So many organizations, from the Environmental Working Group, to Center for Food Safety, to Just Label It to celebrities, parents and millenials strongly support mandatory GMO labeling.  In the last few weeks, Americans have been bold and courageous in their advocacy and outreach to their Senators, sharing their concerns and their strong desire to bring GMO labeling to America.

Today, it worked.

We join millions of Americans and all of these organization and applaud the senators who stood against  the DARK Act, a desperate attempt by chemical corporations to keep Americans in the dark about how our food is made and how pervasive their products have become.

Today, more than 90 percent of Americans want GMO labeling. Americans want to join the 64 countries around the world where GMOs are already labeled.  The demand is unprecedented.  As Friends of the Earth stated, “The bipartisan defeat of this bill is a testament to the strength of the movement for a truly sustainable, healthy and transparent food system.”

And we join them in urging the Senate to stand strong against any proposals that fall short of clear, on-package labels that allow Americans to make an informed choice about what they eat.

Moms need labels on their packages when they are shopping, not apps to download.  Anything less than that falls short. Anything else that suggests disclosure could come via smartphones, “QR codes”, websites or toll-free numbers discriminates against too many Americans.  We believe that all Americans have the right to know how their food is made, that all Americans deserve transparency.  We believe in liberty and justice for all, especially when it comes to our food.

Source: Friends of the Earth

The Monsanto Congress

Tell the Senate Americans Want GMO Labeling

, 0

Colin O’Neil of the Environmental Working Group sent this message out this morning. The time is now to let our senators know that they work for us rather than the biochemical lobby.

Good morning all,

As you have likely heard, Roberts filed his new version of the Senate DARK Act last night and the cloture vote will be tomorrow morning around 11.

Here is a link to the new version of the bill that was filed:  http://www.agriculture.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/3450.pdf

Attached is an updated 1-pager on the Roberts bill. In short, the new version of the DARK Act would allow companies to make voluntary disclosures through toll-free numbers and web sites for three years. At this point, USDA would determine whether 70% of the most frequently consumed packaged food had adequate disclosures. If they did not, USDA could require a mandatory solution, such as mandatory toll-free numbers or web sites. USDA would have enormous discretion and would be unlikely to require anything mandatory.

At this point the vote count is EXTREMELY CLOSE and now is the time to turn up the heat. Below you will find some talking points and relevant links.

– Colin

http://www.ewg.org/key-issues/food/dark-act-info-center

http://www.justlabelit.org/dark-act/

Americans want the Right to Know:

Dispelling GMO Labeling Myths:

  • GMO labeling will not increase food prices. Companies frequently change labels to highlight new innovations or to make new claims.
  • Voluntary labeling will not work. Companies have been allowed to make voluntary non-GMO disclosures since 2001, but consumers are more confused than ever.
  • There is no “patchwork quilt.” Current state GMO labeling laws are virtually identical, so there will be no “patchwork quilt” of different state laws. The responsible solution to concerns over a possible future patchwork would be the establishment of a uniform, national mandatory labeling standard.
  • GMO crops do not feed the world. Conventional and GMO corn and soybean yields have increased at the same rate. What’s more, U.S. farmers produce only 4 percent of rice, wheat, fruits, and vegetables, and most U.S. corn and soybeans are used for animal feed and ethanol, not food.
  • GMO crops have increased herbicide applications. Widespread adoption of GMO crops has increased annual applications of glyphosate—a probable human carcinogen—from 16 million pounds to more than 280 million pounds.
  • GMO crops have led to more toxic herbicides. As weeds have become resistant to glyphosate, farmers have turned to more toxic weed killers linked to cancer, Parkinson’s disease, and reproductive problems.

Americans want an on package disclosure for GMO foods:

  • New analysis by the digital marketing agency HZDG suggests that most consumers have not used QR—for “Quick Response—codes and aren’t likely to use them any time soon.
  • New polling data show that more than 88% of Americans want an on-package label vs. a QR code.

Locate Your Senators

ex: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington, DC 20500

antibiotics off the menu

Getting Extra Antibiotics Off the Menu

, , 0

antibiotics off the menuThis World Consumer Rights Day (March 15, 2016) we are calling on McDonald’s, KFC and Subway to make global time bound commitments to stop serving meat from animals routinely given antibiotics used in human medicine.

Antibiotic resistance is one of the biggest threats to global health facing us today. Around half of the antibiotics produced globally are used in agriculture, with much of this being used to make animals grow faster and to prevent rather than treat disease. Along with addressing overconsumption of antibiotics in human medicine and promoting the development of new drugs, changes in farming practices are urgently needed.

Multinational restaurant chains with global supply networks are in a strong position to drive changes faster than legislation alone. McDonald’s and Subway have already made commitments in North America; unfortunately, this isn’t enough. The scale and reach of the problem demand worldwide action, which is why a global, timebound commitment is needed. Join us in calling on McDonalds, Subway and KFC to act globally to get #AntibioticsOfftheMenu.

 

censored laboratory

USDA Called Out by 50 Groups for Censoring Science

, 0

Today, a coalition of over 50 consumer, agriculture and environmental groups sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture expressing growing concerns over the alleged suppression, harassment, and censorship of agency scientists, particularly with regard to research showing harms to pollinators from certain pesticides—a controversial topic in the agriculture community.

It is understandable how deep this concern goes, as food security is a national security issue, especially in light of the escalating rates of diseases in the United States.

According to the President’s Cancer Panel, 41% of Americans are now expected to get cancer in their lifetimes. The Centers for Disease Control reports that cancer is now the leading cause of death by disease in American children, with pediatric cancer rates escalating.

followmoneyIf we’ve learned anything from the tobacco industry and what came to be known as “tobacco science,” industry can financially engineer the science as much as they genetically engineer the food.

As this ‘he said/she said’ scientific debate continues, it is even more important to follow the money.

It is also critical to the health of our families, our country and our economy that American consumers have complete transparency into how their food is made, if it’s been genetically engineered and how much of these pesticides and weed killers now called “probable carcinogens” are being applied to their foods.

USDA urged to reform scientific integrity policy after allegations of scientific censorship

WASHINGTON, D.C. — As scrutiny of censorship of federal scientists has grown—including a feature in Sunday’s The Washington Post Magazine—a coalition of more than 50 sustainable agriculture, environmental, beekeeper, and public interest organizations is once again pressing the agency for overdue reforms. The coalition sent a follow-up letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture today expressing growing concerns over the alleged suppression, harassment, and censorship of agency scientists, particularly with regard to research showing harms to pollinators from certain pesticides — a controversial topic in the agriculture community. As a result, the groups are urging the USDA to publicly investigate these allegations, and make immediate binding reforms to the agency’s scientific integrity policy.

In October 2015, Dr. Jonathan Lundgren, a senior scientist at the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service, filed a whistleblower complaint charging the agency with suppression of research findings that challenged the safety and efficacy of a widely used class of pesticides, neonicotinoids. In the letter sent today, the groups and their millions of members are calling on USDA to 1) conduct a thorough investigation into the matter, 2) make the investigation publicly available once it is complete, 3) take any necessary steps to ensure that the USDA maintains scientific integrity moving forward, and 4) request that an independent, third party conduct an investigation into this issue

The story in The Washington Post Magazine also highlights issues of the lack of scientific integrity at the agency, pointing to retaliation against other scientists, most whom have remained anonymous fearing reprisal. One former USDA scientist now speaking out, Jeffrey Pettis, says he was told by a member of Congress that he “hadn’t followed the script” at a congressional hearing meant to focus on mites without bringing up issues of pesticides.

In contrast, an internal scientific integrity review panel at the USDA recently rejected the complaint of scientific suppression by Lundgren, claiming that agency had not violated its scientific integrity policies. In February 2016, USDA Inspector General Phyllis Fong said the USDA will open a broad investigation into the issue of scientific censorship, but did not specify whether the investigation would be made publicly available.

Earlier last year, the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility filed a citizen petition requesting that the USDA adopt new policies that would further protect the ability of government scientists to evaluate and communicate freely about the safety of agricultural chemicals without political interference or fear of retaliation. PEER reported that more than ten USDA scientists have faced consequences or investigations when their work called into question the health and safety of agricultural chemicals. The global neonicotinoid insecticide industry sells more than $2.6 billion annually.

“The USDA has a responsibility to protect the health and safety of the American public and to ensure the long-term viability and sustainability of the environment and our natural resources. It is imperative that we are able to trust that our government and its employees serve the public interest rather than private corporations,” said the groups.

Lundgren and Pettis are not alone in their experiences of research suppression. “The challenges are significant for scientists just trying to do their jobs,” said Evaeggelos Vallianatos, PhD, a former scientist for the EPA and the author of the book Poison Spring: The Secret History of Pollution and the EPA. He also documented the challenges federal agency scientists face standing up for their research and speaking out, in the face of political pressure. “Senior managers have expectations and scientists know the consequences of not being a good ‘team player’, despite the undermining of scientific integrity.”

Groups submitting today’s letter continue to urge federal agencies to strengthen scientific integritiy policies — and follow the science to protect bees and other pollinators. The White House Task Force on Pollinator Health was established as part of a Presidential Memorandum, issued by President Obama in June 2014; it called for a federal strategy to protect pollinators and mandated the EPA and the USDA, as co-chairs of the Task Force, to assess the effect of pesticides, including neonicotinoids, on bees and other pollinators and take action where necessary. Recent allegations of the USDA’s censorship and suppression of scientific research on pesticides calls into question the agency’s ability to co-chair this task force and develop a meaningful federal strategy that will truly protect bees, birds, monarchs, and other critical pollinators.

Republished from Friends of the Earth.

 

glyphosate rebellion

The EU Glyphosate Rebellion Grows

, 0

More bad news for Monsanto from Europe as reported by Sustainable Pulse:

Countries across the European Union have now joined the Great Glyphosate Rebellion that was started late last week by France, Sweden and the Netherlands.

According to anonymous Sustainable Pulse sources in Brussels, Bulgaria, Denmark, Austria, Belgium and Italy, among others, are set to also vote against the re-approval of the World’s most used herbicide in the EU and Germany are set to abstain.

Reuters reported late Monday that the vote planned for Tuesday on the re-approval of glyphosate until 2031 will now most likely be postponed, leaving the possibility of a glyphosate herbicides legal limbo, as the current approval of the chemical is set to end in June 2016.

In an amazing week in Europe GM Watch also reported that Europe’s health and food safety commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis has indicated that his directorate, DG SANTE, is exploring the possibility of full transparency for industry studies on pesticides.

This move has shaken the pesticide industry to the core as currently the industry studies submitted to support regulatory authorisations of pesticides are kept secret under commercial confidentiality agreements with regulators. Andriukaitis has said that this needs to change.

Public pressure against glyphosate in countries across Europe has been intense, with nearly 1.5 million people petitioning Andriukaitis, for a ban on the substance.

After a Dutch parliament vote opposing the renewal of glyphosate’s permit, the Netherlands called on Saturday for a postponement of the EU-wide decision. “If there is no possibility to postpone the vote, then we will vote against the proposal,” said Marcel van Beusekom, a spokesman for the Netherlands agriculture ministry.

The move by Sweden and the Netherlands followed the announcement on Friday by French Minister of Ecology Ségolène Royal that France will vote against the EU re-licensing of glyphosate.

Royal also added that France was not backing the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on their recent safety assessment of glyphosate and was instead basing their decision on the report of  the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2015, which declared glyphosate to be a probable human carcinogen.

The Swedish environment minister, Åsa Romson, said: “We won’t take risks with glyphosate and we don’t think that the analysis done so far is good enough. We will propose that no decision is taken until further analysis has been done and the EFSA scientists have been more transparent about their considerations.”

Romson added: “We are raising concerns because our citizens are raising concerns. They want to feel safe and secure with food and production in our society.”

This move by France and their EU partners will hit the biotech giant Monsanto and other large pesticide companies which rely on glyphosate-based herbicides for a large percentage of their global profits. Glyphosate is now the most widely and heavily applied weed-killer in the history of chemical agriculture globally.

 

food waste

Beyond the Marketing: Are GMOs Feeding the World or Fueling Food Waste?

, , 0

One of the most compelling promises that the biotech industry makes to justify the need for their products  (genetically engineered crops and the portfolio of chemicals needed to grow them) are that these ingredients are needed to feed the world.

It’s a compelling argument, but is it true?

According to Business Week, “the issue isn’t so much that we can’t grow enough. Rather, existing food supplies are so poorly distributed that those hundreds of millions have too little for their own health, while 2 billion-plus have too much.” On top of that, a third of food is wasted worldwide, spoiled and thrown out before it even reaches consumers.

As Business Week shares, it turns out that “after millennia when the biggest food-related threat to humanity was the risk of having too little, the 21st century is one where the fear is having too much”.

It’s not just a domestic problem here in the U.S.  It’s a global one.

In the U.S., we waste and toss out almost 40% of our food, racking up $165 billion in losses each year.

Let’s step back and think about this for a minute, not just from the comfort of our homes here in the United States, but as a global issue.

How could that food be put to better use?  And do genetically engineered crops impact this issue?

The chemical industry is busy manufacturing demand for their products by claiming that we need them – their genetically engineered seeds and the portfolio of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers needed to grow them – to feed the world.  It’s their job and a strong marketing strategy.

But are they using scare tactics to get us to believe that we need their genetically engineered, chemically dependent products in order to feed the world.  Are we really facing mass starvation without them? Or is this fear-based?

Most of these genetically engineered crops are grown to be fed to livestock.  Some goes into ethanol and ends up in our cars.  But has it contributed to the global obesity epidemic and food waste?

It turns out that just might be the case.

We are wasting enough food every day here in America to feed the hungry. And while much focus has been on the obesity epidemic, it is becoming increasingly hard to ignore the fact that with advertisements and food access available 24/7, we’ve got more food than we know what to do with.

According to both the USDA and United Nations, 30-40% of food is wasted.  MSNBC just reported that “Food Waste is a Massive Problem.”

Nearly one-third of the fruit, vegetables, grains, meat, and packaged foods produced across the globe gets tossed out every year.

Americans throw away an average of 20 pounds of food each month — costing them each between $28 and $43.

One of the most insightful disclosures of just how bad this food waste and excess of commodity crops has gotten is documented in the movie, Dive! The Film, a film made with Jeremy Seifert and Josh Kunau, that highlights exactly what goes into dumpsters in America. And it is shocking what we throw away.

This 45-minute documentary follows Seifert and his friends as they explore the alleys and backstreets of America’s grocery stores in search of good food tossed away because of overly cautious expiration dates. These guys don’t mess around. They suit right up in their bathing suits and dive right in…to America’s dumpsters, and turn up some of the most amazing information.

Americans throw away 96 billion pounds of food every year, or 27 percent of the total amount of available food. That’s 3,000 pounds of food a second.

But it’s not just us tossing those PB&J crusts out, the main line of food waste tends to be coming out the back end of the grocery stores. And the film shows that a frightening amount ends up being tossed by grocery stores before it can be purchased by consumers.

Now that’s good news for the food industry, as it creates a constant state of demand for their products.

Screen Shot 2016-03-07 at 1.01.52 PMBut what if we were to figure out a better business model, designed to deliver all of the food we need without wasting over a quarter of it? What if our taxpayer dollars were used to build a distribution model to get this food to people who need it, like the 1 in 4 American children at-risk for hunger, rather than on farm subsidies which are arguably contributing to this mounting waste?

We have an opportunity to actually build a better food system, one that creates less waste and more nutrient-dense foods. Wouldn’t that be in the best interest in the health of our families, our corporations, our economy and our country?

In the meantime, what can consumers do?

  • Mine your fridge
  • Use your freezer
  • Get creative with leftovers
  • Compost
  • Take smaller portions
  • Join the campaigns happening in grocery stores around the country and around the world, selling “ugly” fruits and veggies at a discount.

This isn’t just an American issue.  Food waste is a global problem.  If you are interested in learning more, please visit: http://divethefilm.com/

 

France Pushes for a Ban on Glyphosate

France Pushes for a Ban on Glyphosate Herbicides in Europe

, , 0

There is more bad news for Monsanto this week, after the company guided their earnings numbers down. While the initial spin was that the earnings revision had to do with currency, a declining appetite for their products is also at play.

And while the EU and the USA try to figure out this game of “he said/she said” science when it comes to the safety of Monsanto’s products, France did not hesitate to move, as reported here:

Following a meeting with EU Health Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis on Friday, French Minister of Ecology, Ségolène Royal, announced that France will vote against the EU re-licensing of glyphosate, the world’s most used herbicide.

Royal also added that France was not backing the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on their recent safety assessment of glyphosate and was instead basing their decision on the report of  the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2015, which declared glyphosate to be a probable human carcinogen.

This move by France will hit the biotech giant Monsanto and other large pesticide companies which rely on glyphosate-based herbicides for a large percentage of their global profits.

Andriukaitis meanwhile confirmed that member states would discuss the regulation of glyphosate in the days to come and also added, in a very important shift in EU policy; “I commit to working with the member states to draw up a list of co-formulants in pesticides that could pose a health risk.” This is another statement that will shake the Biotech industry to the core, as previously all regulators worldwide have completely ignored the possible health risks of co-formulants, otherwise known as adjuvants or non-active ingredients in pesticides.

There is growing opposition to the re-licensing from top scientists, NGOs and MEPs. On Friday a group of 94 top scientists published an article explaining the differences in the evaluation of the weedkiller glyphosate’s cancer-causing potential by EFSA and WHO. They found that EFSA, which supported the re-licensing of glyphosate had a number of deficiencies in their report.

All this comes just days after six environmental NGOs (Global 2000, PAN Europe, PAN UK, Generations Futures, Nature et Progrès Belgique and Wemove.EU) from five European countries filed a formal legal complaint against those responsible for the assessment of glyphosate in Europe, for denying the probable carcinogenic effects of the chemical.

France isn’t the only country moving to get rid of glyphosate. Scotland, the country that Monsanto’s CEO Hugh Grant comes from, is also moving to reduce citizens’ exposure to the chemical.

On news that the company had to revise earnings, Monsanto’s shares were down 8% at close on Tuesday. More interestingly, perhaps, is that the volume of shares traded was almost 3 times the 3 month average. On Tuesday, over 10 million shares traded hands.

Keep an eye on the policy and on the financial engineering of the science and numbers. There is a lot on the line.

 

UKHostessLabel

To Our Senate: The Countries that Label GMOs (& How Hostess Labels Them)

, 1

Today, the Senate Ag Committee voted to take away Americans right to know if their foods contain genetically engineered ingredients. They also voted to take away the rights of states that were trying to step in and label GMOs.

Do members of the Senate not know that companies like Hostess already label GMOs in other countries? Do they not know that all of our American food companies label GMOs overseas, despite saying that they can’t label GMOs because it’s too expensive?

Hostess labels its Ding Dongs overseas, Doritos are labeled, Coca Cola labels its sodas, as seen in this image from a London grocery store, sent by a flight attendant who works for Delta.

American food companies already label GMOs overseas. Food prices didn’t skyrocket. Families weren’t priced out of Twinkies, farmers didn’t go over because of the labeled Ding Dong, they simply added a few words “Derived from a genetically modified source.”

Why? Because it is simple. American food companies added these labels for 60% of the world’s population.

Here is a list of countries that label GMOs:

  1. Australia
  2. Austria
  3. Belarus
  4. Belgium
  5. Bolivia
  6. Bosnia and Herzegovina
  7. Brazil
  8. Bulgaria
  9. Cameroon
  10. China
  11. Croatia
  12. Cyprus
  13. Czech Republic
  14. Denmark
  15. Ecuador
  16. El Salvador
  17. Estonia
  18. Ethiopia
  19. Finland
  20. France
  21. Germany
  22. Greece
  23. Hungary
  24. Iceland
  25. India
  26. Indonesia
  27. Ireland
  28. Italy
  29. Japan
  30. Jordan
  31. Kazakhstan
  32. Kenya
  33. Latvia
  34. Lithuania
  35. Luxembourg
  36. Malaysia
  37. Mali
  38. Malta
  39. Mauritius
  40. Netherlands
  41. New Zealand
  42. Norway
  43. Peru
  44. Poland
  45. Portugal
  46. Romania
  47. Russia
  48. Saudi Arabia
  49. Senegal
  50. Slovakia
  51. Slovenia
  52. South Africa
  53. South Korea
  54. Spain
  55. Sri Lanka
  56. Sweden
  57. Switzerland
  58. Taiwan
  59. Thailand
  60. Tunisia
  61. Turkey
  62. Ukraine
  63. United Kingdom
  64. Vietnam

The double standard has to stop. Please share this, so that all Americans (and our Senators) can know this information, too.

 

7393130104_6dae15952b_b_lobbyist

Big Food and Big Biotech Have Spent Almost $200 Million Opposing GMO Labeling

, 0

Here is an amazing report issued by the Environmental Working Group.

Big food, farm and biotechnology companies and trade associations working to prevent labeling of food containing genetically engineered ingredients reported spending $101.4 million on lobbying last year.

As the fight over GMO labeling heats up this year, spending trends on Washington’s K Street point sharply higher.

The food companies that spent the most last year for anti-GMO-labeling legislation and other issues were Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Kellogg’s, Kraft Heinz Co., Land O’Lakes and General Mills. Disclosures filed by these companies reported $20.6 million in expenditures on K Street lobbying to fight GMO labeling and other legislative priorities.

Since 2013, the same six companies have spent a whopping $47.9 million to lobby against GMO labeling, among other issues.

cross-board
Source: Environmental Working Group. Compiled from Center for Responsive Politics and lobbying disclosure forms filed with the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Secretary of the U.S. Senate. Click the image above to view an interactive chart.

The Grocery Manufacturers Association, a trade group that represents food manufacturers, filed disclosures reporting $10.5 million in lobbying expenditures last year for the anti-labeling battle and other GMA legislative priorities. An EWG analysis of the group’s disclosure forms revealed that since January 2014 it had hired 34 lobbyists and spent $2.8 million on lobbying that went exclusively to advocate anti-GMO-labeling legislation.

gma-gma
Source: Environmental Working Group. Compiled from Center for Responsive Politics and lobbying disclosure forms filed with the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Secretary of the U.S. Senate.

All told, since 2013, the food, farm and biotech industries have disclosed spending $192.8 million for lobbying to influence federal GMO labeling legislation and for other issues.

The amount food, farm and biotech corporations and trade groups spend on K Street lobbying has risen sharply. Last year’s total exceeded $100 million for the first time, a steep increase compared to $66 million spent in 2014 and $25.4 million in 2013.

EWG’s analysis is based on documents filed with the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Secretary of the U.S. Senate. It counted filings that mentioned GMO labeling legislation among various policy issues and not those that made no reference to the topic.

Three states –Vermont, Connecticut and Maine — have enacted laws that require food makers to label products that contain GMO ingredients.  The Vermont law is scheduled to take effect July 1. The Connecticut and Maine laws are designed to take effect when other northeastern states pass similar legislation.  Another 17 states are considering labeling requirements.

Food, farm and biotech industries have lined up behind a bill introduced by Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan..  Critics have dubbed it the Deny Americans the Right to Know – or DARK – Act. It passed the House of Representatives last July by a vote of 230 to 45.  Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan.,  introduced a companion measure in the Senate earlier last week.

Roberts’ version of the DARK Act would bar states from enacting laws to require GMO labeling and make it harder for companies like Campbell’s to make voluntary GMO disclosures. Pompeo’s version would also block state laws prohibiting “natural” on advertising and labels of GMO foods, and make it virtually impossible for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to set up a mandatory national GMO labeling system.

Both bills claim that “voluntary” GMO labeling is the solution to consumer confusion sowed by decades of misleading food claims. But, Pompeo and Roberts’ logic is puzzling: food manufacturers can make “GMO-free” claims today if they so choose and have been able to do so since 2001.

Anti-GMO-labeling spending for lobbying has dwarfed that of GMO labeling advocates, who disclosed that they spent $6.6 million last year, $2.6 million in 2014 and under $1 million in 2013. Since 2013, industry lobbyists have outspent GMO labeling advocates by over 2100%.

In a related development, EWG calculates that food and biotech companies and trade associations have spent nearly $200 million to oppose state GMO labeling ballot initiatives. When combined with Washington lobbying expenditures that mention GMO labeling, the total amount spent by labeling opponents is close to $400 million. This estimate does not include lobbying expenditures in state legislatures.

anti_pro
Source: Environmental Working Group. Compiled from Center for Responsive Politics and lobbying disclosure forms filed with the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Secretary of the U.S. Senate.

GMO labeling garners overwhelming support from Americans. Polls show that nine of 10 Americans support mandatory GMO food labeling.

The practice is widely accepted internationally: Some 64 other nations have labeling laws.

Labeling foods that contain GMOs has not increased food prices in those nations that require such disclosures.  Studies show that a simple GMO disclosure on food labels will have no impact on food prices or food .

 

Photo by Glyn Lowe Photoworks.

Load More