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.
The end of 2014 was a flurry of activity for the movement to label genetically engineered ingredients (GMOs) in our food.
The ballot initiative to label GMOs in Oregon lost by just over 800 votes, and thousands of votes were thrown out. In D.C., a hearing was held to address a piece of legislation that calls for voluntary labeling of GMOs and allows for GMOs to be used in foods labeled “natural.”More
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 20th 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 21st century?
A look back at the history of the Grocery Manufacturers Association suggests this might be a good idea.
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.
Last week, Dr. Thierry Vrain, a former scientist with the federal government in Canada, reached out after watching an interview I did with Dr. Ray Seidler, a former senior scientist at the EPA.
Dr. Vrain was the designated spokesperson to assure the public of the safety of GMO crops. He is an unlikely and powerful crusader to be speaking out about the dangers of these crops.
He was concerned that the interview did not address in detail the toxicity of glyphosate, a synthetic and toxic weedkiller used on genetically engineered crops.
In his work today, Dr. Vrain highlights how glyphosate, the chemical applied to genetically engineered crops was first created by Stauffer Chemicals in 1960 to clean industrial pipes. It was then patented in 1964 by Monsanto, and in 2010 it was patented as an antibiotic because of it is a biocide, an agent that kills insects, weeds and gut bacteria.
After speaking with him today, he asked that I share this letter that he wrote to the Canadian Minister of Health Canada and the United States are two of the only developed countries in the world that fail to label genetically engineered ingredients in their food supplies. Sixty-four countries around the world label them, in part because no long term human health studies exist.
Below, please find Dr. Thierry Vrain’s full letter.
Please read and share.
October 27, 2014
To the Honorable Rona Ambrose, Minister of Health
Re: herbicide pollution and GMO labeling
Minister,
The confusion about the safety of GMOs is quite simple to address. The only GMOs in our agriculture are Glyphosate Modified Organisms also known as RoundUp Ready crops and the only GMOs in our food supply are from those crops. RoundUp Ready crops are engineered to be sprayed with the herbicide RoundUp and this technology has become so successful that RoundUp has become a major pollutant (1). This chemical pollution is antibiotic, it impacts the microbiome, impairs CYP enzymes, and depletes food of essential mineral micronutrients. As a background paper for the impact of this pollution I offer my speaking notes to the American College of Nutrition conference last week in San Antonio (Texas). Most of the studies I cite were published in the last five years.
Glyphosate is the active ingredient of the herbicide RoundUp, a new molecule created in 1960 by Stauffer Chemicals – a US company with a business of cleaning industrial pipes and boilers of mineral scales. The mineral deposits (same as in electric kettles) are called scales, and the pipe cleaning chemicals are called descaling agents. Glyphosate was patented in 1964 in the US as a powerful and very broad spectrum descaling agent (2). Meaning, it binds to metals indiscriminately and does a great job at “dissolving and preventing minerals from being reactive or bioavailable in solution”. When the descaling solution was disposed of in nature, it was obvious that it killed plants. The chemical company Monsanto promptly bought the molecule, patented it as a herbicide in 1969, and got it commercialized in 1974 (3). This molecule is making history because glyphosate has become the most successful agricultural chemical in North and South America wherever RR seeds are used. The farmers using this technology get simpler and cheaper weed management and despite higher input bills and sometimes disappointing yields, and with weed resistance spreading fast, they adopted it in troves (4).
The herbicide RoundUp had a completely novel chemistry for a herbicide in 1969. It was deemed to kill plants by bonding to only one protein enzyme in the chloroplasts. Enzymes are metalloproteins with a metal atom as a cofactor at the active site of the molecule. Bacteria and plants and fungi share a metalloprotein called EPSPS for short and 5-Enol Pyruvyl Shikimate-3 Phosphate Synthase if you want to know what it does. It works with other metalloproteins to “make” building blocks of proteins, the aromatic amino acids. These molecules are also building blocks for a large number of aromatic molecules we call secondary compounds. Glyphosate binds tightly to the manganese atom at the centre of the EPSPS metalloprotein, so tightly that the protein cannot move and do its work making aromatic amino acids. No protein synthesis means there is no metabolic work possible, a quick death for the plant, or the fungi or the bacteria.
Because animals lack the shikimate pathway and because of its presumed mode of killing plants, glyphosate was pronounced innocuous to humans and registered as such in 1974 in the USA. Glyphosate has no acute toxicity, and at the time of registration in the US and Canada, nobody bothered to check for chronic effects. Considering the chemical properties of this pollution, one would expect long term chronic effects, equivalent to rickets, scurvy, or beriberi, for progressive lack of micronutrients. The animal feeding studies proving the safety of GMOs do not include testing for the safety of glyphosate. None of them mentions the residue levels of glyphosate in the feed. Meanwhile, a fast growing series of independent studies in various countries published in the last 5 years have ascertained the impact of glyphosate on various cellular enzymes and organs of animals and of human cells.
The first RoundUp Ready crops to be commercialized were soy and corn, released in 1996. Since then, a handful of RR crops have been adopted enthusiastically by farmers, particularly in North and South America. Today close to 500 million acres of soya and corn, and cotton, canola, and sugar beet, are engineered to be sprayed with RoundUp. About 40% of all RR crops are grown in the USA, most of the rest are grown in Brazil, Argentina, Canada, and a few other countries. RR crops are now sprayed with close to two billion lbs of glyphosate every year, and so much of that finds its way into animal feed and processed food, that the EPA had to raise the legal residue limits last year to accommodate a new reality (5).
Glyphosate is antibiotic, a powerful and broad spectrum antibiotic (6). The mode of kill is again alleged to be very selective. The glyphosate molecule impairs the functioning of the shikimate pathway in bacteria in the same manner that it does in plants. Only one enzyme is affected in a pathway that animals do not possess. The antibiotic patent describes its effectiveness to kill bacteria at 1 ppm and this was confirmed last year in Germany (7). At this point I usually spend a minute or two explaining why a low level antibiotic diet is not a good idea. I describe the recent interest of the medical field in a large joint research project involving many Universities to decipher the huge community of thousands of species of bacteria that call us home. The Human Microbiome project is the equivalent of the Human Genome project in its scope. We are vastly outnumbered, roughly ten to one – one hundred trillion bacterial cells call our lower intestine home. They are forever sending signaling molecules to each other and to all human organs, particularly the brain. All animals depend on their symbiosis with these bacteria, and humans are no exception. They are the teachers of our immune system, they make the neurotransmitters for our brain, and have a strong connection to the heart and the whole digestive tract. They literally feed us all kinds of molecules that we require – we call them essential, like vitamins and such. They digest and recycle most of our food. Human organs rely on molecular signals from the microbiome for normal functioning, and as goes the microbiome so does its human shell. A recent review of the medical literature on celiac and other diseases shows the link to imbalances of the microbiome that are fully explained by the antibiotic properties of glyphosate (8).
We lack official data on residues of glyphosate in food or in water in Canada – no epidemiological studies of any kind have ever been done. All we have are the legal maximum residue limits now allowed by the EPA in RoundUp Ready foods, cereals 30 ppm, animal feed 100 ppm, soybean 120 ppm, and everything else in between (5). Here an inquisitive mind will ask why such a high residue limit for cereals when none of them are engineered to be sprayed with RoundUp. This is when you learn that RoundUp is sprayed on many non-engineered crops with the intent to kill them right before harvest. This is done to mature and dry the crops quickly to make them easier and cheaper to harvest. The RoundUp herbicide has been used as a desiccant for the last 10 years.
There is direct toxicity to animal cells because glyphosate binds to metals indiscriminately, and not just in plant cells. It binds to metals in solution and to metal co-factors at the centre of metalloproteins anywhere. For example glyphosate binds to the iron atom at the centre of a large family of protein enzymes called CYP. There are 57 different CYP enzymes in the human body, and approximately 20,000 in animals, plants, bacteria and fungi. The CYP enzymes are oxidizers, the first line of digestion and detoxification of most substrates. David Nelson writes in a review of the CYP enzymes: “The CYP enzymes of humans are essential for our normal physiology and failure of some of these enzymes results in serious illnesses (9). Samsel and Seneff have published a review of the impact of glyphosate on the CYP enzymes and the microbiome. They suggest that glyphosate’s suppression of CYP enzymes and its antibiotic effect on the human microbiome are involved in the etiology of the many chronic degenerative and inflammatory diseases that have grown to epidemic levels since the advent of the RoundUp Ready technology (10).
Nancy Swanson has made public her statistical analyses of the US Centre for Disease Control’s statistics about the health status of America when placed next to the statistics of the US Department of Agriculture about the spread of RoundUp Ready soy and corn. Her correlation analyses show very high coefficient values suggesting strong links between glyphosate residues in RoundUp Ready food and chronic illnesses (11).
Medical and chemical reviews and peer reviewed studies have explained the mode of action of glyphosate and its impact on many metalloproteins. Human cell studies have shown acute toxicity (12-15) and animal studies have shown chronic toxicity (16-21). Glyphosate bio-accumulates in the plants and in animals that eat the plants. It accumulates in the lungs, the heart, kidneys, intestine, liver, spleen, muscles, and bones … and chronically ill people have higher residues in their urine than healthy people.”(22)
To conclude this presentation of the nutritional status of GMOs, I would say that crops sprayed with RoundUp, whether they are RoundUp Ready or not, contain residues of glyphosate, and that foods made from these crops are depleted of the minerals that are bound to the glyphosate molecules, and chronically toxic (23).
Minister, your reassuring words have been quoted widely. “Currently, there is no… scientific evidence, that says genetically modified foods are unhealthy. It is impossible for us to mandate a label, because our labels have to be based on evidence that it is an unhealthy product for Canadians.” I hope you have found here the scientific evidence you require to act and that you join over 60 governments in the world who have found this evidence compelling enough in the past few years, to legislate some form of labeling or ban RoundUp Ready crops and the herbicide RoundUp.
Respectfully,
Dr. Thierry Vrain
Literature cited
1 Battaglin W.A., Meyer M.T., Kuivila K.M., Dietze J.E. 2014. Glyphosate and its degradation product AMPA occur frequently and widely in US soils, surface water, groundwater, and precipitation. J. Amer. Water Res. Assoc. 50, 275-290.
8 Samsel, A. and Seneff, S. 2013. Glyphosate, pathways to modern diseases II. Celiac sprue and gluten intolerance. Interdiscip. Toxicol. 6: 159-184
9 Nelson, D. 2013. A world of cytochrome P450s. Philo. Transac. Royal Soc. London B 368 No 1612.
10 Samsel, A. and Seneff, S. 2013. Glyphosate’s suppression of cytochrome P450 enzymes and amino acid biosynthesis by the gut microbiome: pathways to modern diseases. Entropy 15: 1416-1463.
13 Benachour N. and Seralini, G.E. 2009. Glyphosate induces apoptosis in human umbilical, embryonic, and placental cells. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 22: 97-105.
16 Senapati ,T., Mukerjee, A.K. and Ghosh, A.R. 2009. Observations on the effect of glyphosate based herbicide on ultrastructure (SEM) and enzymatic activity in different regions of alimentary canal and gill of Channa punctatus (Bloch). J. Crop Weed 5: 236-245.
17 Paganelli, A., Gnazzo, V., Acosta, H., López, S.L. and Carrasco, A.E. 2010. Glyphosate herbicides produce teratogenic effects on vertebrates by impairing retinoic acid signaling. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 23: 1586-1595.
20 Séralini, G.E., Clair, E., Mesnage, R., Gress, S., Defarge, N., Malatesta, M., Hennequin, D. and de Vendômois, J.S. 2014. Republished study: Long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Environ. Sci. Eur. 26:14
21 Clair. E, Mesnage, R., Travert, C. and Séralini, G.É. 2012. A glyphosate-based herbicide induces necrosis and apoptosis in mature rat testicular cells in vitro, and testosterone decrease at lower levels. Toxicol. in Vitro 26: 269-279.
22 Kruger, M., Schledorn, P., Schrodl, W., Hoppe, H.W., Lutz, W. and Shehata, A.A. 2014. Detection of glyphosate residues in animals and humans. Environ. & Anal. Toxicol. 4:2
23 Zobiole, L.H., Kremer, R.J., de Oliveira, R.S. and Constantin, J. 2012. Glyphosate effects on photosynthesis, nutrient accumulation, and nodulation in glyphosate-resistant soybean. J. Plant Nutri. Soil Sci. 175: 319
About a month ago, I was asked if I would represent Colorado’s Right to Know campaign to label genetically engineered foods in a televised debate against the opposition.
I wanted to say no. This work pulls me out of my comfort zone, I do things I am afraid to do. I have never done a televised debate, despite being invited to debate Monsanto a few years ago at a conference in Chicago.
When I agreed to that one, I packed the kids’ lunches at 4am that morning to catch a flight to Chicago. When I got to the conference, the organizer informed me that Monsanto would not be coming. “You have a room full of commodity farmers who grow Monsanto’s crops and an hour and a half to fill,” I was told.
I took a breath and walked into the room, “Welcome to the Lion’s Den” one of the farmers said, and so that hour and half began (the story is told here).
The second time I was asked to debate the opposition was when my friend, Bettina Siegel, launched her petition to get “pink slime” out of our hamburger meat. I was contacted by CNBC to debate the National Cattleman’s Association. I wanted to say no, I had worked straight through spring break, and we were spending the last few days with my parents in Houston. CNBC pressed, others, too, so I borrowed a jacket from my mom and went to the studio. Ten minutes before we were supposed to go live, the producer called, apologizing, saying that the other side wouldn’t appear.
The most recent invitation came this summer, when I was asked if I would debate the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) on labeling genetically engineered foods. I said yes, committed to the date, only to learn a few days before the actual event that the GMA would not come.
I was not surprised. Disappointed? Yes. There are people inside of companies inside of the GMA who truly want to do the right thing. These conversations are critical. Not showing up is no longer in the best interest of their members.
So when I was asked to represent the pro-labeling campaign in Colorado on a televised debate, I wanted to say no, knowing they’d pull another fast one, but I couldn’t. This work pulls me out of my comfort zone, I do things I am afraid to do. Love is more powerful than fear, so I said yes.
I am not paid by the campaign to do this. I do the work as a mother of four. I volunteer my time for organizations working on this issue at the state level, the national level and the global level. It is my life’s work.
I was to debate Don Shawcroft, the head of the Colorado Farm Bureau and a Colorado rancher. He would represent the anti-labeling side.
I am named after a farmer. She is my godmother. She lost her husband when she was in her 40s, then turned around and battled cancer in one of her children and then breast cancer herself. I don’t care what side of the food aisle you are on. Farmers have fed our country since its inception. Colorado farmers have fed our state for generations. You honor that. I was looking forward to the dialogue.
Our debate was scheduled for Wednesday, September 24 in Colorado. A Colorado mom debating a Colorado farmer on a Colorado state initiative.
It didn’t happen.
When the opposition learned that I would be representing the campaign, they put the farmer in the corner and flew in an industry spokesperson name Dana Bieber from Seattle.
Nobody puts farmers in the corner. I don’t care what side of the food aisle you are on. We wouldn’t be here without them. It was a bad decision.
Ms. Bieber is a pro. It was obvious. The work that she did as the Campaign Communications Director in Seattle last year and the work that she is now doing as the spokesperson for the anti-labeling campaign in Oregon is that of a professional. She disclosed who was funding her work in Washington state on a call made to thousands of voters: “Monsanto Company, DuPont Pioneer, Dow Agrosciences, LLC and Bayer Crop Science” and the Grocery Manufacturers Association.” You can listen here….
Here in Colorado, the anti-labeling opposition has been funded, so far, by the Grocery Manufacturers Association, Monsanto, Pepsi, Smuckers. A slightly different list, disclosed by campaign finance reports.
Colorado state law requires that only one issue is addressed per amendment title which means not everything for human consumption can be written into this bill.
A spokesperson from another state who does not vote here may not know that.
Is that perfect? No. The state law would have to be changed.
It is a reasonable starting point. Just as 35 bills around the country in 20 states are reasonable starting points. In the absence of any meaningful legislation coming out of D.C., states around the country are taking this initiative into their own hands. It’s how democracy works.
It’s not the first time we’ve seen this.
A great example of states taking the initiative on legislation is the fact that states are largely responsible for seat belt legislation. The first seat belt law was introduced in New York in 1984. States around the country followed. We still don’t have a mandatory, national seat belt law. It’s regulated at the state level.
What these state labeling initiatives are doing is putting pressure on food manufactures to join the 21st century and 64 countries around the world and label genetically engineered ingredients in their products. American food companies provide this information to families in other countries but hide it from families here.
The fastest answer would be through the marketplace, and the agitation at the state level is creating activation in the food industry.
We could be waiting years for mandatory national labeling. Consumers know that. Nobody is holding his or her breath on much of anything out of D.C.
We label if our milk is pasteurized and if orange juice comes from concentrate. We label allergen content, fat, protein and sugar content. American companies label genetically engineered content in the foods that they sell overseas, so that families can make an informed choice about the fact that corn now found in our food supply is regulated by the EPA as a pesticide (EPA source).
But for a spokesperson to claim to Colorado voters, “Let them eat chemicals!” before jumping on a flight back home? I appreciate the spokesperson actually flying in and the person who approved, funded and accommodated the last minute request, but they can pack that up and take it home with them. It’s backward looking policy that would not only set Colorado back 20 years but also our country.
U.S. trading partners label genetically engineered ingredients. The cost to our farmers and to our global trade is too great to continue to pretend that 20 year old policy is in the best interest of farmers, families and food companies.
Anti-labeling policy is only in the best interest of the chemical companies who would have to be accountable to their products if they were labeled, and industry-funded spokesmen defending them.
Labeling genetically engineered ingredients has not caused economic ruin in other countries, nor for our own U.S. food companies labeling these ingredients overseas. It has not driven up food prices, nor caused economic collapse for farmers. It has simply given citizens the ability to make an informed choice about what they are feeding their families.
It is not only insulting for American food companies to label genetically engineered ingredients (now regulated as pesticides by the EPA) on their products in other countries for families overseas, while hiding that information from American families, it is a violation of a fundamental human right.
“Let them eat pesticides…..?”
Not on our watch.
Patriotism begins with the plate. It is time for American food companies to label these ingredients here.
Today, at General Mills shareholder meeting, something remarkable happened. And if it doesn’t speak to the changing food landscape in the U.S., I don’t know what does.
Shareholders were set to vote on an initiative calling for the removal of genetically engineered ingredients from all General Mills’ products. Even though General Mills announced that they would be removing genetically engineered ingredients from Cheerios earlier this year, the measure did not look likely to pass.
All eyes were on the vote, though, especially in the aftermath of the announcement that General Mills was acquiring Annie’s Homegrown.
So what happened? The great granddaughter of the co-founder of General Mills spoke up.
“As a proud stockholder, I am concerned about our reputation as a company that uses genetically modified organisms,” Harriett Crosby told the annual meeting crowd.
“I think we can do better and improve our brand and the value of General Mills by eliminating GMOs from our products.”
Crosby cited one irrefutable truth about GMOs: General Mills already produces GMO-free versions of its products in Europe and parts of Asia and already labels them in 63 countries around the world.
So, Crosby asked, “Why not here?”
Why not here?
American food companies already label genetically engineered ingredients or make their products without them in Europe, Asia and 64 countries around the world. They are doing it for all of our key U.S. trading partners and the families that live in those countries, but they are hiding these ingredients from families in the United States.
More than 100 scientific and public health institutions around the world support GMO labeling to track potential allergic reactions. The United Nation and the World Health Organizations’ food standards group and the American Medical Association have called for mandatory safety testing – a standard that the U.S. currently fails to meet.
General Mills already labels these ingredients in their products that they sell overseas.
For the company to continue to take an anti-labeling position on this changing landscape of health and consumer demand, while holding the opposite position overseas, is not in the best interest of shareholders. It’s a double standard.
Anti-labeling initiatives could significantly hinder the company for years, as well as stifle the expansion of jobs and the economy in Minneapolis and the U.S., as other companies and our trading partners seize the opportunity to meet this change in consumer demand. The anti-labeling initiatives would directly impact a family’s ability to make an informed choice when it comes to feeding their loved ones. It would continue to keep American farmers in the dark, withholding from them the data and insight that labeling these ingredients would provide.
As Ms. Crosby said, General Mills is already required to produce GMO-free varieties of its products in Europe and parts of Asia….
They already label these ingredients around the world. Why not here?
Her call to action would ensure that General Mills meets the needs of the 21st century consumer, consumers looking for products that are “free-from” artificial ingredients, artificial dyes and GMOs. If General Mills’ recent acquisition of Annie’s is any indication, they already know what those changing needs are.
Ms. Crosby’s concern is being echoed around the country, with 35 bills introduced in 20 states, asking for genetically engineered ingredients to be labeled. By failing to address it, General Mills runs the risk of being remembered as an iconic brand from the 20th century that failed to meet the changing needs of the 21st century consumer.
It is a risk too great for the co-founder’s great granddaughter to take, so she spoke out.
The landscape of food is changing, and the company that moves first will capture the hearts of families around the country. They need look no further than Chipotle to see how meeting the needs of 21st century families can reward shareholders and spoonholders alike.
According to Reuters News, a report released out of MIT suggests that heavy use of the world’s most popular herbicide, Roundup, could be linked to a range of health problems and diseases, including Parkinson’s, infertility and cancers.
The peer-reviewed report, published last week, said evidence indicates that residues of “glyphosate,” the chief ingredient in Roundup weed killer, which is sprayed over millions of acres of crops, has been found in food.
Many Americans are more familiar with RoundUp than we realize. It is a weed killer, used on lawns and gardens, with precautionary measures taken by parents to keep it locked in cabinets and out of the reach of children. What most Americans don’t realize is that this chemical is routinely used on the foods we eat, most notably corn and soy.
It is now so widely used in modern agriculture that a recent article about glyphosate, the chief ingredient found in RoundUp, from the global news organization, Reuters, highlighted that these chemicals are part of an enormous market, with world annual sales totaling $14 billion, with more than $5 billion of that spent in the US alone.
But what are they doing to us? Especially given their pervasive use on the foods we eat?
Well, MIT aimed to find out.
According to the report, authored by Stephanie Seneff, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the research suggests that the RoundUp residue now found on our food enhance the damaging effects of other food-borne chemical residues and toxins in the environment to disrupt normal body functions and induce disease,
Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body,” the study says.
We “have hit upon something very important that needs to be taken seriously and further investigated,” Seneff said.
MIT is not alone in their concern.
In the mid 1990s, using a new technology, our soy was genetically engineered with new organisms to make it able to withstand increasing doses of weed killer, chemicals and glyphosate. The business model makes perfect sense. It enhances profitability of the chemical companies by enabling the increased sale of their chemical treatments and weed killers.
But according to the work of Professor Miguel A. Altieri of the University of California, Berkeley who had looked into unforeseen risks that might be associated with genetically engineered crops and these chemicals being sprayed on them:
“Exactly how much glyphosate is present in the seeds of corn or soybeans (genetically engineered to withstand this chemical) is not known, as grain products are not included in conventional market surveys for pesticide residues. The fact that this and other herbicides are known to accumulate in fruits…raises questions about food safety, especially now that million pounds of this herbicide, ($5 billion worth) are used annually in the United States alone. Even in the absence of immediate (acute) effects, it might take 40 years for a potential carcinogen to act in enough people for it to be detected as a cause. Moreover, research has shown that glyphosate seems to act in a similar fashion to antibiotics by altering soil biology rendering bean plants more vulnerable to disease”.
In other words, it might take a generation for these effects to show up. In light of the escalating rates of infertility, pediatric cancer and inflammatory bowel diseases, it begs the question: since the introduction of this new technology in the 1990s, is that happening now?
So why are we using a chemical that is too dangerous to store under our kitchen sinks in the reach of children on the foods we feed our families?
Monsanto is the developer of both Roundup weed killer (an “herbicide”) and a suite of crops that are genetically altered to withstand being sprayed with it. These genetically engineered crops, introduced into our food in the 1990s and 2000s, have the unique ability to withstand increasing doses of the weed killer and are known as “RoundUp Ready”. In other words, it helps them sell more chemicals.
Since the introduction of these genetically engineered crops, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data reveals that between 2001- and 2007, as much as 185 million pounds of glyphosate was used by U.S. farmers, double the amount used six years ago.
So in the past, where we may have been getting a sprinkling of this chemical on our food crops prior to the introduction of RoundUp Ready crops, with the recent introduction of genetically engineered foods, designed to withstand this signature product, the doses are at unprecedented levels.
So what is this product doing to us?
Glyphosate, found in RoundUp, is the world’s most popular herbicide and is designed to kill pests and insects, anything but the genetically engineered “Roundup Ready” plants, such as genetically engineered corn, soy, beet, cottonseed and canola.
These genetically engineered crops , including genetically engineered corn, genetically engineered soybeans, genetically engineered canola and genetically engineered sugarbeets, are planted on millions of acres in the United States annually and widely and generously in the US food supply, particularly processed foods, without labels.
When these crops were first introduced in the late 1990s and early 2000s, it was conjectured that farmers would like them because they could spray Roundup weed killer directly on the crops to kill weeds in the fields without harming the crops. And they did. But about three planting cycles in, it appears that Mother Nature has Monsanto figured out and it is now reported that over half of the farmers using these products are experiencing a resistance to the chemical company’s signature product and suffering from what are known as “superweeds” in their fields.
It was not only the unknown impact of environmental and crop disruption that caused countries around the world to exercise precaution around the use of these chemicals, it was also the uncertainty of the long-term impact that these crops and the chemical products applied to them would have on both the environment, soil, a developing fetus or human health that resulted in their use being banned in 27 countries around the world and labeled in 64 more.
In light of the study out of MIT, this precautionary measure seems well-founded, as with the approval of every new RoundUp Ready crop, there is a 2-5 times increase in the amount of glyphosate that is applied.
And while that may help drive profitability for the chemical industry, there are social costs: lost yields in food production and any health care costs that may be associated with the harm that these chemicals might cause.
The authors of the MIT report are concerned that RoundUp, for which these genetically engineered crops are named, and the chemical used in it, glyphosate, are contributing to diseases as far-ranging as inflammatory bowel disease, cancer, infertility, cystic fibrosis, cancer, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, going so far as to suggest that it “…may be the most biologically disruptive chemical in our environment.”
“The researchers identified the inhibition and/or disruption of cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes as a hitherto overlooked mechanism of toxicity associated with glyphosate exposure in mammals.
CYP enzymes are essential for detoxifying xenobiotic chemicals from the body. Glyphosate therefore enhances the damaging effects of other food borne chemical residues and environmental toxins. The researchers also showed how interference with CYP enzymes acts synergistically with disruption of the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids by gut bacteria (e.g. tryptophan), as well as impairment in serum sulfate transport, a critical biological system for cellular detoxification (e.g. transulfuration pathway which detoxifies metals).”
In working with plant biologists, I have learned that glyphosate kills weeds by turning off key enzymes that produce defense mechanisms for plants. It essentially targets and destroys their immune systems by chelating, stripping, micronutrients like magnesium, copper and zinc from the plant. As a result, there are fewer of these key micronutrients in the plants and in our food supply.
This effect, according to the researchers, can contribute to causing or worsening “…most of the diseases and conditions associated with a Western diet which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease.”
This isn’t the first time we’ve heard this. It picks up on a previous Reuter’s article that was titled “Cancer Cause or Crop Aid?”
In Canada, the Canadian tolerable levels for glyphosate are 58 times lower that those in the US and that European tolerance levels are even lower as a precautionary measure to protect vulnerable subsets of the population, like pregnant women and children. Plant biologists share that the levels of glyphosate now found in the US food supply have been clinically shown to be toxic, citing its effects on human placental, kidney, liver and testicular cells.
So what will it take to address this in the United States? The EPA has promised to look into it in 2015. But that’s two years of babies being born and two more years of escalating pediatric cancer rates in the US. We already spend more on health care costs and disease management than any other country on the planet, according the the Office of Economic Co-operation and Development.
Unlike previous researchers, this is not a report from an anti-GMO activist, nor is it a report from the organic industry, this is a scientific research paper from one of our nation’s leading academic institutions led by a woman who is courageously highlighting that the potential toxicity of one of the world’s most widely used chemicals on our food supply is far greater than was previously considered.
Scientists and researchers who have spoken out on the dangers of these products are often attacked. This situation is no different, as Monsanto’s website in a “Featured Article: goes so far as to call MIT’s research “Another Bogus ‘Study.’”
We still do not label genetically engineered foods in the United States, foods that have literally been given this product’s name and are hardwired to withstand increasing doses of it, foods that were introduced as recently as the late 1990s and early 2000s into our food supply.
If the jury is still out on them, as evidenced by the MIT study, shouldn’t we at the very least be labeling them?
In light of the escalating rates of pediatric cancers, autism and other conditions impacting our children, the American Academy of Pediatrics is recommending a new policy, too, as seen on their website which states:
“The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that chemical management policy in the United States be revised to protect children and pregnant women and to better protect other populations.”
The reasons for this concern are not unfounded. The American children have earned the title of “Generation Rx.” The Centers for Disease Control now reports that cancer is the leading cause of death by disease in children under the age of 15. And oncologists and leading experts in the field of cancer are calling for new treatment models, worried that the increasing costs of cancer is going to put an unprecedented strain on our health care system.
So what is a parent to do?
According to Investor Place, an investment research site that tracks the stock price of Monsanto and the impact that news like this would have on its share price, “a spokesman for Monsanto says that glyphosate is a proven safe ingredient and is less damaging than other widely used chemicals.”
It must be how our grandmothers felt when told that cigarettes didn’t cause cancer either.
While this type of corporate marketing and positioning may be in the best interest of shareholders, industry funded research often merits further independent investigation.
The question of labeling genetically engineered foods is not just an academic debate, it is increasingly an ethical one. And while the industry will claim that this is a concern afforded to the wealthy, that these crops are needed to feed the world, mounting scientific evidence is proving that with no long term human health data, other than what we are witnessing ourselves in the health of the American children, labels represent a precautionary measure, afforded to parents in 64 countries around the world who are able to walk into a grocery store and choose if they want to feed their children foods that contain genetically engineered ingredients.
As evidence and controversy grows, highlighting the toxicity of these products increasingly used on our food supply in the US, labels afford American eaters the same rights afforded to eaters around the world. Cancer doesn’t care what side of the aisle we are on or what our income is, and the costs of diseases being born by our families, our corporations and our economy have the potential to destroy our competitiveness in the global marketplace.
A label and the knowledge that comes with it would go a long way to protecting the health of our country.
Learn how you can protect the health of your children and family from genetically engineered products and the chemicals upon which they are dependent to grow at www.justlabelit.org and at The Pesticide Action Network.
Food companies using GMOs or genetically engineered ingredients in their products might want to think again.
Attorneys are now saying, “If you’re using GMOs and making “all-natural” claims, there’s a good chance you’ll get sued.”
Why? Consumers are concerned.
A global market research company conducted a random, national telephone survey of over 1,000 Americans, asking how they felt about these ingredients in their products and if they had concern. Their top question: Do GMOs cause cancer?
The answer? We just don’t know. The industry will say there is no evidence of harm, and to a certain extent they are right. There is no evidence. The FDA does not require mandatory premarket safety testing of these products and no long term human health studies have been conducted.
So not surprisingly, with the escalating rates of cancer, autism, Alzheimer’s and other conditions hammering on our families, consumers are beginning to opt out. They are exercising precaution they way eaters around the world have been doing.
And when they find out that these GMOs are still hiding in products that they thought were clean, they are suing food companies.
Lawsuits are piling up on this changing landscape of food, and attorneys are getting busy.
Not only has Naked Juice and Kashi cereal felt the heat, but a class action lawsuit against General Mills on their all-natural claims and GMOs can proceed, a judge has declared.
General Mills had argued to dismiss or stay the lawsuit since the FDA has never defined the term “natural,” but the judge suggests that it’s plausible that a reasonable consumer could be misled.
As lawsuits against the food industry for misleading claims continue, the National Law Review recently published an article about a national survey that identifies top consumer questions and concerns when it comes to using genetically engineered ingredients in food and potential legal opportunities on the horizon.
According to the site:
A global market research company conducted a random, national telephone survey of over 1,000 Americans, in which those surveyed were given a list of 23 questions, then asked: “The following are questions some people have asked about GMOs. Which of the following questions around the use of GMOs would you be most interested in having answered?“
The top 10 questions are:
If GMOs cause cancer
If GMOs are causing an increase in allergies
If big companies are forcing farmers to grow GMOs
If GMOs are increasing the price of food
If GMOs are contaminating organic food crops
Why long-term health studies aren’t conducted on GMO plants
If GMOs are causing an increase in the use of pesticides
Why GMO companies seem like they are so against labeling GMO foods
If GMOs are contributing to the death of bees and butterflies
If livestock eat genetically modified grain, will there be GMOs in my meat
It’s a wide open landscape for attorneys. So what’s a company to do? The fiduciary duty of the executives inside the food companies still using these ingredients is to protect shareholder returns.
“What’s the takeway for companies selling products with GMOs? Pay attention to consumers’ questions. They’re your customers. They’re also your potential adversaries in litigation, if you don’t disclose arguably material facts. If appropriate, consider addressing issues about which your customers might be concerned in your advertising or labeling. Lawsuits over “all natural” products or products containing GMOs usually involve claims of deception, that the consumer didn’t know this or that about the product. You can get in front of this risk and minimize the chances that someone can accuse you of misleading them by disclosing facts about which they’re curious.”
Given the legal climate, you’d think U.S. companies would dump GMOs and replace them with non genetically engineered ingredients. It’s not like they’re reinventing the wheel here. It’s the way they formulate their products in other countries and it is also the way they formulated their products fifteen years ago, prior to the introduction of GMOs in the 1990s.
The question now, in light of this legal landscape and the risk that using unlabeled GMOs presents to their shareholders, is: At what point is it the fiduciary responsibility of the food companies to avoid this legal liability, dump GMOs and formulate their products without them?
The time, in light of the escalating rates of diseases we are seeing in the health of our loved ones, just might be now.
I recently read Monsanto’s proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Monsanto is the chemical company that makes genetically engineered ingredients now found in our food supply, and I was curious if shareholders were making any noise since a growing number of food companies are now opting out.
From Cheerios’ announcement to remove genetically engineered ingredients from its iconic original cereal, to Chipotle and Whole Foods commitments to either going non-GMO or to labeling these ingredients in their stores, to Kroger’s commitment to expanding its Simple Truth product line, the company is in a new position—defending the use of its products while also defending the fact that these ingredients were put into the food supply without informing the public.
Monsanto is a chemical company that introduced a new operating system for our food system in the 1990s. It is a brilliant revenue model for a chemical company, as they created a system in which seeds are now hardwired to withstand record doses of their chemicals. Soybeans were suddenly branded RoundUp Ready Soybeans and engineered to withstand record doses of their weed killer RoundUp. RoundUp Ready corn was engineered to do the same. RoundUp Ready sugarbeets, increasingly pervasive in everything from cereal to candy, was also engineered to withstand record doses of their weed killer. As you might expect, sales of this chemical weed killer, RoundUp, brought financial stability to the company’s earnings model.
The challenges now in front of the company were recently brought to light in a “shareowner proposal” in their December 2013 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission: Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareowners and 2013 Proxy Statement In it, Monsanto writes: “Food is one of the most important and significant facets of our world. It is a critically important issue to everyone and is the focus of debates and dialogues from the halls of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome, to the grocery store aisles in Buenos Aires…”
Around the country, Americans are taking notice, too.
The company responded and disclosed its position on labeling:
“Our work in agriculture represents just one component of a broad and diverse food value chain that involves many parties. The proponent is seeking a report about the impact of the company’s working with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to effect a change in labeling on consumer food products. These are not Monsanto products nor are they manufactured, controlled, packaged or labeled by our company. We sell seed to farmers, who often sell their crop harvest to a grain processor, who sells grain or ingredients to a food company, who may further process the ingredients, then manufacture the food item, which it then sells to a retailer, who ultimately sells the finished product to a consumer. As a company that is focused on agricultural productivity and which sells products to farmers our position in the chain does not afford us the expertise that would inform an assessment of consumer food packaging information.”
Can you imagine if Intel operated this way? Let’s take that last sentence and rephrase it for the semiconductor chip maker.
We make a semiconductor chip, but because we sell it to computer makers who then sell it to wholesalers who then sell it to retailers, as a company that is focused on productivity, our position in the chain does not afford us the expertise that would inform an assessment of computer packaging information.
There would be no way of knowing which parts of the operating system were functioning as promised and which parts might be detrimental to the system.
Instead, Intel proudly stood behind their products and launched “Intel Inside.”
The same has been asked of Monsanto, with consumer groups like “Just Label It” and “GMO Inside” asking for labeling. Monsanto backs away from labeling their products, saying in the SEC filing:
“We support current FDA guidance on food labeling which is based on the attributes of the food itself. In the United States, the FDA regulates the safety and labeling of foods and food products derived from crops (conventional, GM, and organic), and all must meet the same safety requirements. FDA guidance requires labeling of food products containing ingredients derived from GM crops if there is a meaningful difference in composition, nutrition or safety between that food and its counterpart derived from conventional crops. In the absence of such a difference, the FDA has determined that mandatory labeling is not required. The American Medical Association (AMA) supports the FDA’s approach and approved a formal statement asserting that there is no scientific justification for special labeling of foods containing GM ingredients. FDA guidance does not require labeling of production practices used by farmers employing conventional or organic methods to control weeds and pests and improve their yields.”
While claiming that there is no difference in their product, Monsanto fails to highlight that their products make the attributes of the food so different that they are patented by the United States Patent and Trademark Office for their unique traits and characteristics. These unique attributes enable them to charge a premium to farmers for their use and also enable them to charge farmers royalty fees, licensing fees and trait fees. The company also fails to highlight that American food companies either label or avoid the use of their products in the foods that they manufacturer overseas.
Can you imagine if Boeing were allowed to operate this way? If the National Transportation Safety Board or Federal Aviation Administration allowed airplanes into the sky with a new operating system without mandatory pre-market safety testing? Or if the companies making the engines inside of them, were able to say “as a company that is focused on productivity, our position in the chain does not afford us the expertise that would inform an assessment of packaging information”?
It is not surprising the food industry is beginning to opt out of these ingredients and this operating system. It is the fiduciary duty of the executives of these food companies to deliver earnings, respond to consumer demand and capture market share, while reducing liability. A fiduciary duty is the legal duty of a fiduciary, directors or executives of food companies, to act in the best interests of the beneficiary, their shareholders.
If the company making these genetically engineered products is unwilling to display a label and accept liability for their ingredients, why should Nestle, Kraft, Coca Cola or any others in the space do the same?
In the first few weeks of 2014, both General Mills and Post have announced that they are dropping genetically engineered ingredients from products in response to consumer demand. It’s the fiduciary duty of executives at other companies to do the same.
