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

GMOs

qr code gmo labeling

Monsanto Pushes Their “Support” for GMO Labeling

, 0

The Senate is dealing with the issue of GMO labeling again, with Monsanto pushing their “support” for GMO labeling with QR “smart codes” instead of plain English on the package.

Monsanto’s version of “support” would require every consumer to use a smart phone, an app and to scan every product that they are considering for purchase in order to learn whether or not the product contains genetically engineered ingredients. It’s bogus, as American food companies are already labeling genetically engineered ingredients on their packages overseas and beginning to do the same on their packages, in plain English, here in the United States (finally!).

The Monsanto bill is just more of the same: an attempt to cover up and hide their products from consumers who are demanding to know what is really in our foods. Watch the video then call your Senator at 1-877-796-1949 to say you OPPOSE these new efforts by Monsanto to limit our right to know what’s in our food.

GMO labeling with QR codes

A New Video Shows Why QR Codes for GMO Labeling Are Useless

0

QR Codes proposed for GMO labeling
QR Code

Ever heard of a QR code? It’s those weird looking little squares with black and white squiggly lines and no words. You then use an app to scan them into your phone, and they tell you the hidden information that they contain.

A handful of companies think this is a great way to tell you about the ingredients in your food.

Not the most efficient way to get information.

It turns out that a handful of out-of-touch politicians in DC think these are a good idea for labeling GMO ingredients. A good idea for whom? The biotech industry or the chemical companies? The soda companies who still refuse to label GMOs and keep sneaking them into their cans?

I’m not sure when the last time they set foot in a grocery store was, but those pushing this agenda obviously have no idea how 21st century consumers shop.

Have you ever tried to download an app in a grocery store? Or response to something on your phone with little kids in tow? Can you imagine scanning in every single item you placed in your grocery cart, provided that you actually had your phone within reach and actually could get wi-fi reception in the store?

Any suggestion that this is a solution is just another attempt to keep us in the dark about GMO ingredients in our food.

Americans need labels to read when they shop, not apps to download. And if the food industry can spend the money on launching a new app and applying these new QR codes to their products, they can add the simple words “Made with GMOs.”

QR codes are a joke, and this new video from Just Label It does a great job of showing just how difficult it would be for consumers to scan a code every time they pick something up at a store.

Americans need to be able to see, at a glance, whether or not their food contains GMO ingredients. Our own food companies have already labeled GMOs on their products overseas. General Mills, Campbells, ConAgra, Kellogg’s and others are already putting words on their packages here.

So whose interest are these QR codes protecting? It looks like it’s big soda and big biotech.

#dumpthejunk #labelGMOs

 

GMO Labeling

A Bogus GMO Labeling Scheme that America Can Not Afford

, 0

A few months ago, the Senate released the newest version of the DARK Act, a piece of legislation that is anti-consumer, anti-transparency, and anti-labeling. It is a bill that is backed by Monsanto, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, and a dwindling number of food companies that are still trying to keep consumers in the dark.

This group, firmly entrenched in the past, has proposed voluntary electronic or QR code for consumers to scan with their smartphones to find out if their food contains genetically-modified ingredients.  What’s a “QR code”? Those black and white squares you see on packaging without any words.

There is no way that this is a solution, and several of us flew to DC a few weeks later to meet with Republicans and Democrats to discuss how anti-American this proposed legislation is.

Well, apparently, it’s back.

This “compromise” is a high-tech gimmick to keep Americans in the dark about what’s really in their food. Thankfully, a petition launched to urge the Senate to reject this confusing scheme and require simple, mandatory GMO labels.

Please reach out to your local Senator (link below).  Many of them have kids and grandkids, too. Talk about it in a way that resonates with them as parents.

If you’re not sure what an electronic or QR code is, you’re not alone. The processed and junk food lobby knows consumers won’t know how or won’t take the time to scan every label in the grocery store. It is only something identifiable with a smart phone.

And those who don’t own smartphones — especially disadvantaged and marginalized communities, and rural America — won’t have the ability to find out if their food contains GMO ingredients at all.

“With liberty and justice for all” or just those with smart phones?

This is not equal, and we should not stand for it.

This proposal by the the processed and junk food lobby is unacceptable. Campbell’s knows it and recently broke with the industry to demand mandatory GMO labeling for all Americans.  Since then, General Mills, ConAgra, Kellogg’s, Mars and others have joined and already labeled their products if they contain GMOs.

So whose interests is the Grocery Manufacturers Association protecting? Certainly not American consumers, when these ingredients are labeled around the world, in China, India, Russia, across Europe, Japan, Australia, the UK, and on and on.

We must ensure the Senate acts in the interest of all Americans who want GMO food labeled.  We must ensure that the chemical corporations making these products are held accountable.

Intel is happy to promote their products with the campaign “Intel Inside.” It’s time for the chemical companies to do the same.

If food companies can add a “QR code” square to the package without added costs, they can add the words “made with genetically engineered ingredients.”  As a matter of fact, General Mills, Campbells, Kellogg’s, Mars and ConAgra already are.

Sign the petition: Tell the Senate to reject voluntary electronic GMO labeling and require clear, mandatory, on-package GMO labels.

Also use our Congress Lookup tool to directly contact your representatives.

 

 

dannon

Dannon Commits to a Non-GMO Future

, 0

Today yogurt maker Dannon announced their commitment to 21st century customers by responding to calls for food free-from GMOs. Dannon announced that they are going non-GMO with their products.

For the last few years, I have been giving a presentation to corporations and investors called “The New Food Economy.” In it, I highlight how this demand for free-from is not a trend or a “fad” but rather a fundamental shift in food consumption for 21st century families now dealing with diabetes, food allergies, cancer, autism and other conditions and diseases. There is so much data to support this, and when it is presented accurately, it creates a fundamental understanding.

Dannon now understand that this demand is no longer a fad or a trend. According to President and CEO of The Dannon Company, Mariano Lozano, “Our ambition is to produce healthy food that is affordable, creates economic and social value and nurtures natural ecosystems through sustainable agriculture.

It is exciting to see large companies responding to customer demand. It is also very smart to meet the 21st century consumer where she stands, in the grocery store shopping for someone she loves who is now looking for cleaner food.

The full announcement is below.

dannonpledgeWHITE PLAINS, N.Y.—The nation’s leading yogurt maker, Dannon, today announced a pledge to its farmers, retail customers and consumers to further improve sustainable agriculture practices for its milk supply, to increase transparency for its portfolio of products and evolve to more natural and fewer ingredients for flagship brands.

Dannon’s Pledge key components:

  • Dannon commits to offer products coming from a more sustainable agriculture by working with its dairy farmer partners and their suppliers to progressively implement the use of sustainable agriculture practices and technology that leads to better soil health, better water management, an increase in biodiversity, and a decrease in carbon emission.
  • Dannon commits to bring all products from three flagship brands (Dannon®, Oikos® and Danimals®) towards the use of fewer and more natural ingredients that are not synthetic and non-GMO. Importantly, Dannon also commits that for these brands the feed of its farmers’ cows will be non-GMO, within a transition period of 3 years. The ambition is to evolve the remaining brands over time.
  • To ensure full transparency for consumers, Dannon also commits to declare by December 2017 nationwide on label the presence of GMO ingredients in its products. In the meantime, if one state implements a GMO labeling requirement, since Dannon favors a nationwide labeling system, it will label the presence of GMOs nationwide according to the state requirements.

The first impact of these changes will be visible starting July 2016, when the company will move to more natural ingredients which do not contain genetically modified ingredients for its flagship brands Oikos, Danimals and Dannon. These brands represent 50 percent of the company’s current volume. For the company’s foundation ingredient – milk – Dannon is going one big step further. Starting in 2017 and completing the transformation by the end of 2018, Dannon will work with its farmer partners to ensure that the cows that supply Dannon’s milk for these flagship products will be fed non-GMO feed, a first for a leading non-organic yogurt maker. To further improve transparency, by December 2017, Dannon’s labels will note the presence of GMO ingredients in all products in which such ingredients remain. Looking further into the future, Dannon’s ambition is to also evolve the other brands in its portfolio, beyond Dannon, Oikos and Danimals, over time.

The changes will enable consumers to make everyday choices for themselves, their family and children consistent with their wish for natural and sustainable eating options, choosing which agricultural and environmental model they favor.

The broad pledge started with the relationships the company has forged with its dairy farmers. Dannon began to evolve its milk supply model in 2010 to work directly with the farms that provide its milk. “We created a new way to work with dairy farmers to improve our shared sustainability priorities,” said Mariano Lozano, President and CEO of The Dannon Company. “Our ambition is to produce healthy food that is affordable, creates economic and social value and nurtures natural ecosystems through sustainable agriculture. Although our journey is independent from that of our organic sister companies, we have learned a lot from and are inspired by Stonyfield and Happy Family.”

As expressed in the company’s pledge, Dannon’s priorities for agriculture focus on soil, water, biodiversity, carbon and energy, and animal welfare. Dannon has already started work on the first phase of its commitment by encouraging practices, such as rotating crops, managing fertilizer, pesticide and herbicide application in the production of feed for a portion of the cows providing the company’s milk supply.

“Dannon’s pledge to use more sustainable agricultural practices with their producer-partners will drive innovation and improvements and represents a bold and important step toward greater transparency,” said Dr. Molly Jahn, Agronomy Professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and former Deputy Under Secretary of Research, Education and Economics at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. “Dannon’s leadership in sustainability sets an ambitious benchmark for other dairy companies.”

Ken McCarty of McCarty Family Farms, which has been a farmer partner to Dannon since 2011, added, “We’re proud of the partnership we have with Dannon. It’s uncommon in the dairy industry to have such a close working relationship with a milk buyer. Not only does it give us reliability in the market, it gives us reliability for our families and our community. And it encourages all of Dannon’s farmer partners to convert to practices that better serve our natural resources and environment.”

Recognizing the importance of the pledge, Dannon is inviting others to join them in support of the pledge. To learn more about the pledge, visit www.DannonPledge.com.

“It’s our mission to bring health through food to as many people as possible,” said Lozano. “And it’s our passion to help people enjoy the benefits of yogurt every day in a sustainable way. While this commitment is ambitious, we believe it’s necessary to continue to serve Americans using a sustainable and transparent model.”

 

gmo label

GMO Labels are NOT Meaningless

, , 0

“GMO Labels are Meaningless!” proclaims a Los Angeles Times Op Ed headline published on April 14, 2016. The piece authored by Dr. Henry Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, exposes a hubris common in the biotechnology world. He claims, “Labels will appear on an illogical hodgepodge of new and old products that will in no way indicate risk, safety, quality or anything else that is meaningful.”

However, a growing coalition of farmers, scientists, environmental groups, consumers, and retailers disagree. Dr. Miller forgets that how we grow food matters, not just the science that gets us the seed.

GMO and Impact on Farming

Dr. Miller ridicules the proponents of GMO labeling but fails to address a major concern of consumers. Genetic engineering in food continues to be plagued with doubts and reservations because the most profound impact of genetic engineering in agriculture allows plants to either resist the action of the herbicide glyphosate, or the plant is engineered to produce its own pesticide.

The direct harm from farming practices linked with growing GMO crops includes loss of organic matter, disturbed soil ecology, decrease in carbon sequestration, compromised water aggregates and filtration, weed resistance, and risk of disease to farm workers directly attributed to pesticides and other endocrine disruptors.

glyphosate-exposure-chartAccording to Charles Benbrook glyphosate use in the agricultural sector rose 300-fold from 1974 to 2014. Benbrook also reports increasing use of glyphosate as a harvest aid for wheat, barley, edible beans, and a few other crops, with the impact of increasing residues of glyphosate in the food supply.

A growing number of farmers, the unsung scientists working the land, have figured out that chemically intensive agriculture compromises their soil and everything to do with yield. They are buying more non-GMO seed. Others are merely responding to price premiums driven by consumer demand.

Consumer Demand Increases with Increasing Glyphosate Residues in Food

Dr. Miller conveniently ignores concerns voiced by fellow physicians and scientists regarding potential risks with increasing residues of glyphosate in food. Benbrook documents Monsanto’s success in convincing the EPA to allow for substantial increases in glyphosate tolerance levels in several crops, as well as in animal forages from those crops. Greater tolerance levels results in greater residues of glyphosate measured in the food supply, but not by the folks who should be doing the testing.

A Civil Eats article published in February 17, 2016 exposes rather arrogant policies at both the FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Government Accounting Office found that while both agencies routinely conduct testing for the residues of hundreds of pesticides in food, “both agencies routinely skip testing for glyphosate claiming such testing is too expensive and not needed to protect public health.”

GMO’s, Increasing Use of Glyphosate, and Health

glyphosate-exposureA few intrepid researchers plot the increased use of glyphosate with increasing incidence of disease. Despite Monsanto’s efforts to discredit the scientists, they publish their findings and summarize their concerns with broad statements, such as “Glyphosate disrupts the endocrine system and the balance of gut bacteria, it damages DNA and is a driver of mutations that lead to cancer.”

In the meantime, bureaucrats dither while consumers push back. There is a reason organic sales continue to increase by double digit percentages every year. Business is merely responding to consumer demand.

Consumers Voting with Their Dollars

Dr. Miller seems rather appalled that large food companies have stepped up to label food products using genetically modified ingredients in accordance to Vermont legislation. He complains that Vermont legislation will require GMO labels on as much as 75% of supermarket offerings—as if that’s a problem.

In essence, Dr Miller exposes a disconcerting lack of perspective when he states, “What is important is the function of the genetic change.” Much like the CEO of Monsanto, Dr. Miller needs to step down from his biotechnology high horse and consider how growing genetically modified crop impacts the food chain, the environment, and entire ecosystems.

American consumers overwhelmingly voice support for GMO labeling. With GMO labeling they will know more about the extent to which genetically modified corn, soy, sugar beet and canola can be found in the food supply.

To Dr. Miller’s consternation, consumers will probably continue to vote with their dollars regardless of biotechnology’s claims of safety for one simple reason. The science regarding everything meaningful isn’t settled at all.

 

rachel parent, gmo labeling advocate

Teenage GMO Labeling Campaigner Rachel Parent Interviews the CEO of Canada’s Largest Grocery Chain

0

Our children inspire us in countless ways, but when one comes along and revolutionizes how a country looks at its foods, you realize that you are looking at a leader. Rachel Parent is a Canadian teenager who has changed the conversation around food labeling. Her interview with Kevin O’Leary went viral, and she has lobbied for the health of her country for years. She shares her recent experience in the interview below.

Rona Ambrose, the former Canadian health minister, once told me that GMO labelling was a matter of corporate responsibility. So I was excited when I got the chance to meet Galen Weston Jr, the executive chairman and president of Loblaw, a huge grocery chain across Canada that owns the “President’s Choice” brand. The brand is known for its emphasis on quality as well as affordability.

Mr Weston is a busy man with lots on his plate. But on 14 January he was kind enough to spend 45 minutes with me to discuss trends in the grocery industry and the directions that Loblaw is taking.

I asked him a range of questions, and was happy with some of the answers, but not so happy with others. Some of his replies seemed to support transparency in food labelling, but others sounded like statements that we often hear from the big agribusiness and biotech companies – such as, “We haven’t seen any evidence that GMOs aren’t safe” and “GMOs are doing a lot of good, such as reducing the use of pesticides.” I think the evidence says otherwise: for example, herbicide sales have increased in Canada by 130% since the introduction of GMOs.

One of my questions was, “If the government were considering mandatory GMO labelling, would Loblaw support, or at least, not oppose it?” I was happy to hear Mr Weston say that they would not oppose it.  This question was important to me, because in 2001, as Mr Weston recalled, Loblaw introduced the President’s Choice Organics line, but at the time ordered its suppliers to remove GMO-free labels from products.

I mentioned that there was a lot of momentum for mandatory GMO labelling and that it would likely happen within a year or two. I was encouraged by Mr Weston’s response: “I think you’re right. The drum beat is building.”

I was curious about Loblaw’s position on the genetically modified salmon, especially since their sustainable seafood program aims to preserve our precious marine life. This salmon is the first ever genetically modified animal intended for eating. It was engineered with genes from the Chinook salmon and the ocean pout, an eel-like creature.Despite company assurances that the GM salmon will be sterile and kept contained, there are concerns that neither can be guaranteed. So any GM salmon that escape may reproduce and have the potential to contaminate and wipe out our wild ocean salmon, something that could seriously affect the ocean environment. I was disappointed with his reply that they were watching it and hadn’t yet decided whether they would sell it or not.

Unfortunately his response was the same for the GM “Arctic” apple. This apple has been genetically modified so it will not brown for at least 15 days once it has been sliced open. Who needs a non-browning GM apple when we already have the non-GM slow browning Ambrosia apple? Or perhaps we could just use a little lemon juice, right? Simple enough! Also, the Arctic apple contains gene-silencing technology designed to turn off the genes that cause browning – but we don’t know what else those genes might do. For example, they might make the apple more vulnerable to pests or diseases. And the apple has not been tested for possible toxicity or allergenicity, as far as I know.

My conclusion? Loblaw has been more proactive than most grocery chains to date on some issues. For example, it’s great that the President’s Choice brand will be free of artificial colours and flavours. But they could do more. They could make a stand and decide not to sell the GM salmon or the GM Arctic apple. And what about raising the bar and making the President’s Choice line GMO-free, or at least labelling GM ingredients?

When I brought up the recent announcement from Campbell Soup that it was responding to consumer demand by committing to GMO labelling on all of its products in the US, Mr Weston said, “Every company has to make their own judgments.” I believe Campbell Soup is the first of many food companies that will step forward to give their consumers the transparency they want and deserve.

Although Mr Weston and I may not have exactly the same views on GMOs, at least I know that if we customers all stand up together and demand GMO labelling, he’d see the value of it. There is so much more that food manufacturers and grocery chains can do, but thankfully many are starting to listen and are slowly but surely turning in the right direction: towards a cleaner environment and more consideration for public health for the generations to come.

Originally published at Collective Evolution.

beyond gmos

Video Project Gives Kids a Voice in the Debate on GMOs

0

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The landscape of childhood has changed in America, and other countries are asking our children to talk about it.

There is something bitter sweet in a new campaign launched in the UK that is calling on American kids to tell their food stories. Our generation of American kids is the first raised on unlabeled, genetically engineered foods. Our kids are also the first to be called “Generation Rx” and the first to have 1 in 13 in their cohort with a food allergy, 1 in 10 with asthma, 1 in 68 with autism, more with ADHD and diabetes and classmates where cancer as the leading cause of death by disease. In other words, they are the first where EpiPens, insulin pumps, ADHD and other meds are part of every classroom.

And they are being asked to share their stories with kids around the world, as seen in the announcement below:

A new video project, by the UK’s Beyond GM, aims to give children a chance to speak up about GMOs and educate other kids in the world about their experiences.

Our Food Our Future is calling on kids of all ages in the Americas to start an international conversation by sending in a short video of themselves talking about the food issues that affect them and their families, with a specific focus on GMOs, pesticides, labeling, health, environment, activism and the future.

The project is a next phase of the successful Letter from America project which launched in 2014 to international acclaim and with widespread support by US NGOs and high profile individuals.

Our Food, Our Future aims to get kids in the Americas telling their stories to kids in the UK and the rest of Europe, where many governments, including the British government, are planning to plant GMO crops and, with the implementation of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), import more GMOs foods and animal feed.

In an editorial to accompany the launch of the project, Pat Thomas, Director of Beyond GM, reflects: “The current generation of young people in the Americas is unique because they have never known a food system without GMOs and this has, intentionally or otherwise, turned them into a huge uncontrolled experiment in food and health.”

Over the next few months the campaign will be collecting video clips, the best of which will go into a longer compilation video to be launched later in 2016. That video will be will be disseminated throughout social media, at conferences and talks and will also be a first step in Beyond GM’s planned schools outreach in the UK.

In the same way that climate change issues have exposed our willingness to bargain away our future for short-term gains today, GMOs have exposed the future risks we are willing to take with our health and well-being as well as our environment. As a species we can’t thrive or survive without good, clean, healthy food and “the biggest risks we are currently taking are with the health and well-being of our children,” says Thomas.

In addition to making an international call-out for videos, the Beyond GM website will, over the next few months, be featuring guest editorials by young activists, starting with Rachel Parent, founder of Kids Right to Know.

The campaign launch page will also feature a video from one of Beyond GM’s youth supporters, Mya-Rose Craig, inviting kids in the Americas to join in.

“The food we eat today a shapes the adults we become tomorrow” says Mya-Rose “so it’s essential that we have a bigger say in our food future.”

“What our kids have to say about GMOs reflects the conversations that go on around the table, in the kitchen and at the grocery store” adds Thomas. “They see us struggle with food issues, with our own concerns, opinions and even activism and the desire to be heard. It’s time for our kids—tomorrow’s business people, politicians, consumers, farmers and voters—to have a space to speak out and to help other kids, in other parts of the world, understand the terrible impact of GMOs.”

[/vc_column_text][vc_video link=”https://youtu.be/bft6KzPlZEU”][/vc_column][/vc_row]
carey gillam

An Interview with the Food and Ag Journalist that the Biotech Industry Fears

, 0

The last few weeks have been full of announcements from the food industry about their move to label GMOs. It’s smart. They’ve spent millions of dollars defending GMOs for the biotech industry, only to lose their consumer base.

In 2014, 45% of new product launches were non-GMO. The consumer wants out of these ingredients.

Here in the United States, the news to label GMOs couldn’t come quickly enough, as headlines have also been about how other countries are opting out of Monsanto’s products. India and China are pushing back on Monsanto’s operating system, introduced to us by Monsanto in the 1990s with their Roundup Ready seeds, genetically engineered to withstand increasing doses of their weed killer, Roundup. Syngenta rejected a pricey acquisition. Scotland, the country that Monsanto’s CEO is from, is pushing back on the weedkiller Roundup.

Why are people increasingly allergic to this business model?

Because of lingering questions about the toxicity and cancer causing ability of the weedkiller.

The World Health Organization declared Roundup a “probable carcinogen” a year ago, and the fall out has been fierce. Most recently, with the European Environmental Committee voting against renewing the approval of glyphosate in Europe, with the FDA finally deciding that they are going to test for it in our food, and perhaps most tellingly, with Goldman Sachs downgrading Monsanto (MON) to a sell rating.

No one is in a better position to tell this story than Carey Gillam. She has been a journalist for twenty years, most recently covering the food and agriculture industries as a senior reporter at Reuters. When she decided to leave that post, I reached out, understanding that today, in many cases, journalists can not always tell the complete story without fear of retribution. I’ve seen magazine editors quit because of the sway that companies held over content.

Carey’s story was no different. She could no longer report on what she was seeing, without compromising the integrity of her work, so she quit.

When we asked her for an interview for our podcast, it was both an honor and enormously insightful to speak with her for Take Out with Ashley and Robyn. We could have talked for hours, so expect us to circle back for more.

We discussed tough issues like how can media trust a source, can a journalist & publication be truly neutral when advertising dollars play such a critical financial role? And what should consumers be looking for when reading a story in the media today?

Courage is contagious. And each time that one of us stands up against the injustice that has become our food system, it inspires others to do the same.

You can listen to our interview with Carey here.

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

Load More