Whole Foods Vows to Label GMOs by 2018
March 19, 2013
Story at-a-glance
-
Whole Foods has announced it will make labeling of
genetically engineered (GE) ingredients mandatory in its
American and Canadian stores by 2018. Many expect other
retailers to follow suit
-
About 20 major food companies, including Wal-Mart, recently
gathered for a meeting in Washington to discuss potential
lobbying for a national GMO labeling program
-
The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) recently announced
the creation of a new nationwide campaign called the Organic
Retail and Consumer Alliance (ORCA). The mission of the new
alliance includes exposing and eliminating the misleading
practice of “natural” labeling and marketing
-
Organic food and products, by law and by third-party
certification, are produced without the use of synthetic
pesticides and chemical fertilizers, animal drugs,
genetically modified organisms (GMOs), irradiation,
nanoparticles, or sewage sludge, whereas so-called “natural”
products are completely unregulated
-
A critical assessment of the consequences of commercial
cultivation of GE plants in the US for 20 years advises the
EU to NOT follow the path of the US, as it has had profound
negative impacts on farmers, seed markets, and consumers.
Among the eight final recommendations, the report concludes
that “There must be no large-scale, commercial cultivation
of GE herbicide-tolerant or insecticide-producing crops,”
and that all potential situations must be retrievable
By Dr. Mercola
Whole Foods recently announced the health food giant will
make labeling of genetically engineered (GE) ingredients
mandatory in its American and Canadian stores by 2018.
(Whole Foods stores in Great Britain already require GE foods
to be labeled.) Many expect other retailers to follow suit.
Despite the five-year deadline, which may seem long for some,
this announcement is incredibly encouraging and represents a
major sign that all the efforts most of you put into the
Proposition 37 campaign have paid off. We may have lost that
battle but this, and other signs, strongly suggest we are
winning the war.
Prop 37 raised an enormous amount of awareness about
genetically engineered (GE) foods (a.k.a. genetically engineered
organisms or GMO’s). Many Americans didn’t even know they
existed prior to the California campaign to require GE foods to
be labeled.
The Prop 37 campaign also ushered conversations about food to
the front pages of mainstream media. Over the past year, we’ve
not only seen an increase in the number of stories on
genetically engineered foods, more people are now also talking
about other truth-in-labeling issues, and food safety in
general.
People are waking up to the fact that we really don’t
understand what we’re eating anymore, and they’re taking control
of their food again. Now, other states, including Washington
State and Missouri, are taking up the baton to label GE foods.
In all, 22 states now have some sort of pending labeling
legislation.
Seeing the writing on the wall, the National Cooperative
Grocers Association (NGCA)1
recently wrote a letter to their members that now also urges
food manufacturers to stop funding or opposing GMO labeling.
This is an absolutely stupendous victory for our side that
finally vindicates the hard work so many of you put into this
effort last year.
Whole Foods Responds to Consumer Demand for GMO Labeling
Whole Foods Co-Chief Executive Walter Robb recently told the
Los Angeles Times:2
"This is an issue whose time has come. With cases
like horse meat discovered in the U.K., plastic in milk in
China, the recalls of almond and peanut butter in the U.S.,
customers have a fundamental right to know what's in their
food.... 'The government has not been willing to take on
this issue, so it's going to have to happen differently.'"
According to a February 2012 poll of potential voters in the
2012 US elections, 90 percent of responders were in favor of
labeling GE foods. There’s really NO reason not to, aside from
protecting the biotech industry’s profits. Americans are already
responding favorably to those few products that are
labeled. A. C. Gallo, president of Whole Foods, told the New
York Times:3
“We’ve seen how our customers have responded to the
products we do have labeled. 'Some of our manufacturers say
they’ve seen a 15 percent increase in sales of products they
have labeled [non-GMO].'”
According to the featured article:4
“Whole Foods' move will be copied by competitors,
said Scott Faber, vice president for government affairs for
the advocacy organization Environmental Working Group.
'Clearly, they're going to be the first of many retailers
who will require labeling as a condition of sale in their
stores.'"
It’s worth remembering that CA Prop 37 failed to be passed by
just a few percentage points back in November, even though the
food and biotech industry spent five times more money
(a total of $46 million) on its propaganda campaign than the
supporters of the measure. That’s really a good indication of
how difficult this fight is for the industry. People want to
know what they’re eating, and convincing Americans to lay aside
their concerns about GE foods requires a lot of money and
effort.
It’s a challenge they can overcome, no doubt. But people are
increasingly seeing through the lame excuses, such as not
wanting you to be “confused” by the labels, or that labeling
would raise food prices, or that labeling is unnecessary because
it’s “just as safe” as its conventional counterparts. It’s all
nonsense, and fortunately, it’s not flying as well as it used
to.
NCGA Urges All Vendor Partners to Support GMO Labeling
Initiatives
As just mentioned, the National Cooperative Grocers
Association5
(NGCA), a business services cooperative that represents 134
retail food co-ops across the US, sent out a letter on February
28 restating its support of GMO labeling, urging consumers to
contact manufacturers directly with their concerns, and
encouraging their vendor partners to “consider the kind of
statement and negative impact that an organization makes by
supporting or donating to campaigns designed to prevent the
labeling of GMOs, whether on a state or national level.”
This is yet another sign that retailers and food
manufacturers who opposed prop 37 have indeed been paying the
price. Take the
Cheerios fiasco, for example. General Mills spent over $1.1
million to deceive their customers by defeating Prop 37, and the
backlash was significant. When General Mills' Cheerios brand
released a Facebook app last December asking "fans" to "show
what Cheerios means to you,” thousands used the app to express
their disgust over the company's betrayal.
I believe we can expect far fewer brands to engage in
biotech’s fight in future state initiatives. They really were
not expecting the consumer backlash that followed in the wake of
Prop 37, and are likely to be far less willing to take another
bullet. The NGCA’s letter to their vendor partners reads in
part:
“There was substantial consumer backlash from
manufacturer financial support of campaigns to prevent GMO
labeling in California. Now, campaigns calling for state
level labeling of GMOs are active in a growing number of
many other states. Many NCGA co-ops are supporting these
campaigns and are also considering one or more of the
following actions related to GMOs in food on a local level:
discontinuing or boycotting items from companies that
support antilabeling campaigns or whose products contain
common GMO ingredients; excluding items that contain common
GMO ingredients from store-level promotions and new item
programs; and/or shifting more of their product assortment
focus to certified organic brands.
...We believe GMO labeling will be a reality in the
coming years and hope your organization will join us by
showing leadership in this area through support of
consumers' right to information to make informed purchase
decisions.”
Organic Consumers Association Calls on Whole Foods to Move Up
Labeling Timeline
Dave Murphy, founder and executive director of Food Democracy
Now! who served as co-chair of Prop 37, has criticized Whole
Foods timeline, saying “Americans need labeling of GMO foods
today, not five years down the road,”6
adding that “had they supported Prop 37 sooner, Americans may
have labeling right now.”
Similarly, the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) issued a
response to Whole Foods’ plan on March 117
stating that, while it is encouraged by the plan, the five-year
timeline is too long. The OCA urges Whole Foods to move up its
labeling deadline to July 2015, and to “take the lead in the
organic industry to end deceptive labeling practices by
requiring all the stores' products that include the word
'natural' in their labeling or packaging to be GMO-free.”
According to the OCA press release:
“Washington's I-522 is expected to pass in November
2013, becoming the first statewide mandatory GMO labeling
law. The law establishes July 2015 as the deadline for
compliance. Whole Foods Markets already complies with the
U.K.'s mandatory GMO labeling law in its seven stores in
that country. Whole Foods came under fire last year when the
company dragged its feet in supporting Proposition 37,
California's Right to Know GMO Labeling citizens'
initiative. In October, CEO John Mackey confirmed in a blog
post that Whole Foods stores knowingly sell Monsanto's
genetically modified corn, without labeling it.”
Monsanto Responds to 'Affluent Consumer' Concerns
On March 14, Monsanto President Brett Begeman discussed Whole
Food’s move in an interview on NPR radio.8
According to NPR:
“Monsanto President Brett Begeman, speaking at an ag
event this week in Decatur, Illinois, called the move 'Big'
and said it shows that the agriculture industry needs to
come together to address the concerns of what he called the
'affluent consumer.'
Begemann: ‘How do we address their concerns and
provide them the choice that they’re asking for without
driving up the cost on the large part of the population that
cannot afford another increase in the cost of food.' The
potential of higher costs is one of the concerns companies
have raised about the Whole Foods plan. Begmann says the ag
industry needs to figure how to cooperate and co-exist with
those who have different food policy views.”
ORCA Takes Proactive Role to Address ‘Natural’ Products
Intentional Mislabeling
In related news, the organic and fair trade standards
watchdog the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), recently
announced the creation of a new nationwide campaign called the
Organic Retail and Consumer Alliance (ORCA). The announcement
was made at the national Expo-West Natural Products convention.
This new alliance includes public interest groups, food
producers and retailers, including co-ops, natural food stores,
farmers markets, Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) buying
clubs and wholesalers.
ORCA’s mission is to “aggressively promote organic food and
products, and expose and eliminate the misleading practice of
'natural' labeling and marketing that has slowed the growth of
America’s $30-billion dollar organic sector.” In a press
release, OCA’s National Director, Ronnie Cummins states:9
“Routine mislabeling and marketing has confused
millions of U.S. consumers, and enabled the so-called
‘natural’ foods and products sector to grow into a
$60-billion dollar a year powerhouse, garnering twice as
many sales in 2012 as certified organic products. By
exposing these misleading tactics, and promoting
truth-in-labeling, we believe we can rapidly grow sales of
certified organic and authentically natural food and
products.”
This is indeed a huge problem, as numerous polls and surveys
have shown that otherwise health-conscious Americans do not
understand the qualitative difference between organic and
so-called “natural” products. Contrary to reality, the majority
of consumers believe the “natural” label equates to “almost
organic,” and many believe the “all-natural” label means a
product is better than organic! That’s the power of
word-association, and these industries are well aware
of how the word natural “feels” to consumers who are in the dark
about the regulatory differences between the labels... As stated
by Cummins:
“This is outrageous, given that organic food and
products, by law and by third-party certification, are
produced without the use of synthetic pesticides and
chemical fertilizers, animal drugs, genetically modified
organisms (GMOs), irradiation, nanoparticles, or sewage
sludge, whereas so-called 'natural' products are
unregulated.”
To achieve its aims, ORCA members will use “a combination of
public education, marketplace pressure, boycotts, class action
lawsuits and state legislation to end misleading labeling
practices in the 'natural' products sector.”
Consequences of 20 Years of Commercial Cultivation of GE Plants
in the US
Just in time, as the GE issue is about to heat up once more,
a critical assessment of the consequences of commercial
cultivation of GE plants in the US was published. The report,
published in Berlin, was commissioned in response to increasing
pressure from biotech companies requesting broader
authorizations to cultivate GE crops in the European Union (EU),
where acceptance of such crops is much lower than the US. By
looking at the effects that two decades worth of GE crop
cultivation has had in the US, the report makes recommendations
on how to best handle the technology in the EU. Presented by
TestBiotech10
(which published the English version of the report),11
some of the principal findings include the following damaging
assessments:
- Consequences for farmers:
Because the weeds have adapted to the cultivation of the
genetically engineered plants, farmers are experiencing a
substantial increase in both working hours and the amounts
of herbicide they require. Cultivation of
insecticide-producing plants have led to "an arms race in
the field" against the pest insects, which have adapted
quickly. Genetically engineered plants have been created to
produce up to six different toxins. Costs for seeds have
increased dramatically, without there being a substantial
increase in yields or significant savings in the amounts of
spray required.
- Impact on the seed market:
The seed industry in the US is largely dominated by
agrochemical industries such as Monsanto, Dupont and
Syngenta. In the future, it has to be expected that
developments in the US will be strongly influenced by the
interests of agro-chemical companies pushing for the
cultivation of genetically engineered plants.
- Consequences for producers who avoid
genetically engineered crops:
Contamination with non-authorized genetically engineered
plants has already caused billions of dollars worth of
damage in the US.
- Consequences for consumers:
Consumers are exposed to a whole range of risks regarding
unintended substances from plant metabolism, from residues
from complementary herbicides and from the properties of
additional proteins produced in the plants. As yet, there is
no way of monitoring the actual effects that consumption of
these products might have.
The final recommendations come as no surprise to those
well-versed in the many issues involved. It’ll be interesting to
see if the EU will follow them or cave to industry pressure like
the US. The report concludes:
"In light of the effects caused so far as a result of
GE crop cultivation in the United States, the following
recommendations can be made:
- There must be no large-scale, commercial
cultivation of GE herbicide-tolerant or
insecticide-producing crops. Such crop
cultivation is unsustainable and will lead to a ‘race’ to
step up their cultivation.
- Ensure that all potential situations are
retrievable. Cultivation of crops such as
rapeseed, which is extremely susceptible to spread through
the environment, should be banned as a matter of principle.
An absolute prerequisite for any release of such crops is
that it must be possible to control their spread and their
persistence in the environment.
- Prevent cases of contamination.
A particular focus on clean seed is needed because otherwise
farmers will lose control over the cultivation of GE crops
in their fields and it will no longer be possible to
adequately differentiate between products in the subsequent
stages of the food production chain.
- Risk assessments and risk research should
not be geared to economic interests. Under
EU law, environmental and consumer protection clearly take
precedence over other interests. This must be applied more
rigidly in practice. Directives based on EFSA risk
assessments must be tightened up significantly and the
preconditions for independent risk research must be
specifically fostered.
- The health effects of consuming products
made from GE crops must be monitored.
Under EU law, the monitoring of the impact on public health
and the environment of products authorized for marketing in
the EU is compulsory, but has only been partially
implemented.
- To allow for the differentiation of products
on the feed markets, labeling should be extended to include
animal products. The EU should also focus
specifically on the search for alternatives to existing feed
production and import markets.
- To prevent further concentration on seed
markets, seed patenting must be stopped.
- A plan for research into alternatives must
be mapped out. In many areas conventional
breeding is a cheaper, more productive and safer alternative
for the production of new seed varieties. This approach
should be specifically fostered in the future."
Keep Fighting for Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods
While California Prop. 37 failed to pass last November, by a
very narrow margin, the fight for GMO labeling is far from over.
The field-of-play has now moved to the state of Washington,
where the people's initiative 522, "The People's Right to Know
Genetically Engineered Food Act," will require food sold in
retail outlets to be labeled if it contains genetically
engineered ingredients. As stated on LabelitWA.org:
"Calorie and nutritional information were not always
required on food labels. But since 1990 it has been required
and most consumers use this information every day.
Country-of-origin labeling wasn't required until 2002. The
trans fat content of foods didn't have to be labeled until
2006. Now, all of these labeling requirements are accepted
as important for consumers. The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) also says we must know with labeling if our orange
juice is from fresh oranges or frozen concentrate.
Doesn't it make sense that genetically engineered
foods containing experimental viral, bacterial, insect,
plant or animal genes should be labeled, too? Genetically
engineered foods do not have to be tested for safety before
entering the market. No long-term human feeding studies have
been done. The research we have is raising serious questions
about the impact to human health and the environment.
I-522 provides the transparency people deserve. I-522
will not raise costs to consumers or food producers. It
simply would add more information to food labels, which
manufacturers change routinely anyway, all the time. I-522
does not impose any significant cost on our state. It does
not require the state to conduct label surveillance, or to
initiate or pursue enforcement. The state may choose to do
so, as a policy choice, but I-522 was written to avoid
raising costs to the state or consumers."
Remember, as with CA Prop. 37, they need support of people
like YOU to succeed. Prop. 37 failed with a very narrow margin
simply because we didn't have the funds to counter the massive
ad campaigns created by the No on 37 camp, led by Monsanto and
other major food companies. Let's not allow Monsanto and its
allies to confuse and mislead the people of Washington and
Vermont as they did in California. So please, I urge you to get
involved and help in any way you can, regardless of what state
you live in.
- No matter where you live in the United States, please
donate money to these labeling efforts through the
Organic Consumers Fund.
- If you live in Washington State, please
sign the I-522 petition. You can also
volunteer to help gather signatures across the state.
- For timely updates on issues relating to these and other
labeling initiatives, please join the Organic Consumers
Association on
Facebook, or follow them on
Twitter.
- Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to
actively support the Washington initiative.
© Copyright 1997-2013 Dr. Joseph Mercola. All Rights Reserved.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/03/19/whole-foods-gmo-labeling.aspx?e_cid=20130319_DNL_art_1&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20130319
|