Whole Foods GMO Labeling To Be Mandatory By 2018

[mother earth]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/08/whole-foods-gmo-labeling-2018_n_2837754.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

Whole Foods has announced that by 2018, all products in U.S. and Canada stores must be labeled if they contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs). This is the first national grocery store to set a deadline from GMO labeling.

“We are putting a stake in the ground on GMO labeling to support the consumer’s right to know,” said Walter Robb, co-CEO of Whole Foods Market, in a press release. “The prevalence of GMOs in the U.S. paired with nonexistent mandatory labeling makes it very difficult for retailers to source non-GMO options and for consumers to choose non-GMO products. Accordingly, we are stepping up our support of certified organic agriculture, where GMOs are not allowed, and we are working together with our supplier partners to grow our non-GMO supply chain to ensure we can continue to provide these choices in the future.”

[sendero]

1. Say 2014 and...

... I will be impressed. "I'm going to do the right thing five years from now" - not so much in the impressed dept.

[mother earth]

3. I'm impressed that they are doing this without legal requirement & I do believe this process will

take time to enforce by this one chain, for obvious reasons, getting the vendors to initiate this labeling for one. Now, if WF's action starts setting the precedent, that in order to stay competitive & relevant to the American consumer, other chains follow suit, it is not only great, but borderline genius since they'll be raking in an enormous demographic.

82% of Americans want GMO labelling, those who produce GMO's do not.

[sendero]

4. It's better than nothing..

... but a lot can go wrong in 5 years and trust me, the processors could do this in months, they change their labels all the time.

[mother earth]

5. I think lots of changes can go forth in a short time, Why let the "mandatory" date discourage?

If we want to worry, we need to question the TRUTH in labelling across the spectrum in the marketplace. I think there needs to be a great amount of scrutiny, not only in GMO's but in all claims. Non-GMO will undoubtedly prove to be a big selling term on the label.

[hobbit709]

7. If you think John Mackey is doing this because of concern for his customers, you don't know him.

He was an asshole when he ran Safer Way before he started Whole Foods and he's still an asshole. The only thing he cares about is how much money he can make.

[jsr]

9. It's a PR ploy

[hobbit709]

10. Exactly.

[Paul E Ester]

19. 5 years is a long time

to update their labels. Enough time for lobbyist to pass a law forbidding the practice as some non competitive trade bs.

[hobbit709]

2. Still not going to get me into Whole Paycheck.

[HappyMe]

6. Me either.

I can get more for my money elsewhere.

[RandiFan1290]

8. His good ol' buddy Glen Beck won't like this!

[proverbialwisdom]

11. PRESS RELEASE: Organic Consumers Assoc. Responds to Whole Foods Plan to Label GMOs by 2018

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_27166.cfm

Organic Consumers Assoc. Responds to Whole Foods Plan to Label GMOs by 2018

Food Retailer's Plan to Label GMOs a Victory for Grassroots Food Activists and Consumers, but Five-year Timetable not Comprehensive or Aggressive Enough

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 11, 2013    

FINLAND, Minn. - The million-strong Organic Consumers Association (OCA), North America's leading watchdog over organic and fair trade standards, said today that it is encouraged by Whole Foods Markets' plan, announced last week, to support consumers' right to know by requiring labeling of all foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in its U.S. and Canadian stores by 2018.

However, the OCA called on Whole Foods, the nation's largest national organic foods retailer, 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.

"We are pleased that Whole Foods has finally recognized consumers' right to know about GMOs," said Ronnie Cummins, National Director of the OCA. "This is a major victory for U.S. consumers who have for far too long been denied basic information which would enable them to make safe, healthy food choices. This also represents a major defeat for Monsanto and the rest of the biotech industry who have been deceiving consumers since they first conspired more than 20 years ago with the U.S. Food & Drug Administration to falsely convince consumers that genetically modified foods are no different than foods that don't contain organisms created by manipulating DNA in laboratories or by injecting seeds with bacteria and pesticides."

But the Whole Foods plan does not go far enough, Cummins said. "We ask that Whole Foods step up its timetable for GMO labeling, to coincide with the July 2015 deadline prescribed by I-522, the citizens' initiative for GMO labeling in Washington State. We also call on Whole Foods to stop selling products that contain GMOs under the misleading "natural" label, and to require any product in its store called "natural" be GMO-free."

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.

Last week, the OCA launched a new nationwide campaign: Organic Retail and Consumer Alliance (ORCA). The new alliance will aggressively promote organic food and products, and expose and eliminate the rampant "natural" labeling and marketing fraud that has slowed the growth of America's $30-billion dollar organic sector.

"Routine mislabeling and marketing fraud has confused millions of U.S. consumers, and enabled the so-called "natural" foods and products sector to grow into a $60-billion- a-year powerhouse, garnering twice as many sales in 2012 as certified organic products," said Cummins. "It's time we stopped allowing food companies to market unhealthy food products, containing GMOs, pesticides, and synthetic and chemical compounds, as "natural," and we call on Whole Foods Market to take the first step."

  The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) is an online and grassroots non-profit 501(c)3 public interest organization campaigning for health, justice, and sustainability. The Organic Consumers Fund is a 501(c)4 allied organization of the Organic Consumers Association, focused on grassroots lobbying and legislative action.

[mother earth]

12. TY, proverbialwisdome, I hope OCA is successful in this, the sooner the better!

[proverbialwisdom]

13. Minutes ago, truthout.org reposted this phenomenal original overview article from OCA.

I interpret OCA's fair use notice on the page bottom to encourage full article reposting. If wrong, I will edit to 4 paragraphs. Embedded links omitted. GREAT WORK, OCA! I'm proud to be an annual donor.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_27143.cfm

Five Ways the FDA Has Failed Consumers on Genetically Engineered Foods
By Zack Kaldveer

1. No health safety testing

Genetically engineered (GE) foods have never been safety tested by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), thanks to a 20-year-old policy that says it’s up to the biotech companies to determine the safety of genetically engineered (GE) foods. So while all other developed countries require safety testing for GE plants, the government agency in charge of protecting U.S. citizens lets biotech companies, who stand to make billions in profits from GE foods, conduct their own “voluntary safety consultations.”

GE foods have been linked to a number of health safety problems, including the introduction of new allergens or increased levels of naturally occurring allergens, of plant toxins and changes in nutrition, according to Michael Hansen, Ph.D. Hansen, a senior scientist for the Consumers Union, who has studied genetically modified organisms (GMOs) for more than 20 years.

Meanwhile, a growing body of peer-reviewed studies in the scientific literature suggests genetic engineering is linked to allergies and other adverse effects and increased pesticide use . The United Nations/World Health Organization food standards ... and the American Medical Association have called for mandatory safety testing of genetically engineered foods. The U.S. FDA continues to fail to meet that standard.

2. No labeling

If the FDA isn’t going to test GE foods for safety, the least it could do is require labeling, so people can choose to avoid GMOs if they want. But so far, the FDA has rejected labeling under the controversial argument that GE foods are “substantially equivalent” to their non-genetically engineered counterparts.

More than 60 countries already label genetically engineered (GE) foods, including all of Europe, Australia, Japan, China and Russia. The U.S. and Canada stand alone as the only two industrialized countries yet to provide citizens the fundamental, democratic right to know what’s in the food they eat and feed their children.

The FDA’s refusal to support this basic right stands in direct defiance of the overwhelming will of the American people. The FDA has received over a million petitions from concerned citizens demanding that GMOs be labeled – the most received on any issue in the Agency’s history. The most recent poll shows that the overwhelming majority – 82 percent - of Americans want mandatory labeling laws. But our calls for transparency continue to fall on deaf ears.

Failure to label GMOs forces consumers to serve as test subjects for a massive GMO experiment, and makes it nearly impossible to trace health issues back to their source. It also prevents small farmers, the organics industry, and truly natural food producers from competing on an equal playing field.

3. Revolving door policy

Is it any wonder the FDA gives the biotech industry free rein, when it allows Monsanto employees to revolve in and out of its doors?

Michael Taylor, the FDA’s Deputy Commissioner of Food since January 2013, is the architect of the FDA’s substantial equivalence policy, used to justify no safety testing and no labeling of GMOs. One look at Taylor’s career trajectory and it’s clear how he arrived at such a policy.

Taylor’s first job out of law school, in 1976, was staff attorney for the FDA. In 1981, he left the FDA to work as an attorney in the food and drug practice of King & Spalding, a private law firm representing Monsanto. In 1991, it was back to the FDA, in the newly created post of Deputy Commissioner for Policy. Between 1996 and 2000, after briefly returning to King & Spalding, Taylor became vice president for public policy at Monsanto.

Dizzy yet? There’s more. In 2009, Taylor once again returned to the FDA as senior advisor to the FDA Commissioner. Then, in January 2010, President Obama appointed Taylor to yet another newly created post at the FDA: Deputy Commissioner for Foods.

GMO safety testing doesn’t stand a chance, as long as Taylor bounces between the FDA and Monsanto - despite the fact that numerous FDA scientists, before and after creation of the FDA’s substantial equivalence policy, had expressed concerns that genetic modification of the food supply was a potential threat to human health requiring more study before being approved for public consumption.

4. Pushing GE animals on consumers

The FDA did its best to sneak genetically engineered (GE) salmon by consumers in late December, when it quietly announced it was launching a 60-day public comment period. The announcement followed the release of the FDA’s Environmental Assessment (EA) of GE salmon, which Michael Hansen, PhD, senior scientist with the Consumers Union, described as "flawed and inadequate."

An outraged public inundated the agency with thousands of comments. The FDA responded by extending the public comment period an additional 60 days. But given the agency’s propensity to fast track GE crops, do we really think it will put the kibosh on what could become the first GE animal to enter the U.S. food supply?

The FDA claims “Frankenfish” won’t harm the environment, endanger human health, or harm natural populations of salmon. This accepted narrative conflicts with the FDA’s own data – derived from AquaBounty’s internal research – which shows the GE fish increases the potential for allergies. And do we really want to eat a fish that contains elevated levels of the growth hormone, IGF-1, linked to prostate, breast and colon cancers?

More than 40 Congress members have urged the FDA to conduct a more rigorous review of environmental and health safety concerns of GE salmon before approving it. So far, the FDA has failed to comply.

5. Privatizing seeds

The FDA’s love affair with Monsanto has led to the privatization, and patenting, of the very source of life: seeds. Monsanto is allowed to sell its patented genetically engineered (GE) "Roundup Ready" soybean seeds, and other patented seeds, to farmers under a contract that prohibits the farmers from saving the next-generation seeds and replanting them. Farmers who buy Monsanto’s GE seeds are required to buy new seeds every year. Monsanto then sells the same farmers its proprietary pesticides, like Roundup, that can be sprayed in huge amounts on Monsanto’s patented Roundup Ready crops, killing everything except the GE plants.

It’s a win-win for Monsanto. But everybody else loses.

Monsanto promised farmers that the company’s Roundup Ready scheme would increase yields and profits. Not true. Since 1995, the average cost to plant one acre of Monsanto’s soybeans has risen 325 percent, according to the Center for Food Safety. Corn seed prices are up by 259 percent. Those increases don’t include the cost of the lawsuits Monsanto has aggressively filed against farmers the company claims have violated patent agreements. By the end of 2012, Center for Food Safety calculates that Monsanto had received over $23.5 million from patent infringement lawsuits against farmers and farm businesses.

Monsanto promised that its GE crops would help the environment by reducing the need for pesticides. But according to the USDA, farmers used up to 26 percent more chemicals per acre on herbicide-resistant crops than on non-GE crops. And as several dozen aggressive "superweeds" have become resistant to glyphosate, the primary herbicide used on GE crops, the biotech industry is ramping up its war on weeds with a new generation of GE crops that can surviving spraying with 2,4 D, paraquat, and other super-toxic herbicides.

And what about Monsanto’s promise that GE seeds would feed the world’s hungry? Debunked. In 2010, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) warned that the loss of biodiversity will have “major impact on the ability of humankind to feed itself in the future.”

Who is the FDA really looking out for? Hard to believe it’s the U.S. consumer.

Zack Kaldveer is assistant media manager for the Organic Consumers Association.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/15042-five-ways-the-fda-has-failed-consumers-on-genetically-engineered-foods

[KoKo]

25. Thanks...Good Read..

[Berlum]

14. Occult Genetically Mutant crapola foodlike products are a sin against Free Will

[proverbialwisdom]

15. Mysterious autoimmune disorders, severe allergies in children seen in NYT magazine cover stories.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/magazine/can-a-radical-new-treatment-save-children-with-severe-allergies.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/the-extraordinary-science-of-junk-food.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/magazine/the-boy-with-a-thorn-in-his-joints.html?pagewanted=all


- along with a dismissive defense of biotech in the context of an article about genetically modified mosquitoes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/when-mutant-mosquitoes-attack.html?pagewanted=all

EUREKA
When Mutant Mosquitoes Attack
by Maggie Koeryh-Baker

...This sort of risk-taking is a hallmark of contemporary civilization. In 1986, the German sociologist Ulrich Beck coined the term “risk society” as a way of describing the shift in science and technology’s relationship to risk over the past century. For most of human history, Beck argues, risks came from unknowable and uncontrollable forces — natural disasters, famine, disease. So we focused on mitigating those external risks. Today we have at least partial solutions to many natural risks — levees, industrial farming and antibiotics, say — but each solution contributes to new risks — more destructive floods, obesity and drug-resistant diseases — which then have to be managed with new solutions, which then present new risks.

“What this does though, in the public mind, is undermine people’s belief in science,” Haenn told me. “It creates skepticism.” So science must change the way it engages with the world as it both reduces and creates risk.

<>

These are not problems that scientists had to worry about in the past. In Beck’s description of how risk societies work, the first round of scientific innovation — when science solves the problems imposed on us by nature — is accepted gratefully, even uncritically. We must now manage the risks that we have created, Haenn said, as well as those we continue to create.

[librechik]

16. WHY does "WHOLE FOODS" stock GMO items at all???

fuck those phonies. I want my old Rainbow Grocery Co-op back.

[L0oniX]

17. The dead and dieing will be happy about that. Meanwhile there are functions...

for that extra arm and hand that grew out of your stomach.

[proverbialwisdom]

18. That kind of hyperbole isn't helpful, as I suspect you might know.

Although anyone actually at risk of dying of prostate, breast, or colon cancer could legitimately regret heavy dairy consumption, unless organic, as I know I did.

http://www.organicvalley.coop/why-organic/synthetic-hormones/about-rbgh/

http://thinkbeforeyoupink.org/?page_id=2
http://thinkbeforeyoupink.org/?page_id=6

http://www.organicvalley.coop/why-organic/synthetic-hormones/about-rbgh/

Quick Facts about rBGH

A Consumers Union survey found that 88% of people agreed  that “milk from cows raised without synthetic bovine growth hormone should be allowed to be labeled as such.” Another professional survey by Lake Research Partners for Food and Water Watch found 80% feeling the same way.

rBGH increases the rates of 16 different harmful medical conditions in cows, and there is substantial scientific evidence that it may increase antibiotic resistance and cancer rates in humans.

Most industrialized nations of the world have banned the use of rBGH, and the Codex Alimentarius, the U.N.’s main food safety body, concluded there was no consensus that it’s safe for human health.

Health Care Without Harm, an international coalition of over 440 organizations that promotes safe and healthy practices in hospitals, adopted a formal position statement opposing rBGH. Already, over 100 hospitals throughout the country have declared they will move toward serving rBGH-free dairy products.

[L0oniX]

20. Mothers really dig their 7 yo daughters growing breasts too.

We've had enough of the GBH cover up here in Tampa. Even the local media have gone out of their way to stop any negative info on it. Think the NRA is big ...well the dairy association is big too. I've heard enough from mothers about how soon their daughters develop breasts. Maybe that isn't proof but there is no denying that there is something going on ...and many are not going to wait for some bullshit study backed by the dairy association or the bought and owned FDA. Trust is for suckers.

[proverbialwisdom]

21. I've read GMO soy and BPA may be largely responsible for premature puberty, not rBGH.

http://www.google.com/search?q=gmo+soy+premature+puberty&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari
GOOGLE : gmo soy premature puberty

http://www.google.com/search?q=gmo+soy+premature+puberty&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari#sclient=tablet-gws&hl=en&client=safari&q=BPA+premature+puberty&oq=BPA+premature+puberty&gs_l=tablet-gws.3...239862.243991.0.245180.10.8.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0.les%3B..0.0...1ac.1.5.tablet-gws.NibytimZ2Hs&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.&bvm=bv.43287494,d.dmQ&fp=b9d40b8337b249c6&biw=768&bih=928
GOOGLE: BPA premature puberty

I wonder what accounts for the difference in link lengths.

[proverbialwisdom]

22. I stand corrected. Thanks for the new info.

Embedded links @ original article. (Wrong link for Italian study, however.)

http://digitaljournal.com/article/335214#ixzz2NN6pNEBe

...According to a Live Strong article published in 2011, although a Cornell University study showed that research findings were mixed and limited, it did show that growth hormones used in meat and dairy products may be linked to early puberty.

<>

In the 80's the use of growth hormones in cattle was banned throughout much of Europe after an Italian study showed that the hormones were linked to early puberty. The European Union banned the import of beef from the United States and Canada in the 1990's because of the prevalent use of growth hormones in cattle.

<>

[proverbialwisdom]

23. Oh, snap.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_27168.cfm

Minnesota, the Next Battleground State in the Fight to Label GMOs
By Jonathan Benson

Natural News, March 10, 2013
Straight to the Source

 Two pieces of legislation recently introduced in both the Minnesota House and Senate could soon make the Land of 10,000 Lakes the first in the nation to require the labeling of all foods that contain genetically-modified organisms (GMOs). If passed, H.F. 850 and S.F. 821 would require that all food products containing GM ingredients bear the words "Produced with Genetic Engineering," a simple and straightforward phrase that would help Minnesotans make better and more informed food purchasing decisions.

Following the seemingly fraudulent defeat of Proposition 37 in California last fall, more than 20 states, including Minnesota, have since introduced their own versions of GMO labeling legislation. On February 21, Representative Karen Clark of Minneapolis introduced H.F. 850, and a week later, Senator John Marty of Roseville introduced S.F. 821. The House bill specifically addresses the mandatory labeling aspect of the intended new law, while the Senate bill specifically prohibits the undisclosed sale of GM seeds and food.

"It's such a basic right, the right to know what's in the food you're eating," explains Rep. Clark, whose bill intendedly complements S.F. 821. "This legislation is really a very moderate step. It doesn't ban genetically modified ingredients. It just lets consumers know about them so they can make their own choices."

Not surprisingly, in a state heavily controlled by corporate agriculture interests, efforts are already afoot to block the legislation from passing. The Minnesota Farmers Union (MFU), for instance, which represents many a cohort of Minnesota farmers that grow GMOs, has already indicated its opposition to GMO labeling efforts, at least at the state level. The group says it does; however, support GMO labeling at the national level, according to the Star Tribune.

<>

[proverbialwisdom]

24. "Kids and Food Allergies: New Laws on Stocking All Public Schools with Meds"

http://www.ageofautism.com/2013/03/kids-and-food-allergies-new-laws-on-stocking-all-public-schools-with-meds.html

Kids and Food Allergies: New Laws on Stocking All Public Schools with Meds

By Heather Fraser
March 15, 2013

New laws on stocking all public schools with emergency allergy meds:  parents over a barrel

An allergy & autism Mom brought to my attention a FARE (Food Allergy Research and Education) e-newsletter item “Efforts to Equip Schools with Epinephrine Intensify”. 

The item is short, a mere three paragraphs long but the weary tale of disaster capitalism between the lines calls out.  Repeated twice in the piece is the phrase “…many students who may need epinephrine may have no known history of allergy to food…” 

Was FARE justifying stocking auto-injectors of epinephrine in all 98,817 US public schools based on the possibility that non-allergic kids might suddenly react? 

Well, yes and no, as it turns out.  This story of endemic disaster capitalism – fear assuaged by consumption -- is supported by enormous challenges within American health and education systems.  Parents with school aged allergic kids seem trapped and scared.

<>

Also by the author: http://www.autismfile.com/science-research/the-autism-and-allergy-overlap

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251241257
Sat Nov 10, 2012, 10:32 AM DU Thread

http://fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2012/may/29/dan_quayle_and_michael_taylors_nightmare_lives_on/

From the start, the policy of "substantial equivalence" had many critics. The concerns by the FDA's own scientists were summed up in a memo by FDA compliance officer Dr. Linda Kahl, who protested that the agency was "... trying to fit a square peg into a round hole . . . trying to force an ultimate conclusion that there is no difference between foods modified by genetic engineering and foods modified by traditional breeding practices."

As Kahl wrote, "The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks."

Memo: http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Dr-Linda-Kahl-FDA.htm

[AndyA]

26. Five years from now...they're really making it a priority, aren't they?

Why would it take five years? Determine if the contents are genetically modified, and print new labels. A lot of work, perhaps, but five years? Really?

I guess they figure what people don't know won't hurt them.

[proverbialwisdom]

27. Terrific website for updates here: http://fooddemocracynow.org/

http://fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2013/mar/12/labeling_of_gmo_baby_food_and_baby_formula/

Labeling of Genetically Engineered Baby Food and Baby Formula
Posted by Dave on March 12, 2013


Hartford CT – The labeling of genetically engineered foods is one step closer to being a reality in Connecticut.  Today the Committee on Children voted 11 to 1 in favor of House Bill 6527,“An Act Concerning Genetically Engineered Baby Food”, that would require the labeling of foods fed to infants that contain genetically engineered ingredients.

Amanda Wendt, the social media director of GMO Free CT, the grass roots organization advocating for GMO labeling in CT, stated that: “We are thrilled that HB 6527 bill has passed the committee. We are firm believers in the consumer's right to know and we love that parents are one step closer to having the information they need to feed their babies food or formula without genetically modified ingredients.  This gives us great momentum moving into Friday's Public Health Committee hearing.”

Connecticut is the first state to introduce a labeling bill that specifically targets GMOs (genetically modified organisms) in baby food and infant formula.

The bill to label genetically engineered baby food was introduced by Representative Diana Urban, Chair of the Children’s Committee and a Democrat from North Stonington, CT, who has one child of her own.  Urban shared that she knew about GMOs from the start and never fed them to her son and that she feels for all the mothers out there who are first learning about GMOs and are now devastated about what they fed their babies.  Vice chair of the Children’s Committee, Kim Fawcett, a Democrat from Fairfield stated that “More and more we are coming to realize that GMOs represent a possible human health concern for adults and our children. With the real potential threat to human health, we must make sure to provide basic information to mothers trying to make healthy choices for their families.  The work we’re doing here in Connecticut is just part of the voice of a national movement that is demanding more information and transparency about what’s in our food.”

<>