Content by specific author

Green America and GMO Inside are pleased to announce our new Farmer-Grower Initiative. Through this new initiative, we are expanding collaboration with farmers, growers, and garden educators across the US to highlight and celebrate the work of those who engage in sustainable agriculture. By amplifying the voice of the sustainable farming community, we aim to bridge the gap of communication between farmers, consumers, and policy makers. Stay tuned on the blog and our Facebook page for new farmer-grower profiles.

We couldn't be more excited to kick off our new Farmer-Grower Initiative with the help of Constance and Eric Payne from Chopping Block Farm. We first connected with Constance and Eric at the Baker Creek Spring Planting Festival in May 2014, and couldn't wait to work with them on our inaugural Farmer Profile. They even gifted us two of their custom-made Chopping Block t-shirts!

Read on to learn more about two of the coolest farmers around - and make sure to "like” the Chopping Block Facebook page. To check out their full website, click here.

Introduce yourself!
We are Constance and Eric Payne of Chopping Block Farm, GMO-free and AgriTrue Certified. We live in De Soto, Missouri, approximately 45 minutes south of St. Louis.

Describe your farm and the sustainable practices you employ.
The primary sustainable practices we employ on the farm are based on many common permaculture design principles and ethics. Through observation of our land and conditions, Farmer Eric was able to create and impose a landscape that maximizes natural and environmental input and minimizes human alteration. We employ Hugelkultur [raised garden beds created on woody debris like fallen branches or logs], swales [water-harvesting ditches] and water-catchment systems, no-till gardening, composting, natural fertilizer and diverse planting that allows symbiotic relationships between plants, insects and animals to thrive.

When and how did your interest in food and farming start?
Many moons ago we both had an interest in gardening, planting and growing food. It wasn't until we moved in together that we were able to join forces to build on the passions and interests we previously had. As a biologist, my [Constance's] interests were rooted--no pun intended--in the effects of the current food system in this country being imposed on the bodies of its consumers. I became interested in eating in a way that was more natural, rather than more convenient. Farmer Eric has always been a “grower,” keeping a garden from the time he was a small child. His experience in gardening, soil and plant biology and permaculture are really to credit for our success. I suppose my interest in the food, paired with his experience in growing it, is what led to farming for us. We had a 5-year plan for a house with five acres. Eight months later, we started a 25-acre farm - go figure.

Considering emerging and pressing issues like climate change, increased use of pesticides & genetically modified seeds, and intensified agriculture – how has your relationship with food and farming changed over time?
We are now much more aware, both as producers and consumers, than we were before we started farming. We do not limit ourselves to a label on a package or box, but realize that through familiarity of current and nearly obsolete practices, regulations, and biological systems, both plant and animal, we are able to choose, consume and produce the most natural items possible from the purest of sources.

What is the biggest misconception that modern consumers have when it comes to food?
Where it comes from. There is such great disconnect with what we put into our bodies these days that many people seem to be oblivious to where their food comes from - and the work that goes into producing it. So many people never think beyond where they buy their food, and how it is grown is rarely considered. We chose the name we did--Chopping Block Farm--in an attempt to make people think about that very fact. We remind people that every piece of meat they eat used to be a live animal and that someone had to raise and kill it, because if you lose that connection to your food, you no longer appreciate it. When you have no appreciation or care for what goes into your body, it has an effect on every aspect of your existence.

What is the most important thing for modern consumers to understand when it comes to food?
That you, the consumer, have control of what goes into your body. You are not limited to convenience, what is on a screen at the drive-through, and what is on sale at the local grocer. Generally speaking, the cheaper “food” is, the worse it is for you. Some of the cheapest food anyone will ever consume is the food you grow yourself. This, of course, when done responsibly, is also some of the best food - and all it takes is a little time and patience.

What advice can you give to someone who wants to learn more about sustainable food but doesn’t know where to start?
Look for small natural or sustainable farms in your area if you are interested in growing. Talk to people, be it in person or via social networking, who have done what you want to do. That is priceless knowledge and practical experience that cannot be beat. If you are interested in obtaining sustainable food, the farmers are again at the top of the list of whom to contact, but also do not hesitate to connect with local farmers markets, CSAs or other consumers with similar interests.

What do you believe is the most underrated issue in talking about food systems? Are there any issues that you don’t feel are talked about enough in mainstream media?
There is a great underrepresentation of information on the nutritional value of “food.” Because of the pesticides, herbicides, constant tilling, and careless practices of modern agriculture, the health of our soil is greatly depleted. When the soil is no longer a source of nutrition for the plant, but instead only a “growing medium”, that translates to everything we eat. The fruits, vegetables and nuts grown in unhealthy soil are a mere shadow, nutritionally speaking, of what they could be if grown in healthy soil.

Healthy soil would eliminate the need for many of the poisons that our food is exposed to. Conventional meat is often raised on feed made from empty plants growing in the empty “soil” that sits on most commercialized farms, and that produces meats with a diminished nutritional value. When food is produced this way, people need to be aware that they are not eating food as it was intended to be eaten.

What are your favorite go-to resources when it comes to sustainable food, farming, gardening, etc.?

People & Organizations: Bill Mollison, Geoff Lawton, Eliot Coleman; Slow Food USA
Websites: Permaethos.com, The SurvivalPodcast.com
Books: Storey's Guide to... books from Storey Publishing. There are a million great ones!

Many thanks go out to Constance and Eric for sharing their story! Visit their website at www.choppingblockfarm.com to learn more about the principles behind their mission, see photos, and more.

Read about more Sustainable Agriculture Spotlights and organic farming stories at GreenAmerica.org.

As students start getting ready to go back to school, some of them are also getting ready to embark upon a new year of greening their campuses. Green America editorial fellow Sari Amiel discovered five inspiring examples of how students are making their campuses more socially just and environmentally sustainable. Every Monday and Wednesday from now through August 27^th, we’ll post one of Sari’s stories here on our blog.

Cornell's "Dump and Run" program gets items that students would normally throw away at the end of the school year into the hands of people who can use them.

As each year of college draws to a close, students have to face a reality that, for months, they been avoiding—the amount of stuff that has accumulated in their rooms. With time and space in short supply, students will often throw away many still-useful items. That’s why Cornell University gives its students the ability to “Dump and Run.”

Since 2003, Cornell’s Dump and Run program has decreased its move-out waste stream by collecting unwanted items at the end of each school year and re-selling things that are still usable at the start of the next year.

“[This program is] really good in terms of keeping as much as we possibly can out of the landfill,” says Karen Brown, Cornell’s Director of Campus Life Marketing and Communications, who oversees the Dump and Run program. “And I think it’s very effective in terms of our relationship with the Ithaca community.”

Before Cornell’s residence halls close for the summer, the Campus Life office reminds students to place their unwanted items in collection boxes, which are situated in several residence halls, sororities, and fraternities around campus.  In the late spring and summer, those living in off-campus residences and homes in the community can also call Brown’s office to request pickups of their donations.

Dump and Run commonly receives refrigerators, clothing, lamps, and storage containers. Many of the donated items still contain tags, says Brown. In the past few years, she has seen a life-size inflatable palm tree, Halloween costumes, aquariums, Christmas trees, and a $700 pair of Jimmy Choo shoes.

Volunteers from local nonprofits, along with a few student volunteers, spend the summer in a 3,500-square-foot storage unit, sorting through the collection of college artifacts to separate still-usable items from things that are clearly at the end of their lives and need to be disposed of.

“We try to recycle everything that we can,” says Brown. “I’m pleasantly surprised [by] how little ends up in the landfill.”

The vast majority of the items are sold at the campus Dump and Run sale on the Saturday after freshmen move-in day. This sale is open to Cornell students and staff, as well as the general public. It’s so popular that, although the sale starts at 8:30 a.m., townspeople start arriving at 5:30 a.m. By the time the doors open, there are usually about 100 people lined up outside.

“I think this program has done a lot to help with our relationship with our surrounding town…because they really appreciate it,” says Brown. “It’s a great way to convince people to clean out their basements and garages.”

After the sale, Brown says the program distributes leftover items to nearby nonprofits that might be able to use them. Dump and Run volunteers give leftover clothes to a local women’s center, send blankets and towels to animal shelters, and donate nonperishable food to food pantries.

However, Cornell does manage to sell most of the donations it receives. It gives almost 100 percent of the proceeds from the sale to the local nonprofits that send volunteers to help with the Dump and Run program. The fraction of the sales revenue that each nonprofit receives is proportional to the number of hours that its volunteers spent working with Dump and Run. Cops, Kids & Toys, the group that helps Dump and Run the most, volunteered more than 3,000 hours last year.

One of these nonprofit groups is a student-run organization. According to former co-Chair Christina Roberti, Cornell’s Student United Way chapter uses its share of the sale revenue to fund its Summers of Service program. Summers of Service provides financially constrained high school students with a stipend so that they can afford to accept unpaid summer internships at nonprofits.

Cornell’s Campus Life office presently stores items in facilities donated by the Cornell Veterinary School. However, a lack of storage space is the largest constraint that Dump and Run faces, so students still end up throwing some still-usable items out at the end of the year.

“When we see things end up in the dumpsters and we know we can’t go get it, it’s disheartening,” says Brown. “I think if we had twice the warehouse space, we would fill it.”

From a student perspective, Roberti really appreciates the Dump and Run program.

“From my point of view, it saves a lot of waste,” says Roberti. “I just moved out of a 14-person house… Anything that wasn’t trash we donated to Dump and Run, but we probably would have thrown it out had it not been for the sale.”

—Sari Amiel

Apple responds to over 23,000 comments from concerned consumers. More needs to be done to protect workers.

August 14, 2014

Washington, DC – August 14, 2014 –Green America announced today that it is pleased with Apple’s August 13 announcement that it is taking first steps to protect the workers who make their products from dangerous chemical exposures. Apple announced that it is banning the use of benzene and n-hexane in the final assembly of its products. 

Green America continues to urge Apple to go further to ensure the safety of all workers in its supply chain. Beyond benzene and n-hexane, there are thousands of chemicals used in the manufacturing of electronics—some which are largely untested—and many chemicals used by Apple suppliers remain undisclosed. Apple first needs to disclose all of the chemicals used in the manufacturing processes of its products, not just those with restrictions. Additionally, while Green America applauds Apple for investigating all its final assembly plants in China, the nonprofit is urging Apple to look deeper into its supply chain, to the second and third tier suppliers, where chemical usage and safety procedures are less controlled. Apple has 349 supplier facilities in China with an estimated 1.5 million workers. Apple has investigated just 22 of these facilities (6.3%) which employ a third of the workers who work on Apple’s products. This sample does not represent a cross-section of all of Apple’s suppliers in China. Apple is still allowing benzene and n-hexane, and many other potentially hazardous chemicals, to be used in its second and third tier suppliers.

Elizabeth O'Connell, campaigns director at Green America, said: "This announcement and the preceding investigation shows that Apple listens to its customers.  However, Apple needs to go further to create a safe environment at all factories in their supply chain for the health and safety of all 1.5 million workers."

Green America will continue to call for Apple to identify and disclose all chemicals used in all supplier factories. Chemicals deemed hazardous to human health must be replaced with safer alternatives in all factories. In situations where the danger of a chemical is unknown, Apple must require proper testing. Apple must institute and enforce appropriate exposure monitoring, medical monitoring, and effective training and management systems to ensure worker health and safety, and ensure that any workers harmed in the manufacture of its products receive appropriate medical care. 

ABOUT GREEN AMERICA

Green America is the nation’s leading green economy organization. Founded in 1982, Green America (formerly Co-op America) provides the economic strategies, organizing power and practical tools for businesses, investors, and individuals to solve today’s social and environmental problems. http://www.greenamerica.org.

MEDIA CONTACT: Will Harwood (703) 276-3255 or wharwood@hastingsgroup.com

Slated to be the largest climate rally in history: we’re hitting the streets of NYC at the People’s Climate March to demand that our world leaders take substantive and immediate action on climate change.

Record-breaking temperatures. Unprecedented drought. Extreme weather.

Over the past few years, we’ve experienced some of the worst climate-related disasters in history. But with further delay on real solutions to the global climate crisis, we’re looking at a future that is far more grim than the present.

This September, Green America is joining over 550 participating organizations to change the course of history at the People’s Climate March.

With the UN Climate Summit taking place the following week, all eyes will be on New York as we make our message loud and clear.

Concerned citizens from all over the country will descend on New York City to march in solidarity with all those fighting for our future. Will you join us on September 21?

By signing up with the People’s Climate March, you’ll receive up-to-date information regarding logistics, transportation, and more. Link up with participating groups in your area here.

Most importantly, don’t forget to invite your neighbors, classmates, friends, and family.

This could be the day that changes everything. We can’t wait to see you out there.

Apple removes two of the most toxic chemicals from its tier 2 assembly (August 2014)

Green America’s End Smartphone Sweatshops campaign, in partnership with China Labor Watch (CLW), called on Apple to remove toxic chemicals including benzene and n-hexane from its supplier factories in China. Only five months into the campaign, Apple announced in August that it would “explicitly prohibit the use of benzene and n-hexane” at 22 of its final-assembly supplier factories.

Health-conscious people avoid it and few people admit to using it, but it always turns up at a summertime cookout, picnic, or potluck…mayonnaise. Mayonnaise is a staple in dishes like potato salad, coleslaw, and the beloved deviled egg. Some people even mix it with ketchup and put it on hot dogs, or use it alone on French fries. Made mostly of oil, eggs, and vinegar, mayo is the ever-present guest at your summertime gathering. With 31 percent market share in the US (and 52% in Canada), Hellmann’s Real Mayonnaise is the likely brand in your potato salad. Other similar culprits may include Duke’s, Miracle Whip, Kraft, and Heinz. But there's a special ingredient lurking in your Hellmann's mayo that you should know about...GMOs.

Hellmann’s, acquired by Unilever in 2000, just celebrated its 100^th anniversary as America’s most popular mayonnaise. Its main competitor, Miracle Whip (owned by Kraft), was introduced as a cheaper alternative during the Depression Era. Because Miracle Whip used powdered eggs instead of whole eggs, it lost the “real” appeal to consumers, since “real” mayonnaise could only contain whole eggs, vinegar, and olive oil. Hellmann’s used this as a key marketing tactic against Miracle Whip for a long time, promoting its own truly “real” mayonnaise and getting a leg up on the competition.

As the years have gone by, we have seen a growing separation between the ingredients used in Hellmann’s mayo and its marketed image of their “real” product. The company’s latest advertising campaign co-opts the sustainable food movement by asking customers to consider supporting local farmers, and starting a home garden rather than focus on the product itself. Alison Leung, Unilever’s foods marketing director, said, “We gave [consumers] an idea to buy into.”  The reality of Hellmann’s is clearly far from its clever marketing campaign.

What is the “Real” Problem with Hellmann’s?

Hellmann’s used to take great pride in its “real” ingredients. Now, Hellmann’s mayonnaise is made with less-than wholesome ingredients produced in ways that put people, animals, pollinators, and the planet at risk. Half of the ingredients are likely produced from genetically modified (GMO) crops. The eggs are also sourced from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), commonly referred to as factory farms.

The actual list of ingredients in Hellmann’s Real Mayonnaise are (those that are likely directly or indirectly GMOs are bold): soybean oil, water, whole eggs and egg yolks, vinegar, salt, sugar, lemon juice, calcium disodium EDTA (used to protect quality), natural flavors.

Concerns about GMOs

The reality: Hellmann’s “Real” Mayonnaise is nothing like the product offered 100 years ago, and the current version is bad for people and the planet. GMOs and growing herbicide resistance have increased the use of toxic chemicals on crops, polluting our soil and water and posing a significant negative environmental impact. Corporate control of GMOs hurts small farmers. The biotech and chemical corporations spend millions to support anti-labeling efforts and keep consumers in the dark about their food. There are also health risks. GMOs are not yet proven safe for human health—the FDA does not require independent testing of GE foods, allowing for many of the studies on GMOs to be industry-funded and heavily biased.

Among the list of ingredients in Hellmann’s Real Mayonnaise, the following products are of particular concern:

• Soybean oil: 93 percent of soy in the US is GMO
• Sugar: 54 percent of sugar sold in the US is from sugar beets, of which over 90 percent are GMO
• Vinegar: Made from corn, of which 89 percent is GMO
• Eggs: Laying hens (egg-producing chickens) are fed GMO corn and soy
• Natural flavors: A nebulous term that includes many ingredients that people don’t consider to be natural

Concerns about Eggs and CAFOs

Corporate and Geographic Consolidation

Gone are the days of pastures, barns, field crops, and farm animals. Eggs are produced in industrial operations with hundreds of thousands of laying hens in each facility, growing by nearly 25 percent from 1997 to 2007. Nearly half of egg production is concentrated in five states: Iowa, Ohio, Indiana, California, and Pennsylvania. Egg operations have grown in size by 50 percent in the same ten-year period, averaging 750,000 hens per factory farm. Though headquartered in Mississippi, Cal-Maine is the largest egg producer in the United States, selling 685 million dozen eggs in 2007 with a flock of 23 million hens.

Animal Welfare

The manner in which laying hens are raised directly affects their wellbeing and health. Egg-laying hens are subjected to mutilation, confinement, and deprivation of the ability to live their lives as the active, social beings they are. More than 90 percent of eggs in the US are produced in confinement conditions. Welfare abuses run rampant in egg CAFOs including: killing male chicks upon hatching because they have no value to the egg industry, debeaking young female chicks causing severe pain, living in battery cages with the equivalent of less than a sheet of paper of floor size, being subjected to a process called “forced molting” where hens are starved and deprived of food for up to two weeks to shock their bodies into the next egg-laying cycle, and slaughtering them after their egg production declines in 1-2 years even though the lifespan of an industry chicken would be 5-8 years.

There is growing concern about the living conditions in which food animals are raised; however, there is little oversight when it comes to product labels, as we have recently seen in the news regarding the label “natural”.The majority of egg labels have no official standards or oversight or enforcement mechanisms, nor much relevance to animal welfare. Labels include: cage-free, free-range, free-roaming, pasture-raised, certified organic, vegetarian-fed, and more. The highest-welfare eggs come pasture-raised with certification from Animal Welfare Approved. Unfortunately, few farms are certified to this standard. Check out the organization’s mobile app to find products near you.

Even certified organic is not without flaws. According to a report by Cornucopia, industrial-scale organic egg producers, with facilities holding as many as 85,000 hens each, provide 80 percent of the organic eggs on the market. This means that less than half of a percent of egg-laying hens in this country are on pasture-based farms. Therefore, it is important to dig deeper and do research into the company. Local producers offer a shorter supply chain and more transparency.

Hellmann’s claims to be committed to using cage-free eggs in its products, with a portion of their eggs currently cage-free and a mission to use 100 percent cage-free eggs by 2020. Rather than using Animal Welfare Approved certification, the company opted for American Humane Certified where forced molting through starvation is prohibited, but beak cutting is allowed. To qualify as “cage-free”, the birds must be kept uncaged inside barns–but may still be kept indoors at all times.

Public and Environmental Health

Poor living conditions directly impact public and environmental health. Large-scale factory farm operations produce more than just that little white orb used in baking recipes and for brunch dishes; they are also breeding grounds for disease and pollution.

Large hen facilities house hundreds of thousands of animals in each structure and result in Salmonella poisoning of eggs. Due to a Salmonella outbreak in 2010 where close to 2,000 cases in three months were reported, the US experienced the largest shell egg recall in history—half a billion eggs. While Salmonella rates are higher in battery cage systems, it is still a problem for cage-free facilities due to the sheer number of hens living in such close quarters.

As seen in other factory farm operations for pigs and cows, chicken CAFOs produce higher levels of waste than can be disposed of in a timely and environmentally responsible manner. The imbalance of a large number of animals in an increasingly smaller space causes mountains of fecal matter to pile up. Ammonia levels increase, negatively impacting air quality by creating particles inhaled by animals and people and producing unpleasant odors. Elevated ammonia levels also negatively impact water quality, running off into local streams and rivers. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), ammonia can be carried more than 300 miles through the air before returning to the ground and then into waterways. The nutrients in runoff from animal waste can then cause algal blooms, which use up the water’s oxygen supply killing all aquatic life, leading to “dead zones.” Dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico are growing larger every year, in addition to those along the East Coast.

In addition to having a devastating impact on aquatic life, industrial egg production also contributes to climate change. After assessing the lifecycle of eggs from “cradle-to-grave” production, the Environmental Working Group reported that consuming two extra-large eggs is equivalent to driving a car more than one mile.

Unilever and the Grocery Manufacturers Association

Not only is Hellmann’s mayonnaise made of bad ingredients, but its parent company, Unilever, has its own tainted history. Unilever gave $467,100 dollars to GMO anti-labeling forces in California in 2012. Though the company stepped back from the fight against labeling by not contributing directly to “No on 522” in Washington in 2013, the company is still a dues-paying member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA). Currently, the GMA, Snack Food Association, International Dairy Foods Association, and the National Association of Manufacturers are suing the state of Vermont for recently passing a mandatory GMO labeling law.

Additional Resources

In the coming week, GMO Inside will release a mayonnaise scorecard showing how various brands measure up in terms of GMO ingredients, prevalence of eggs from CAFOs, and sustainability. Within the scorecard we will offer better alternatives and highlight which brands to avoid. We will also post recipes for making homemade mayonnaise (vegan and non-vegan) to give consumers the ultimate ability to control the quality of ingredients used to make the ever-present spread. Stay tuned!

Dynamic Green Festival® speaker Jeffrey Smith has traveled around the world, talking with government leaders and community activists on the dangers of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the food supply. Known for his ability to translate scientific studies on GMOs into language that everyday people can understand, Smith is the author of Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating (Yes Books, 2005) andGenetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods (Yes Books, 2003). Smith is the founder and executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT), a nonprofit group that educates policy makers and the public on the risks associated with GM foods. He’s also been the subject of a targeted, robust industry campaign to discredit his work, but we think you might want to listen to him anyway. Learn more about GMO risks and subscribe to a free newsletter at responsibletechnology.org, and find out how to avoid GMOs at NonGMOShoppingGuide.com.

Jeffrey Smith speaks at a Green Festival.

Green America/Tracy Fernandez Rysavy: How did the potential dangers of GMOs first land on your radar?

Jeffrey Smith: It came from a warning by a scientist at a lecture I was attending in 1996, who laid out a number of hard scientific facts showing that there was no way companies could introduce safe GM foods, given the primitive and unreliable nature of the technology.I realized that the information was powerful and compelling, but it was known by very few and largely among scientific circles, so I endeavored to translate the scientific concerns into language others could understand.

I started with lectures and brochures and then the book Seeds of Deception, which became the bestselling book on GMOs. As a result, I launched the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT). I’m not against genetic engineering (GE) as a science—not against GE medicine, if the scientists understand the side effects that can occur. I’m not against gene therapy, where you correct a defective gene and save lives. I’m not against GE studies in labs. But to feed the products of this infant science to people without studying their effects and releasing them into the environment where they can’t be recalled is extremely dangerous and irresponsible.

GA/Tracy: I think many people have at least a vague knowledge of the impact GMOs have on the environment, but very few appear to understand that they also may affect human health.

Jeffrey Smith: When you look at the big picture, GMOs may be a powerful contributor to the rise of major diseases in the US: food allergies, irritable bowel, and a host of other problems. There’s a shorthand way of referring to the studies that find health concerns: The American Academy of Environmental Medicine determined that GMOs pose a significant health threat, citing several animal feeding studies showing reproductive problems, accelerated aging, gastro-intestinal disorders, immune system dysfunction, organ damage, and problems in the regulation of cholesterol and insulin.

The Academy has urged all doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets. When I speak to doctors around the country, they report seeing an increase in the incidence and severity of certain diseases, which they believe are GMO-related. Moreover, when these doctors take people off of GMO diets, they report that the symptoms—of migraines, gastro-intestinal disorders, weight problems, and more—start to disappear.

GA/Tracy: Can you give some examples of the troublesome studies?

Jeffrey Smith: The animal feeding studies for reproductive dysfunctions are astounding. Rodents that eat GM soy had changes in young sperm cells. Their testicles turned from pink to blue. The DNA function in the embryo offspring changed. In one study where female rats were fed GM soy, more than half of their babies died within three weeks, compared to a ten percent death rate in those fed non-GMO soy. The survivors from the GMO-fed group were largely infertile. In another, most hamsters fed GMOs lost the ability to have babies by the third generation. Infant mortality was also at four to five times the rate of non-GMO eaters. Mice fed GMO corn had smaller and fewer babies. This is just one topic. In other animal feeding studies, we also see toxicity in the liver and kidneys as a consistent result. Likewise, every competent test that evaluated immune-system problems in animals fed GMOs found them.

There are hardly any long-term feeding studies and no post-marketing surveillance. The only human feeding study ever conducted confirmed that the gene inserted into soybeans to make them “Roundup Ready”—or non-killable by the pesticide Roundup’s active ingredient glyphosate—transferred into the DNA of the bacteria living inside our intestines, and the transferred gene may have continued to function. The bacteria became “Roundup Ready.” These results could mean that long after we stop eating GMOs, we could have GM proteins produced inside our intestines. If the Bt toxin-producing gene from corn transfers, we might turn our intestinal flora into living pesticide factories.

GA/Tracy: There’s always this widespread assumption that if these foods were unsafe, the government wouldn’t allow them on the market. Is our government protecting us?

Jeffrey Smith: In a word, no. When you read the formerly secret internal memos of the US FDA [Food and Drug Administration] scientists at the time they were evaluating GMO policy in 1991-2, there was an overwhelming consensus that GMOs could create allergies, toxins, new diseases. The FDA scientists repeatedly warned their superiors, asking for long-term, rigorous safety studies. However, the White House had instructed the FDA to promote GMO technology. So they hired Michael Taylor, a former Monsanto attorney, to oversee the creation of GMO policy for the FDA. Under Taylor’s watch, the FDA publicly claimed it was not aware of any information saying that GMOs were different from conventional foods. On the basis of that lie, the FDA said no testing of GMOs were required, and companies like Monsanto could determine whether their own products were safe, without telling the FDA or consumers. Michael Taylor became Monsanto’s VP and is now back in the FDA as the food safety czar.

GA/Tracy: Are there any studies that say GMOs are safe?

Jeffrey Smith: Sure, but they’re most often performed by the biotech companies themselves. In Genetic Roulette, I have 41 pages showing how these companies have bad science down to a science. They rig their research—using the wrong detection or statistical methods. They dilute or overcook their samples. Animal feeding studies are too short and superficial to find anything going wrong—and things do go wrong, in spite of their best efforts, but they ignore those findings.

In one case, a Monsanto study showed that Monsanto’s GM corn varieties had no effect on health. Then a group of independent scientists re-analyzed the data and linked it to signs of organ toxicity. When the company wanted to show that milk from cows treated with rBGH [recombinant bovine growth hormone] contained very little bovine hormone, it had its scientists pasteurize the milk 120 times longer than normal. When that didn’t work, the scientists added powdered milk, pasteurized it some more, and finally destroyed 90 percent of the hormone. The FDA reported that pasteurization destroys 90 percent of bovine hormone in milk from cows treated with rBGH, ignoring the obvious flaws in study.

GA/Tracy: You’ve said we’re at a “tipping point” of consumer concern when it comes to GMOs. Can you explain?

Jeffrey Smith: There’s no consumer benefit to a GMO. They’re not like extra salt or sugar, which are under attack for health reasons but provide taste. GMOs are simply soaked in poison. They’re either herbicide-tolerant or they have an insect-killing toxin in every cell of the plant, including the food portion. No one is clamoring for a daily dose. For these reasons, we believe a tipping point can be achieved without convincing majority of US, just by giving the right information to those inclined to avoid GMOs. If GMOs become unpopular like trans-fats, why would a company keep using them? Even if a company sees a tiny drop in market share that it can point to anti-GMO sentiment in US consumers as the cause, that will be a powerful signal that it’s time to start removing GMOs from their products.

We’re seeing evidence that the tipping point is approaching. Non-GMO labels are one of fastest growing labels. There are GMO labeling bills being introduced in more than a dozen states. In fact, we’re seeing a watershed opportunity in California: There’s a ballot initiative now calling for mandatory labeling of all GM-laden foods sold in the state. If that passes—and we believe it will in November—I believe that companies would rather eliminate GMOs than admit to consumers that they’re using them.

GA/Tracy: Are the dangers reversible? How can we protect ourselves?

Jeffrey Smith: That’s the question: What about our organs, our gut bacteria, etc.? I do know that some doctors are having great results getting people off of GMOs. At least one study fed mice GM soy for eight months, and saw significant changes to the liver, pancreas, and testicles. Then, the researchers put the mice on non-GM soy for a month, and the problems started to reverse. So we have good news there. On our Web site, we have free materials, including our Non-GMO Food Guide. We have a Non-GMO Tipping Point Network where people join others to educate their communities. We’re also launching a campaign to protect children, who are most at risk, from GM foods. We invite people to participate in the non-GMO revolution.

Though dozens of countries around the world require genetically modified food to be labeled, the US is not one of them. In the absence of lables, here are our best tips for avoiding GMOs when you shop:

1. Look for the Non-GMO Project label: The Non-GMO Project label provides consumers with independent, third-party assurance that a product contains no GMOs. The Project tests high-risk ingredients in the products that bear its label, to ensure that they contain less than 0.9 percent GMOs (allowing for low levels of unintentional contamination).

2. Be wary of unverified non-GMO claims: A company may legally label its products as being GMO-free without having to perform testing or otherwise prove to a third-party that is the case.

3. Buy organic: USDA-certified organic products cannot intentionally contain GMOs. The USDA doesn’t require testing for GMOs, so accidental contamination of organic products may occur.

4. Avoid high-risk ingredients: These nine ingredients are all considered high-risk for GMOs. Avoid non-organic versions of these, whole and in ingredient lists.

5. Avoid non-organic processed foods: The list of hidden GM ingredients in processed foods is long, ranging from ascorbic acid to xanthan gum. Get a full list of ingredients to avoid in the Non-GMO Shopping Guide.

6. Look at the price-look-up (PLU) sticker: If it shows a four-digit number, the produce is conventionally grown without GMOs, and a five-digit number beginning with “9” means 100-percent organic. Technically, a five-digit number beginning with “8” means it is genetically modified, but since such labeling is voluntary, Consumers Union’s Dr. Michael Hansen says he doesn’t know of a single example of such a label existing.

Every 30 minutes, a farmer commits suicide in India, a phenomenon that has been steadily rising since the 1970s. Documentary filmmaker Micha X. Peled took his cameras to the vibrant farming community of Telung Takli in the state of Maharashtra—which sits at the heart of the crisis— to find out why.

Peled’s 2011 film Bitter Seeds starts out with brief scenes from the funeral of a farmer who has just committed suicide. It swiftly cuts away to follow the story of Ram Krishna Kopulwar, who has been farming cotton on the same three acres since he was seven, as he plants genetically modified (GM) Bt cotton seeds for the first time. The question at the heart of the film is whether or not this gentle family man will join the list of farmers who have given Maharashtra and a handful of neighboring states the nickname of “India’s Suicide Belt.”

For millennia, the film notes, farmers in India had cultivated cotton with seeds they’d saved from their own plants. In the 1970s, hybrid seeds came to market, which had been bred to increase yields. Hybrid seeds, however, cannot be saved, so the farmers had to buy more seeds each year. In time, the hybrids required more costly pesticides, as well. Farmer suicides began in 1997, as many went into debt and couldn’t make ends meet.

In 2002, Bt cotton seeds arrived, and though they promised higher yields and higher earnings, the suicide rate has kept going up, notes the film. These seeds are injected with the Bt soil bacterium so they “naturally” produce an insecticide to fight off the bollworm, a primary pest. Seed salesmen come to Telung Takli with Bt cotton seeds, promising farmers that they “won’t get insects” and that their yields will increase earnings by 4,000 rupees ($80). Truth be told, no other types of seeds are available from local seed stores, so Kopulwar and the other farmers buy the Bt seeds, with hope in their hearts.

Indian farmer Ram Krishna Kopulwar tries to make ends meet  as GM cotton seeds cut his normal crop yields in half.

Like the vast majority of the farmers in his region, Kopulwar cannot get a bank loan, so he turns to an illegal moneylender to get the 900 rupees ($18) to pay for his seeds. The moneylender charges seven percent interest and demands Kopulwar’s farm as collateral.

As Kopulwar cultivates his fields, he prays that the cotton will grow, and that he will earn enough to send his two daughters to school alongside his son, and to ensure their good marriages.

To produce the higher yields it promises, Bt cotton needs more water and fertilizer than cotton from heirloom or hybrid seeds, applied according to precise timetables. But 90 percent of farmers in Kopulwar’s region have no irrigation and are rain-dependent. They have no money for extra fertilizer. And so, as the rains fail to come, their cotton plants start to wither.

One day, while tending the waist-high plants, Kopulwar’s wife Sunanda finds that while the plants are free from bollworms, they have now become infested with mealy bugs— which international activist and scientist Dr. Vandana Shiva blames on the Bt cotton seeds.

“Genetic engineering disturbs the physiology and metabolism of the crops,” Shiva tells the cameras. “So we’ve had crop failure in GM cotton in the year of a drought, and we’ve had crop failure in the case of too much rain. All new pests start to occur because the plant has been weakened.”

There is no cure for mealy bugs, Kopulwar says to the filmmakers, as he starts to rip the infested plants out of his fields.

When he finally goes to market, he carries half of the cotton that he has brought in previous years. He’s forced to turn down a marriage proposal for his daughter, by a comparatively wealthy teacher whom his daughter well likes, because he cannot pay the dowry. Worse yet, the moneylender comes calling and reminds Kopulwar that he has signed away his farm. Meanwhile, Sunanda Kopulwar begs her husband not to kill himself to try to prevent the moneylender from taking their land.

While the causes behind the Maharashtra farmers’ crushing debts are complex—ranging from unfair government floor prices for cotton to international trade agreements skewed in favor of other countries—Bitter Seeds poignantly shows how GM cotton seeds contribute to the problem, rather than helping to solve it as the Bt seed salesmen promise.

The vast majority of India’s cotton farmers pay a royalty to Monsanto, a US biotech firm that owns the Bt cotton seed patent, every year. And as the farmer suicide rate continues to climb and Monsanto’s stranglehold on the Indian market grows ever tighter, the film paints an all-too vivid picture of how the company continues to make farmers promises that it cannot keep.

Dr. Jane Doe is a biologist who works on crop evolution, genetics, and improvement at a major university. She asked to remain anonymous due to the sensitive nature of her work. Dr. Doe talked to Green American editor-in-chief Tracy Fernandez Rysavy about her research into stronger, better hybrid seeds, how they compare to GMOs, and how biotech companies have tried to stand in her way.

Green America/TRACY: We can’t talk specifically about your work with crop improvement, because it’s so unique and needs to be protected. Would you give our readers a general sense of what your research entails?

Dr. Doe: My work uses conventional hand-pollination techniques to move genes from wild relatives into crop plants to create new lines that are eco-friendly, cause no harm to human health, and are as hardy and strong as the biotech companies promise their GMOs are. These wide-cross varieties have native pest resistance, native drought tolerance, and many other native traits that make a great product with great yields and are well adapted for sustainable agriculture. We can do it better than industrial agriculture with genetic engineering.

TRACY: Most people didn’t even know about genetic engineering technology back in the ’90s when it was first being introduced, but you’ve been skeptical since the beginning. What made you so cautious?

Dr. Doe: I’m a geneticist. Back in 1996, I knew the details of how genetic engineering works and knew there were a lot of possibilities for harm. Most people have no clue, because they do not understand the science involved in genetic engineering.

Our genomes are designed to be stable and keep out bacteria and viruses to keep us healthy and whole. You have to understand when you’re working with genomes, when you insert DNA into a chromosome, it causes all kinds of shifts in the genome. Biotech companies don’t just put an alien gene, also referred to as a transgene, in a plant, for example. When they insert a gene in the lab, it includes a whole cassette of foreign DNA that goes in with it. It has insertion sequences that come from viruses or bacteria. It has antibiotic-resistant reporter genes. It has promoters that will ramp up transgene production so the level of the toxin in the GMO plant is many hundredfold times anything that would ever occur in nature.

We’ve never created any regulations around GMOs that address the genomic changes that occur from use of transgene technology, what effects the movement of transgenes have within genomes or into other crops, wild plants, bacteria, and the human gut. There’s no independent research on GMOs —only test data generated by the companies themselves that they report to the federal government to satisfy the loosely defined “substantial equivalent” guideline. We have no idea whether GMOs are safe or not. This is huge to me! What are we doing?

If you look at data, the increase in food allergies in children, gluten sensitivities, leaky gut, and other immune-related health problems corresponds precisely with the proliferation of GMOs. I suspect eating these products is having an impact on our health. If we could really do independent research, I am confident we’d see some major things going on. And it’s exacerbated by the fact that GMOs are tied to more harmful chemicals going into environment.

GMO seedlings in an environmental growth chamber.

TRACY: You had your own problems with an allergy to GMO corn.

Dr. Doe: Yes. The biotech companies say, “Oh, there’s no problem with our GMOs. They’re not allergenic.” But I grew out some GMO plants when my state’s agriculture department asked me to provide samples for their exhibit at the state fair. We grew the plants in a greenhouse. When I went in to make pollinations, I went into anaphylactic shock and had to be rushed to the hospital. The doctor said, “You’re allergic to the pollen, and your career working with this crop is over.”

But we did a skin test using GMO pollen and non-GMO pollen, and it was obvious I was only allergic to something in the GMO pollen. I have seen the same thing at a biotechnology company: A man who was working in the greenhouses was literally so allergic to the GMO plants, he had to take medication and completely suit up before he could go inside. I’ve seen other greenhouse workers who get sick when they go in to care for transgenic plants and scientists who wear masks and gloves when working with GMO plants because they know they are allergic. This makes me suspect a lot of people may have allergic reactions to GMOs, but without labeling, doctors cannot trace health problems related to GMO exposure.

TRACY: The reason we can’t talk in depth about your work is that you have experienced some negative push-back from the big biotech companies. Can you tell our readers about some of it?

Dr. Doe: I had a collaborative grant from a scientific foundation with matching funds from a big life sciences company involved in biotechnology. The life sciences company didn’t come through with its funding commitment—it turned out there was a high-level executive blocking it. This kept me from ever getting a product to market. One of the scientists in the company told me they had been stringing me along to keep my non GMO technology off the market. We were going to sue for breach of contract, but a lawyer advised they’d countersue and tie up my technology for years.

TRACY: This wasn’t your only experience with sabotage.

Dr. Doe: I developed an agreement with a mid-size seed company that paid an annual fee for access to my genetics to create commercial hybrids for sale. The first year the company tested my lines, it hired outside farmers to grow them. I got a call telling me the farmer had driven his tractor over my plants, and only my plants, within this huge field. They thought the plants were destroyed, but then they bounced back up! They were very hardy survivors!

The next year, the farmer who was growing out the materials again for the company went in and sprayed my plot with herbicide. Then we discovered my plants were naturally resistant to the herbicide he used. 

TRACY: The million-dollar question is, were these accidents?

Dr. Doe: Since it only happened to my plants, it seemed pretty obvious it was not accidental. We later found out that another biotech company had paid the farmer to get rid of my crop, but subtly. [The sabotage] would have worked except my plants were so resilient.

Tracy: Biotech companies seem to have a troubling amount of control over the US seed supply. How bad is it?

Dr. Doe: The strategic plan of the large chemical companies has been to take over the seed industry, so they started buying up foundation and other seed companies.

Examples are the Monsanto buy-out of DeKalb, and Dupont’s purchase of Pioneer Hi bred. The business plan has been to convert all of the seed to patented GMOs and force the public to buy the GMO seeds that are tied to the company’s chemicals. The medium-sized seed production company I mentioned earlier started getting squeezed financially more and more. By our fourth year of working together, it was having to pay such high tech fees for the GMO traits from Monsanto and other biotech companies, it could not make a profit and was forced to sell its business to one of the chemical giants. I saw this coming and wanted my genetics to stay completely non-GMO, so we parted ways.

TRACY: Can you explain how the “inbred” seed technology works, and how seed companies have ownership of it? This seems to be at the heart of the problem when it comes to these seed company buyouts.

Dr. Doe: The commodity seed that’s sold to farmers every year is an F1 hybrid that gives big yields from hybrid vigor. To produce a hybrid, you have to have two inbred lines, which are proprietary. It takes many years to develop a true breeding inbred.

Because of inbreeding depression, elite inbreds are usually small and wimpy. So the challenge for the plant breeder is to find two inbreds that, when you cross them through natural pollination, make a good hybrid—give the best agronomic performance and yield.

In the past, foundation seed companies sold inbred seed with a license agreement, and you’d have to pay a royalty if you used one of their inbreds in a commercial hybrid. The inbred combinations that make up commercial hybrids are every company’s trade-secret. Companies obtain patents or Plant Variety Protection Act (PVP) certification on their hybrids and proprietary inbreds.

Now, companies like Monsanto, Dupont, Syngenta, Pioneer, Dow, and Bayer Crop Science have bought out most of foundation seed companies and smaller seed producers, and are primarily selling GMO seed and the chemicals that go with it. There are very few seed companies that sell non-GMO seed any more.

GMO cotton farm in South Africa.

TRACY: How do scientists like yourself obtain inbreds to create non-GMO hybrids, then?

Dr. Doe: The PVP certification has expired on a lot of old elite inbred lines, and you can get seed of those lines through the USDA germplasm bank. That’s what I’ve been doing, and that’s how smaller companies can access inbred lines to make non-GMO hybrid seed to sell. What’s interesting lately is that as inbreds come off PVP, USDA often refers you to request seed from Monsanto or another company assigned the certification. Corporations are savvy in how they try to protect business interests.

It’s getting harder and harder to get good non-GMO inbreds for making hybrid seed. Today there are fewer and fewer independent seed companies. Many of the ones that still exist sell GMO seed. The big companies have converted almost all of their materials to GMO.

One big company that used to sell non-GMO seed is selling less and less. From what one of the company scientist told me, I suspect it can’t maintain the purity of the non GMO lines because of GMO cross-contamination in genetic nurseries and production fields.

TRACY: What are your options now for getting your hybrids to market?

Dr. Doe: One option would be to form a seed production company and develop new hybrid seed for sale. But getting it to market in the US would be challenging, because biotech companies control most seed distributors, and they aren’t going to sell my seed.

One distributor told me he couldn’t sell my non-GMO seed. He was afraid the biotech companies whose products he sold would put too much pressure on him and shut him down. They have a lot of power over the supply chain. It’s a bad situation. There are some small seed companies that sell non-GMO and organic seed. If consumer demand for non-GMO goes way up, there may not be enough non-GMO seed supply to meet demand. That scenario could increase opportunities for me to partner with US seed companies that sell non-GMO seed.

Another option is working with seed companies in Europe and other countries where there is high demand for non-GMO seed.

TRACY: You’ve turned your back on lucrative offers from the biotech industry to buy your technology. Any regrets?

Dr. Doe: I sometimes have regrets. gave up a lot of money when I walked away from a particularly lucrative offer from a big biotechnology company. But I know I’ve stayed true to what I believe.

I’ve seen a lot hard data that raise red flags about the safety of GMOs, and I really question whether GMO food is good for people, for the future, for children’s health. I’ve seen lots of scientific evidence that proves we can grow all the food the world needs with non-GMO seed. I know that the arguments companies make for their GMO technologies are false and misleading the public. I couldn’t die in peace, I couldn’t face my maker if I sold out to those guys. I’m doing what I believe is right.

George Naylor has been growing non-GMO corn and soy on his Iowa farm since 1976. He talked to Green America editor-in-chief Tracy Fernandez Rysavy about his fight to stay GMO-free.

Green America/TRACY: Why did you decide to go GMO-free?

George Naylor: I chose not to raise GMOs, period. I just refused to buy products where corporations are messing around with the building blocks of life with their profit motive. Doing so without taking into account the environmental and health consequences is wrong.

3.9 billion years of evolution provided us with enough diversity that we shouldn’t have to try to go against the principles of ecology to produce crops. On the other hand, my just raising and relying on corn and soy isn’t a truly sustainable thing either. I’m always looking for some way to do something different. I’m going to have to take the plunge and decide how much income I can live with and whether I can grow something else in a different way.


TRACY: Has finding non-GMO seed been a challenge for you?

George: Yes, but you can find it. I rely on one company for very good seed, but more are offering non-GM every year.

As for soy, since 95 percent or more is engineered to be Roundup Ready, the various companies are not putting research or their best genetics into creating conventional varieties. The choices are very slim and often not good ones.

George Naylor has farmed GMO-free corn and soy in Iowa since 1976. Photo by Chris Henning.

TRACY: Do you receive a premium for growing non-GM crops?

George: I’ve gotten a premium for non-GMO corn and soy. With corn, I don’t actually need a premium [to make ends meet]. My non-GM corn yields as good or better than my neighbor’s GM corn. Non-GM soy doesn’t yield as well due to the seed and a much bigger problems with weeds. So the premium does help with that.

I’ve been receiving a soy premium for four to five years because of consumer demand in Europe. European companies turn my soy into non-GM soy meal and soy oil. There’s enough clarity in the market that European consumers want livestock products from non-GM feed.

TRACY: What do you hear from other farmers about their experiences with GMOs?

George: I’ve heard a lot of anecdotal evidence where farmers are now asking for conventional seed varieties because they’re paying through the nose for GMOs, and those GMOs are not working. They’re getting superweeds. New varieties of GM corn were supposed to combat corn rootworm, but it only took a few years before rootworm became resistant, so the farmers are paying for this trait that doesn’t work anymore. It’s dubious whether it worked well in the first place.

Big companies advertise products with same kind of misrepresentation that any other corporation advertises consumer goods. For instance, Monsanto, when it brought out seeds with rootworm resistance, had pictures in magazines where someone was holding up one corn plant with scrawny roots and another that had beautiful root systems. It implied that if you didn’t buy Monsanto corn, you’d end up with the scrawny root plant. That was totally misrepresenting the truth.

I think farmers are wising up now. It’s dawning on them that they are paying a lot to Monsanto and Dupont, Syngenta and Dow, for features that aren’t working.

TRACY: Have any of the farmers you know run into the Monsanto “seed police”?

George: My seed cleaner, the guy that cleans my soy seed that I save from year to year, has implied that he’s aware of Monsanto people following him around. Monsanto forbids farmers from saving its soy seed. So if it finds evidence that a seed cleaner is cleaning Roundup Ready seed to be used again, it would pursue a lawsuit.
 

TRACY: How big of a problem is GMO contamination, from where you sit?

George: My non-GM corn is right across the fence from my neighbor’s GM corn, so it’s clear there is going to be some contamination. If I’m going to continue to market my corn as non-GM, I definitely have to worry about contamination from my neighbor. Corn pollen can blow for miles.

You have to worry about contamination throughout the whole system. One year, I was going to raise soy for a company that processed it here to send to Japan for food products. I had picked a variety that I knew would do well. Before planting time, when I was supposed to get my seed delivered, the seed company said we can’t find enough seed that isn’t already contaminated with Roundup Ready. I had to pick another. The choices weren’t as good. The yield was terrible, and my premium didn’t make up for the yield loss at all.

Within the bigger system, contamination can happen. Seed companies won’t guarantee the purity of their non-GM seed. They have done what they can to make sure it is non GM, but they won’t guarantee it.

So far, I haven’t had any crops rejected by the people who buy my corn and soy. But I know farmers who have had crops rejected by the same buyers due to contamination.

TRACY: What about superweeds? Are the GMO farmers in your area having issues with those?

George: Oh, yeah. It’s not as pronounced as in the southern US or in places where they’ve done a lot of notill farming and used Roundup as a burn down. Roundup used to kill virtually every green plant in the field except the GMO crop, but now farmers are having to add more chemicals to their spray tanks to combat the weeds that escape Roundup.

When you raise just one crop on same piece of land, you’re encouraging the pests to come back with a vengeance. It’s an unecological approach to agriculture.

And when the unecological effects come about, the biotech companies get to sell more products and pesticides to deal with that problem. Biotech companies now have products in the pipeline that will not only be resistant to Roundup but to 2, 4-D and dicamba. Those two herbicides present other terrible problems for farmers. Pesticide drift, especially with dicamba, and its potential to hurt other crops is huge.

With traditional herbicides, you have a small window in which to spray crops at the right time to kill weeds. Herbicide won’t kill weeds if they get too big. But later on in the season, you might get a whole new flush of weeds and can’t spray again [because it’ll harm the crops]. So you try to spray when weeds are small but late enough that the crop will canopy over and prevent new weeds.

With the Roundup Ready system, Roundup will kill weeds whether they’re small or big, so there’s a bigger window in which to spray a hell of a lot of acres. Some farmers will think they can prosper by farming more and more acres this way.

What this does is intensify competition between farmers. Basically, the farmers that are willing to do the most unecological things are going to win competition for land. That means fewer farmers and fewer ecological farmers. And a total loss of biodiversity. Factory-farm-raised livestock depends on corn and soy meal. Processed foods depend on corn starch and soy protein and vegetable oil. So as long as the system cranks out feed as cheap as it can, that’s going to encourage more of the same—more factory farmed livestock production.

Farmer prices are based on supply and demand. Big agribusiness is expanding supply all over the world. So you can see we’ll be in a farm crisis again where prices of corn and soy do not meet cost of production. Anybody who’s invested in the idea that prices will stay stable will be in big trouble. Every food product price is somewhat tied into every other one. The collapse of the most basic food items will bring down all food product prices.

I’m hoping that consumers will become as informed as those in Europe and start saying they don’t want GMO food. They will recognize they’ve been buying inferior products that have huge consequences on our environment and our society. They will also demand better public policy.


TRACY: How hopeful are you that this could happen? 

George: I think there’s some good signs that people are getting educated. The campaigns to label GMO crops have educated a lot of people. A friend of mine used to say the truth will set you free.

Fifty to sixty percent of US sugar comes from sugar beets—and almost all of that comes from a genetically modified (GM) version of the plant. Sugar is in a good chunk of our foods, even savory ones like soups and bread. With no requirements in our country that GM foods be labeled, you may be consuming a lot more GM sugar that you think.

As detailed in the April/May 2012 “Frankenfood” issue of the Green American, a number of health concerns have been raised about genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and most of them center around how little we know about the long-term effects of consuming these creations. 

“GMOs are being put in American food without long-term testing and without labeling,” says Elizabeth O’Connell, Green America’s GMO Inside campaign director. “The American public should have the right to an informed choice on whether or not to eat GM food, as they do in more than 60 other countries.”

You may already be aware of many of the many health issues around GMOs and sugar. What you may not be aware of are the sordid events that led to a marriage between the two, as this plant rose above the law.

Regulating the GM Sugar Beet
In March of 2005, genetically modified sugar beets appeared on the US market for the first time. Crafted by Monsanto to include a gene from a soil bacterium, this GM beet was able to withstand a copious onslaught of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide (glyphosate). The agricultural industry could spray as much of the weed-killer as it wanted without impacting crops.

Today, Monsanto’s GM sugar beets make up 95 percent of the US crop, having been planted year after year despite a US District Court injunction against planting and even a ruling by US District Court Judge Jeffrey White that the 2011 crop be destroyed due to illegal deregulation. The story of how Monsanto raised its product above the law is a case study of the power of the biotech industry over federal regulators.

The role of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has been “essentially to escort genetically engineered crops through their process as fast as possible,” says Page Tomaselli, senior staff attorney at the Center for Food Safety. The USDA was the agency that initially gave the biotech industry the green light for full deregulation of the sugar beets in 2005, allowing the seeds to be sold and planted with no restrictions.

Yet, the USDA did so without properly assessing the environmental impacts, as required under the National Environmental Policy Act. The Center for Food Safety (CFS), along with the Sierra Club, High Mowing Seeds, and the Organic Seed Alliance, successfully sued the USDA. US District Judge Jeffrey S. White ruled that the USDA had violated federal law, and his court placed an injunction on the crop. While the farmers could harvest the existing year’s crop, they couldn’t plant a new one until the USDA completed a proper Environmental Impact Statement.

At this point, Monsanto and allies in the sugar beet industry went to the USDA with concerns that this injunction could cause a sugar shortage. There was not enough non-GM seed stock available to meet the demand for sugar beets anymore, they claimed. The USDA decided to issue field permits for the GM sugar beet crop to be planted in spite of the court’s ruling.

When the seed companies choose to stock GM seeds and not traditional ones, they are creating a situation where they can “potentially say that their hands are tied and all that they have are these genetically engineered seeds,” says Tomaselli.

Who Regulates the Regulators?
The nonprofit environmental law firm Earthjustice responded to these field permits with legal action, arguing that these permits were illegal given the District Court order to cease planting.

“We had to run into court and ask the judge to stop them,” Earthjustice managing attorney Paul Achitoff told Reuters that day, “It’s an extreme sort of a thing ... but the circumstances were such that there wasn’t any alternative. They basically had dared the court to stop them.”

On November 30th, 2010, Judge White ordered that the newly planted GM seedlings be removed from the ground.

However, in February of 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Judge White’s original injunction. Instead of addressing whether the USDA issued illegal permits, it perplexingly looked at whether the seedlings caused “irreparable harm.” Judge Thomas of that court wrote, “Biology, geography, field experience, and permit restrictions make irreparable injury unlikely.”

The court vacated Judge White’s original injunction. The USDA issued temporary permits for the sale and planting of GM sugar beets while it completed an Environmental Impact Statement. Once the statement was finished, the agency permanently deregulated GM sugar beets.

Today, over 90 percent of the US sugar beet crop is genetically modified. 

The “Monsanto Protection Act”
If Judge White’s order in November of 2010 had been carried out and that year’s crop of sugar beets had been destroyed, it would have introduced a new element of risk for agricultural companies choosing to grow GM seeds. Monsanto wanted to make sure the sugar beet litigation would never happen with future crops, and it knew exactly how to do that—by changing the laws.

On March 29, 2013, President Obama signed H.R. 993, a large appropriations bill, into law. It contained a rider known by anti-GMO activists as “The Monsanto Protection Act,” which was inserted into the bill by Congress.

According to Tomaselli, this rider codified what the USDA did in the sugar beets case, forcing “the USDA to issue permits if a judge vacates a deregulation decision ... [creating] a situation where we would not be able to challenge these permits under the National Environmental Policy Act or the Endangered Species Act or any other environmental law that these permits might be violating.”

The good news is that this bill will expire in September of 2013, giving conerned citizens another chance to fight back when biotech lobbyists attempt to get Congress to reintroduce it. Green America’s campaign, GMO Inside, is already laying the groundwork for the battle to come.

Implications for the Future
To this date, the USDA has not turned down a petition to deregulate a GM crop, nor has it voluntarily conducted an Environmental Impact Statement on such a crop.

“The USDA will do virtually anything to avoid meaningfully regulating GMO crops. We’ve seen this in every case that we’ve litigated,” says Achitoff. 

Now with the Monsanto Protection Act codified into law, “the implication is that the companies that are growing [new GM] crops will be able to continue growing them even before any environmental review has been completed,” adds Tomaselli.

With 13 new GM crops ready to go before the USDA for approval this year, and no labeling laws in place for people to make informed decisions about what they eat, the potential environmental and health impacts of untested GMOs could be of grave concern.

So What Can We Do?
Between cross-contamination and a shrinking traditional seed stock, it’s questionable whether our sugar beets can ever be non-GMO again. The sugar beet case raises the question of how much control we really have over GMOs once they’ve taken over the marketplace.

“Monsanto and the biotech industry are incredibly powerful and have successfully inserted themselves into the work of legislators and regulators,” says O’Connell. “We’re losing more and more traditional seed stock in favor of genetically modified seeds, and our actions now will have repercussions for generations.”

To keep GMO sugar out of your cupboard, look for cane sugar—GM sugar cane is still in development, so for now you can be sure that it is GMO-free. Going a step further and choosing organic and Fair Trade cane sugar will protect the health of the workers and the planet.

And join Green America’s campaign, GMO Inside, to take action for meaningful GMO regulation and labeling.

“Ultimately, the USDA is not going to protect us from GMOs, let alone regulate them,” says O’Connell, “It’s up to us to protect our families and preserve the thousands of years of heritage we have in our seeds and in our food.”

In 1998, a group of scientists, lawyers, and environmental advocates gathered at the Wingspread Cnference Centerin Racine, WI, to discuss the case for exercising precaution in the face of scientific uncertainty.

“We believe existing environmental regulations and other decisions, particularly those based on risk assessment, have failed to protect adequately human health and the environment—the larger system of which humans are but a part,” the attendees collectively wrote in what they called The Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle.

The attendees urged corporations, government entities, organizations, communities, scientists, and other individuals to “adopt a precautionary approach to all human endeavors.”

Then they defined exactly what that approach would be in a statement that would become known far and wide as The Precautionary Principle: When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.

In other words, people shouldn’t have to prove that a given substance, product, or process is causing harm. Industry should have to prove that the substance, product, or process is safe.

If the Precautionary Principle had always been at the root of US policy:

• Cigarettes wouldn’t be responsible for one of every six deaths in the US.

• Children in four million US households wouldn’t currently be exposed to unsafe levels of the neurotoxicant lead.

• Three million Vietnamese wouldn’t have been killed, maimed, or born with birth defects caused by Agent Orange, which was used as a defoliant during the Vietnam War. And US Vietnam War veterans wouldn’t currently experience a higher incidence of cancer and nerveand respiratory disorders.

• DDT wouldn’t have nearly decimated bald eagle, peregrine falcon, and other wildlife populations, and Rachel Carson never would have had to ask whether it was responsible for a rise in human cancer rates.

• The toxic effects of everything from asbestos to PCBs, lead to dioxin, might have been confined to a lab, rather than being unleashed on the public.

Since we published our “Frankenfood” issue of the Green American in the spring of 2012, Green America has been asking whether someday we’ll be adding genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to the list of toxins that wreaked havoc on human health and the environment in the absence of a precautionary approach. Can we prove beyond the shadow of doubt that GMOs are dangerous to human health? No. Nor can we prove that they’re safe.

That’s why Green America advocates for the use of the Precautionary Principle. GMOs have been unleashed into our food supply without adequate testing for safety to human health and the environment. We want them off the market and out of our bodies until adequate testing can occur.

People shouldn't have to prove that GMO food or the pesticides tailored to them are causing harm. Industry should have to prove that they are safe.

Who’s Protecting Our Families?
A common argument from GMO advocates is that “nobody has gotten sick from eating GMOs, and they’ve been around for years.”

“It’s such garbage science,” says Dr. Doug Gurian-Sherman, a molecular biologist and plant pathologist who is a senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Food and Environment program. “You wouldn’t know these things are doing harm unless you do long-term epidemiological studies to detect these kinds of harm. And they’ve never been done for GMOs.”

Approval of GMO crops currently rests with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). “In 1991, the White House hired Michael Taylor, a former Monsanto attorney, to oversee the creation of GMO policy for the FDA,” says Jeffrey Smith, director of the Institute for Responsible Technology and a pioneering activist against GMOs. “Under Taylor’s watch, the FDA publicly claimed that GMOs were no different from comparable conventional foods. It said no testing of GMOs was required, and companies like Monsanto could determine whether their own products were safe.”

From 1996-2000, Taylor worked for Monsanto as Vice President for Public Policy. He is now back at the FDA as the agency’s “food safety czar.”

“It’s a clear conflict of interest,” says Smith. To this day, the FDA approves GM foods based largely on tests conducted by the biotech industry. Companies like Monsanto generally test their GMOs for a period of 90 days or less. Usually less, says Gurian Sherman.

“Tests over 90 days are very rarely done and never done for regulatory purposes,” he notes. “In the US, the longest required tests are only a month long, and only for pesticidal crops like Bt, because those are evaluated by the EPA. The FDA has no requirements for any kind of testing—it’s all voluntary.”

A study of 90 days or less can indicate short-term problems, but it can’t tell you whether there will be long-term effects, says Gurian-Sherman.

“If a GMO was acutely toxic and made people sick within a day, it would be detected pretty quickly [by the current regulatory process],” he says. But the fact that no long term tests are required for approval makes it impossible to be certain that GMOs don’t harm human health, despite Big Biotech’s ongoing assertions that these crops “have been proven safe.”

And independent studies are difficult to conduct in North America, because the biotech companies that own the patents on GMO seeds also have some control over who gets to study them.

“If you want to do research on GMOs in North America, you need an agreement from the patent holder,” says Dr. Thierry Vrain, a soil biologist and former plant genetic engineer. “You have to sign a document that you will observe certain rules and will tell them what you want to do and how you plan to do it—and that you will have their agreement before you can publish. Scientists are muzzled.”

However, scientists in Europe have managed to get around or ignore those agreements to study GMOs. And those studies are turning up warning signs that GMOs could be inflicting harm on humans and the environment.

Although evidence was mounting in the 1950s that cigarettes caused cancer, the tobacco industry spent millions influencing and manufacturing studies to demonstrate the opposite. Anti-GMO advocates worry that GMOs are being subjected to similar “tobacco science” tactics.

Herbicides: The Biggest Health Risk
“People worry about genetic modification, but with herbicide-resistant crops, perhaps the biggest health risk is the huge amount of herbicides currently being used,” David Schubert, head of the cellular neurobiology lab at the Salk Institute in La Jolla, CA, told the Associated Press in April.

Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, generic name glyphosate, is the most popular herbicide sold worldwide—with 187 million pounds of it sprayed in the US alone in 2007, according to the EPA. Several GM crops, including corn, soy, canola, and sugarbeets, are engineered to be “Roundup Ready,” or resistant to glyphosate. This allows farmers to spray the herbicide on their field and kill weeds, but not their crops.

While Monsanto once marketed Roundup as being “safer than table salt,” studies continue to mount that show potential links between glyphosate and ill health effects.

• A 2007 study conducted by Pontifical Catholic University of Ecuador found a higher degree of DNA damage—which leads to cancer—in populations that had been aerially sprayed with glyphosate, compared to those living 80 kilometers away from the sprayed area.

• In an article published in the August 2009 issue of Toxicology, researchers from the Universities of Caen and Burgundy in France reported that they’d exposed human cells to glyphosate and found it acted as a hormone disruptor. The first hormone disruption effects occurred at an exposure of .5 parts per million (ppm), which the authors note “is 800 times lower than the level authorized in some food or feed.” DNA damage, a precursor to cancer, occurred at exposures of 5 ppm.

• Argentine government scientist Andres Carrasco published a study in Chemical Research in Toxicology in 2010 on his study that linked low-dose glyphosate exposure to malformations in frog and chicken embryos.

• And a 2012 review of several studies conducted by scientists at King’s College London School of Medicine and other universities urged new risk assessments be conducted for Roundup, after review authors found evidence that glyphosate could cause birth defects. The authors called the European Union’s current acceptable daily intake level for glyphosate “potentially unsafe.”

And since the vast majority of GM crops are engineered to be resistant to one herbicide in particular, Roundup or glyphosate, farmers have been relying on this one single chemical, which has resulted in an epidemic of glyphosateresistant weeds. Biotech companies are currently engineering crops that will be resistant to even more toxic pesticides—namely dicamba and 2, 4-D—to combat them. Scientists predict that these new crops will cause herbicide use to double or even triple.

Precaution with Our Health
Even looking beyond pesticide applications, GM crops themselves could be causing human health problems.

Dr. Thierry Vrain used to genetically engineer plants as the head of biotechnology for Agriculture Canada’s Summerland Research Station. But when he retired 12 years ago and escaped what he calls “the biotech bubble,” he conducted more research that utterly reversed his way of thinking about his former career. Today, he speaks to audiences across North America about the potential dangers of GMOs.

“When you inject, push, shoot foreign genetic material into genome of a plant, you are creating collateral damage, because the genome is not what we thought 30-40 years ago when we first had the idea of doing genetic engineering,” he says.

“The idea was that the genome contains about five to ten percent of DNA that is coding genes, and rest of the genome is long sequences of DNA that make no sense at all. When I was in grad school, it was called ‘junk DNA’ and considered useless,” he says. “So the old paradigm in biotech was that one gene will code for one protein. You take a gene for herbicide resistance, put it in a plant, and expect to see that protein and that’s all.”

But in 2003, when the Human Genome Project sequenced the entire human genome, everything changed.

“We found only about 22,000 genes to make 100,000 proteins, so the old paradigm doesn’t work,” he says. “A gene can make more than one protein. Genes collaborate with each other to make proteins. It’s a lot more complex than we’d imagined.”

Vrain says that because they’re stuck in this old paradigm, biotech scientists aren’t looking into the effects of additional, “rogue” proteins that are created during the genetic engineering process.

“A modified gene is under completely foreign regulatory sequences,” he says. “We don’t have a clue as to what they are and what they can do.”

But what we do know is that even in the absence of long-term testing, “there are short-term feeding studies that have found problems with GMOs,” says Dr. Michael Hansen, a biologist and senior staff scientist at Consumers Union.

One 2008 study conducted by the National Institute of Food and Nutritional Research in Italy compared MON 810, a type of Bt corn, to its non-GMO counterpart, grown in neighboring fields. The corn was fed to elderly and weaning mice for 30 and 90 days, and researchers found differences in gut bacteria and peripheral immune responses.

“The Bt toxin pokes small holes in cell walls in the guts of insects, which kills them,” says Smith. “The claim had always been that Bt was only toxic to insects and had no impact on human or animal cells.”

A study from 2012 published in the Journal of Applied Toxicology in February exposed human cells to the Bt toxin extracted from a certain type of Bt corn engineered by Monsanto.

“The study showed that not only did it have impact, but it created the same type of small holes in human cells that kill insects,” says Smith. “If we have holes in our gut, this can lead to diseases and disorders.”

And although biotech companies claim the Bt toxin breaks down in the human body, research published in 2011 in Reproductive Technology found the Bt toxin circulating in the blood of 93 percent of the pregnant women tested, as well as in 80 percent of their fetuses. The toxin was present in the blood of 69 percent of non-pregnant women tested.

A 2013 study, published in the Journal of Organic Systems, fed pigs GM corn and soy and compared them to pigs fed a non-GM diet. The pigs fed the GM corn and soy for 22.7 weeks showed severe stomach inflammation.

In 2011, Dr. Gilles-Eric Séralini from the University of Caen in France reanalyzed 19 long-term animal feeding studies from corn and soy from biotech company data and elsewhere, and also found that GM crops created holes in the guts of mice, as well as other problems. His analysis showed evidence of liver damage in females and kidney damage in males.

Argentinian mother Viviana Peralta (left) had to rush her daughter Ailen to a hospital after agrochemicals were sprayed on GM soy from planes near her home. The baby had turned blue and Peralta was suffering from respiratory problems. Peralta joined with others to launch a lawsuit against soy producers in the country, which resulted in a ban of spraying glyphosate and other chemicals within 1,500 feet of homes.

Runaway RNA
In addition, concerns are arising around Simplot’s Innate potatoes and Arctic apples. Innate potatoes are genetically modified to reduce bruising and to contain lower levels of acrylamide, a neurotoxin that occurs in potatoes when cooked. Arctic apples are engineered to prevent browning.

Innate potatoes use genetic material from other potatoes and Arctic apples from other apples to cause RNA interference or RNAi. RNA is a nucleic acid present in all living cells that carries instructions from DNA to control the synthesis of proteins. The new genetic material in Innate potatoes and Arctic apples prevents the RNA from delivering its messages.

“The problem is the unintended consequences that can happen with these RNAi,” says Hansen. “There have been studies that show pieces of RNA can survive digestion, be absorbed into bloodstream, and enter a gene and shut it down. A number of papers have pointed out that with RNAi in human cell cultures or honeybees, there are huge amounts of off-target effects.”

For example, a 2012 study of RNAi, conducted by researchers at the University of São Paulo and Pennsylvania State University, introduced a doublestranded RNA in honeybees, which was derived from green fluorescent protein. The gene doesn’t occur in honeybees, so the idea was that the protein shouldn’t cause effects in the bees. However, the researchers found that the protein had an adverse affect on ten percent of all the genes of the bee.

“In general, the affected genes are involved in important developmental and metabolic processes associated with RNA processing and transport, hormone metabolism, immunity, response to external stimulus and to stress,” write the researchers.

“When you disrupt all of these things, God knows what you could do,” says Hansen.

These studies and others that show possible ill health effects from GMOs don’t claim to answer once and for all whether GMOs are safe for humans. But they do generally conclude with a call for “further study” or “more long-term studies” to fully assess safety.

These studies and others showing potential for harm from GMO consumption were enough for the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) to recommend that its more than 600 medical doctors and natural health practioners encourage their patients to adopt GMO-free diets.

“Doctors who do so have noticed a lot of chronic conditions, like food and other allergies, clear up,” says Dr. Robin Bernhoft, president of the AAEM. “Are the GMOs to blame, or something else? We’re not sure, but studies are finding organ damage and damage to lining of intestines, which could have autoimmune effects in humans. Without more long-term safety testing, we’re conducting the biggest, most uncontrolled feeding experiment in the history of humanity.”

Dr. Jane Doe, a biologist who works on crop evolution, genetics, and improvement at a major university, agrees: “If you look at data, the introduction of GMO foods maps out with increases in food allergies in children, gluten sensitivities. If we could really do independent research, we’d see some major things going on with human health.”

As astute readers might suspect, Jane Doe is not her real name. She asked to remain anonymous due to the sensitive nature of her research.

“Go after the biotech industry, and they cream your career,” she says.

Sowing the Seeds of Doubt
Doe’s statement points at one of the biggest problems with GMO research, which is that Big Biotech has been accused of throwing up obstacles to independent science.

“Scientists whose studies find problems with GMOs are often pounced upon, often threatened, sometimes fired, often denied funding,” says Smith. “This has created a very dangerous environment where independent science is being suppressed and has caused hundreds to refuse to do research in this area.”

For evidence, you don’t have to look any further than the much-maligned 2012 study by Dr. Gilles-Eric Séralini.

“There was a firestorm of criticism after he published his article from so-called respected scientists,” says Doe. “But if you look at them, they’re funded by biotech companies. There’s so much conflict of interest.”

Séralini isn’t alone. Dr. Arpad Pusztai conducted research at the Rowett Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland, in 1998, finding that a certain type of GM potatoes could stunt the growth of rats and impair their stomach lining and immune systems. The Rowett Institute seized Pusztai’s raw data, banned him from speaking publicly about it, and published an audit in which six anonymous reviewers criticized it.

In response, Pusztai sent the audit, his report, and a rebuttal to scientists who requested it, resulting in 21 US and European scientists releasing a memo supporting him.

The study was published in October 1999 in The Lancet, whose editor Richard Horton told the journal Science that “the paper had survived even stricter scientific scrutiny than normal.”

The Institute refused to renew Pusztai’s contract in 1999. And when Dr. Andreas Carrasco of the Buenos Aires University Medical School tried to speak publicly in 2010 about his aforementioned study linking low-dose glyphosate exposure to birth defects in frogs and chickens, a mob of 100 people threatened and beat a delegation of students who’d gone to hear him. Dr. Carrasco shut himself in a car and was “surrounded by people making violent threats and beating the car for two hours,” according to Amnesty International.

“Members of the community who witnessed the incident have implicated local officials in the attack, as well as a local rice producer,” says a statement by the organization. “They strongly believe that the violence was promoted by them, and motivated by the powerful economic interests behind local agro-industry.”

Independent vs. Industry Science
When reporting on the “safety” of GMOs, the media often notes that the studies that say GMOs are safe outnumber those that find problems.

“Good science isn’t just a numbers game,” says Hansen. “You have to look at the quality of the studies, look at experiment designs. [Biotech] industry studies are frankly biased.”

Research published by Dr. Johan Diels in December 2010 issue of Food Policy looked at how “conflicts of interest” affect biotech studies. Diels and his team at the Portuguese Catholic University analyzed 94 biotech papers and found that 100 percent of the studies that came from industry-funded scientists (41 out of 41) never found adverse effects.

Out of the 51 that didn’t have an industry scientist on board, 12 found a problem, which experts like Hansen note is “extremely high statistical significance.”

“Our data reinforce the need that all affiliations, whether financial or professional, should be openly declared in scientific publications,” write Diels and his colleagues, who recommend that in cases where study outcomes influence policymakers, preference should be given to “peer-reviewed studies where no conflict of interest can be observed.”

The Debate Isn’t Over
Around the world, 64 countries require some form of labeling on foods with GM ingredients or ban them outright. European Union countries were the first to embrace labeling, requiring that all foods and animal feed made with more than .9 percent of GMO ingredients bear labels.

Russia also mandates labels on food containing more than .9 percent GMOs, and in September of 2013, it created a country-wide system to register all GMOs intended for use, as well as products created with or containing GMOs.

The fact that this many countries have taken action against GMOs means the question of their safety is far from settled. Reputable scientists from around the world do not consider all GMOs “confirmed as safe and nutritious,” as Monsanto and other biotech companies would have people believe after only 90-day trials.

At the very least, foods containing GMOs should be labeled, so people can make their own decisions about what they eat, says Green America campaigns director Elizabeth O’Connell.

“Green America is not against genetic research or human gene therapy. We’re not even preemptively against all GMOs,” she says. “What we want is for the FDA to mandate independent, long-term testing of GMOs to ensure they are safe before unleashing them on the public. People shouldn’t have to be lab rats for the biotech industry.”

On Monday, July 14, Citibank agreed to pay a $7 billion settlement related to sub-prime mortgage-backed securities sold to investors during the lead up to the financial crisis of 2008. The settlement results from a Justice Department effort to crack down on the complex and risky behaviors that led Wall Street to the brink of collapse in 2008. While the overwhelming majority of Americans want to hold bankers accountable for gambling on peoples’ livelihoods, the recent settlements don’t represent a real victory for the population. If we break down the structure of the most recent settlement, it’s easy to see why this is far from the just or green finance that we encourage and deserve.

Citi agreed to pay a total of $7 billion dollars to end a DOJ inquiry into its involvement in the financial crisis. Citi will pay $4.5 billion in cash, and $2.5 billion to provide relief to struggling homeowners and low-income tenants in the form of restructured mortgages. Of the $4.5 billion cash payment, $4 billion will go to the Justice Department as a civil penalty. The other $500 million will be paid as fees to state Attorneys General and to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

There are a few reasons why this settlement looks more like a PR stunt than Citi actually trying to right any wrongdoing. First of all, the majority of the settlement will go to the agencies doing the prosecution, pretty much to spend at their discretion. The prosecuting agencies do not represent the true victims of the housing crisis, the ones who were aggressively sold mortgages that they had no chance of affording a few years down the line. The lion’s share of the settlement, in effect, settles little more than legal fees.

Citigroup can count the loan modifications it will make for sub-prime borrowers under the government Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) as part of the settlement. This program awards incentive payments to the bank to modify bad loans. Citi will actually receive payments for abiding by the terms of the settlement they reached with the government. The assistance to homeowners, those most affected by the financial crisis, will therefore be subsidized.

And as if the taxpayer hasn’t already paid enough for the egregious actions of large financial institutions leading up to the financial crisis, any mortgage principal reductions to homeowners from Citi will come in the form of earned income for tax purposes. Any supposed relief homeowners enjoy will be taxed as income, in many cases negating any relief in the first place. This is due to the expiration of the Mortgage Debt Relief Forgiveness Act, which Congress has failed to renew. Without this essential protection, the settlement might actually leave some borrowers worse off.

The settlement reached between Citi and the Department of Justice doesn’t even address the losses incurred by investors who purchased securities backed by sub-prime mortgages in the lead-up to 2008.

At the end of the day, Citi will pay $7 billion to get regulators and investigators off its back. The settlement comes after JP Morgan Chase reached a similar agreement to the tune of $13 billion last year. The DOJ collects more cash than it knows what to do with, the mega-banks continue to gamble with real peoples’ homes (increasingly in the rental market that grew as a result of the crash), and tax-paying citizens are left to foot the bill. Nobody involved with the packaging and sale of toxic mortgages will see the inside of a jail cell, and all parties involved will move forward as if the mess didn’t occur in the first place. If you’re tired of the illusion of justice in our legal and financial systems, Green America urges you to take the time and tell Eric Holder to re-prioritize the prosecution of those involved mortgage fraud. Unless the people stand up and demand justice, there will be nothing to deter mega-banks like Citi from driving the economy to the brink of collapse all over again.

Luna and Larryʼs Coconut Bliss® is a coconut milk-based ice cream available in seventeen flavors: Cappuccino, Cherry Amaretto, Chocolate Hazelnut Fudge, Chocolate Peanut Butter, Chocolate Walnut Brownie, Dark Chocolate, Ginger Cookie Caramel, Lunaberry Swirl, Mint Galactica, Mocha Maca Crunch, Naked Almond Fudge, Naked Coconut, Pineapple Coconut, Salted Caramel & Chocolate and Vanilla Island. Coconut Bliss also produces Naked Coconut, Strawberry Love, Café Latte and Dark Chocolate Bars.

Creators Luna Marcus and Larry Kaplowitz met at a permaculture educational center in Oregonʼs Willamette Valley. They found an inspiring social environment dedicated to sustainable lifestyle practices. After giving up dairy, they found themselves unsatisfied with the ice cream alternatives that were available at the time. The soy and rice-based ice creams left them wanting more, both in texture and integrity of ingredients.

Inspired by the many uses of coconut milk in other cuisines, Luna and Larry decided to try it as a base for ice cream. Working with a simple, hand-crank ice cream maker purchased from Goodwill for $1.50, they came up with the perfect recipe: organic coconut milk sweetened only with agave. With their new dairy-free, soy-free, gluten-free ice cream base, they began to experiment with many unique flavor combinations.

After months of tasting parties for friends and neighbors, they saw great potential in the product. It was time to expand on the idea and share it with the world. In 2005 Luna & Larryʼs Coconut Bliss began selling hand-packed pints to local natural food stores.

Based in Eugene, Oregon, Luna and Larry have transformed their idea into a successful business with products available throughout the U.S. and Canada. Coconut Bliss can be found in most natural food stores and a growing number of conventional grocers, as well as scoop shops and smoothie bars.

To this day Luna & Larryʼs Coconut Bliss is committed to creating the finest coconut milk-based ice cream products on the planet. Carrying on the tradition of quality and integrity, we continue to source ingredients that are certified organic, Non-GMO verified, certified Kosher, and fairly traded.

About Bliss Unlimited

Bliss Unlimited, LLC was founded to create a satisfying ice cream without the health and ecological impacts associated with dairy, soy, or gluten. Coconut Bliss® is the evolution of ice cream. USDA-certified organic and Non-GMO verified, Coconut Bliss® is based on cholesterol-free coconut milk that is packed with lauric acid and medium-chain triglycerides (MCTs), and sweetened with naturally low-glycemic agave syrup. The company values ecological and social sustainability, and strives to use the highest quality and most ethically produced organic ingredients it can find. It is privately owned and based in Eugene, Oregon, and has been operating since February 2005. For more information about Coconut Bliss® products and where to buy it, visit coconutbliss.com.

Luna & Larry's Coconut Bliss is a supporter of the GMO Inside campaign and based in Eugene, Oregon. Check out the illustrated Story of Coconut Bliss here.

James Hoggan is a Canadian public-relations expert who is also known for his commitment to ethics and integrity in PR. He is the chair of the David Suzuki Foundation and founder of DeSmogBlog.com, which works to “expose misinformation campaigns polluting the public debate about climate change and the environment.” He’s also the author of Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming.

In his latest book, I’m Right and You’re an Idiot: The Toxic State of Public Discourse and How to Clean It Up (New Society Publishers, 2016), Hoggan interviews a number of experts—from Noam Chomsky and George Lakoff to Thich Nhat Hahn and the Dalai Lama—on how adversarial rhetoric and polarization is stifling discussion and debate, thwarting society’s ability to solve our collective problems.

Green America talked with Hoggan about his ideas for cleaning up “the pollution of the public square”.

Green American/Tracy Fernandez Rysavy: Our current public dialogue around issues is, as you say, toxic and polarized. Why is this polarization dangerous?

James Hoggan There’s a type of polarization that is healthy. Democracies are built on healthy debate. But when polarization becomes so intense and such an overriding part of public debate that people decide on what’s true and false based on what political party or set of beliefs they come from, collective problems become impossible to solve. It’s almost like people think, “If you believe this, you’re one of us. If you don’t, you’re one of them.”

When name-calling takes the place of argument, you’re trying to shut people up who disagree with you. When you have that type of polarization, democracy is broken. You can’t fix problems, whether it’s income inequality, climate change, gun control, immigration.

Green American/Tracy: You say in the book that “most dialogue is just disguised monologue.” Can you talk a little more about that?

James Hoggan:I say that because I don’t think we’re very good listeners. We don’t practice it much. I was invited to a dialogue that was put on by the Canadian Petroleum Producers. They call them “dialogues”, but they don’t mean they’re willing to change their mind, which is what a dialogue is. They want to be polite, courteous, and then explain to you what is actually happening, based on the idea that you’re getting the facts wrong. For dialogue to take place, you have to be willing to change your mind. You have to start by thinking the other side may be well-intentioned and have a point, and you may actually learn something.

We had a series of dialogues for [oil-and-gas company] Shell with environmental groups across Canada, facilitated by [social scientist Daniel] Yankelovich’s group. They were very interesting. There was a disciplined structure. You can’t make somebody be open-minded, but you can set a structure up where there is more opportunity to listen. These dialogues were an opportunity for people on each side of an issue to present their case or point of view. Then, there were exercises where they had conversations about it with a facilitator facilitating people into listening—and nudging them away from the idea of “defeat opponent” and toward “let’s explore the issue from both sides”.

The part that was most interesting was getting people to understand the difference between debate and dialogue. In debate, the intention is to win, and someone else loses. A dialogue is more a conversation and an exploration. [When people enter a true dialogue], it’s like light bulbs going off around the table on both sides; it’s quite magical.

Green American/Tracy: You say both the left and right are to blame for the toxic state of public conversation. How are we all getting it wrong?

James Hoggan: We find it easier to see someone else’s bias than we are able to see our own. It’s a good thing to remind ourselves when we’re in a debate that more than likely, the people we’re in a debate with have intentions that are good. And you, too, could unknowingly be under the influence of bias. Both the right and the left need an open mind, open heart, open will.

Green American/Tracy: One of the refrains throughout the book is that sometimes, good people do bad things for good reasons. Why is it important to remember this?

James Hoggan: The public square can be polluted just like the natural environment can be polluted. One of the ways we pollute is through something [lobbyist and consensus builder] Roger Conner talked about: the advocacy trap. Let’s say I care deeply enough about something to start a charity or not-for-profit to help—replenishing salmon streams on the coast, for example. Because the media is the way it is, it looks for a way to criticize what I’m doing.

When people criticize in public something you care about, we very quickly move from “They’re wrong” to “They’re up to something.” Before you know it, you think of them as a wrongdoer. You’re in a debate between good and evil, where you’re David and they’re Goliath. It slams the advocacy door shut. You become more interested in defeating the SOB on the other side than saving the salmon. I’m nervous about anyone telling me we should just get along better. There are so many things we should be thanking advocates for! Women wouldn’t have the vote. We’d be back in the dark ages in terms of civil rights. Democracy. It’s naïve to think advocacy is bad. But it’s a double-edged sword.

"In debate, the intention is to win and someone else loses. A dialogue is more a conversation and an exploration."

If we get into this advocacy trap way of thinking, it oversimplifies, so it’s impossible to get to what the other side is thinking about. Sometimes you do need to polarize, but sometimes we need to turn down and tone down the polarization. You’re probably not surrounded by evil people. Changing the way you look at people and assuming they have good intentions and may have a point is a better way.

Green American/Tracy: How can this approach help if the other side isn’t doing it?

James Hoggan: There was this moment for me when David Suzuki and I sat down with [Buddhist monk] Thich Nhat Hahn. He’s a big environmental advocate. He said to David, “We don’t need to keep telling people they’re destroying the planet. We need to deal with the despair.” So I said, “One of your Vietnamese monasteries posted pictures of abusive police officers to protect monks and nuns. That seems like activism. So you’re not saying we shouldn’t be activists?” He has a way of looking at you that is almost like he almost knows more about you than you do, like he’s looking at your soul. It’s an openness that is frightening. He said, “Speak truth, but not to punish.”

Whoa! I thought. What does that mean? For me, the meaning I have drawn out of it is that we should never be afraid to speak up against injustice. But we don’t want to get mixed up in how we do it. Accusing people of bad intentions and offending their sense of sacredness creates resistance.

Green American/Tracy: That’s hard when someone is talking about building a wall on the Mexican border or banning Muslims from the US.

James Hoggan: One of the more dangerous phenomena is what Jonathan Haidt calls groupish righteousness. [Presidential candidate Donald] Trump feeds off of it. If we look closely at the world today, one of the most common emotions is fear. People are afraid of what’s going on economically. There’s a lot of fear—and anger, which is a way of masking fear— around immigration, terrorism, security threats. Fear that some people have of change.

If we think about a lot of Trump’s supporters as being in a state of fear, demagoguery works: “Don’t worry about climate change, it’s a hoax. I’ll protect you and your jobs from these Mexicans. I’ll protect your night clubs from these Muslims.” It’s traditional propaganda. This is not public discourse. The demagogue doesn’t get away with demagoguery. If you don’t speak out, they do get away with it. Speak the truth. But not to punish.

Green American/Tracy: When you interviewed the Dalai Lama, he said: “We must respect all forms of life, with less concern about getting something back.” What do we need to take from this message when it comes from dialoguing with “the other side”?

James Hoggan: Compassion is hard. It is hard. The way I look at it is it’s what’s effective. If you really care about these issues, it makes it easier to let go of the need to defeat somebody and the need to be right—and have them as wrong. Then you can think in a clear way about the right path forward to get things done.

Persistence is important. The Dalai Lama said to me, “We have a saying in Tibet: If you fail, try again. Two times fail, two times try again. Nine times fail, nine times try again.” There’s an incredible power in warmheartedness and compassion and openness.

For more on James Hoggan and his book, visit ImRightAndYoureAnIdiot.com.

Study Reveals Global Electronic Giant’s Human Rights Violations; Green America Campaign Follows “Bad Apple” Push to End Poisoning of Chinese Factory Workers.

July 10, 2014

Washington, DC – July 10, 2014 – Global electronics giant Samsung should immediately address child labor abuses at one of its cell phone supplier factories in China, according to the nonprofit Green America, which urged concerned consumers to take action by signing a petition at www.greenamerica.org/samsung/.

The Green America petition comes in reaction to a report released late yesterday by the workers’ rights watchdog organization China Labor Watch (CLW), Another Samsung Supplier Exploiting Child Labor, in which underage workers were found to be working at Shinyang Electronic Co. Ltd. Shinyang is a South Korean-owned company, mainly producing the covers and other parts for Samsung cell phones. The report reveals that five children (under 16) were found to be working in this facility, as well as numerous minors (under 18). These young workers are subject to the same long hours as other workers, and compensated less. These children were also working the night shift, from 8:00 pm to 8:00 am, six to seven days a week.

Green America’s latest petition adds to a growing global movement for more responsibly-made electronics. In the past few months, more than 20,000 individuals have signed Green America’s petition to Apple calling on the company to “end smartphone sweatshops” by addressing worker health and safety risks.

“It’s criminal for Samsung to profit at the expense of children,” said Green America campaigns director Elizabeth O’Connell, “Samsung needs to take immediate action in this facility and others to ensure that children are removed from work and compensated appropriately. Additionally, Samsung must take action to address serious health and safety failings in its facilities.”

In Samsung’s most recent sustainability report the company said it inspected working conditions at 200 suppliers in 2013 and that “no instances of child labor were found.” The violations found in CLW’s report raise questions about the effectiveness and thoroughness of Samsung’s self-monitoring.

CLW’s Executive Director Li Qiang said, “Samsung’s social responsibility reports are just advertisement. Samsung has put its energy into audits and the production of these reports, but these things are meant to appease investors and don’t have any real value for workers. Samsung’s monitoring system is ineffective and has failed to bring about improvements for workers. What Samsung says is not important; what’s important is their actions.”

Additional reports from Korea have indicated that more than 200 former Samsung workers suffer from grave illnesses, allegedly contracted while working in Samsung plants.

Samsung is the most popular cell phone manufacturer in the world. In 2013, Samsung sold an estimated 550 million phones worldwide, or nearly twice as many phones as the US population.

Workers in Samsung’s facilities in China, Korea and elsewhere work long hours for little pay and often do not have adequate safety training or equipment to keep themselves safe on the job.

Additional findings in the report, Another Samsung Supplier Exploiting Child Labor, include:

• Shinyang employs child labor (under 16 years of age), in violation of China’s Labor Law. These child workers, without a labor contract, do the same work for the same long night-shift hours and at the same intensity as adult workers but are paid one-third less. Child laborers are only paid for 10 hours of work a day despite working for 11 hours.
• Shinyang employs many minors (under 18 years of age). These are typically students who enter the factory as temp workers.
• Workers do not receive any pre-job safety training in spite of the 24 hours required by China’s Provisions on Safety Training of Production and Operation Entities. This is despite coming in contact with harmful chemicals, such as industrial alcohol and thinners.
• Workers do not necessarily receive protective equipment, such as gloves or masks, from the factory, only receiving equipment after requesting for it.
• The factory employs hundreds of temporary workers who are paid a flat hourly rate, regardless of overtime hours worked, in violation of Chinese labor regulations.
• Workers are made to work 11 hours per day, as many as 30 days per month, accumulating more than 120 hours of overtime, more than three times in excess of China’s legal limit of 36 hours.
• In order to hide excessive overtime hours from inspection of documents, Shinyang lists the overtime pay for all overtime beyond 80 hours as “benefits” on workers’ pay stubs.

The full report can be read on China Labor Watch’s website.

These abuses are in violation of national laws, international labor law, and Samsung’s own Global Code of Conduct, which states that the company will treat workers in a fair and legal manner, will not endanger worker health and safety, and will not hire underage workers.

Consumers wishing to take action against Samsung can visit www.GreenAmerica.org/Samsung/

Consumers looking for a more responsible phone choice can use Green America’s flow chart. http://blog.greenamerica.org/2014/06/25/well-what-phone-should-i-buy-then/

ABOUT GREEN AMERICA

Green America is the nation’s leading green economy organization. Founded in 1982, Green America (formerly Co-op America) provides the economic strategies, organizing power and practical tools for businesses, investors, and individuals to solve today’s social and environmental problems. http://www.greenamerica.org.

MEDIA CONTACT: Will Harwood, (703) 276-3255 or wharwood@hastingsgroup.com.

In early June, President Obama announced the EPA’s push to limit carbon-based power plants in order to diminish the largest source of pollution and global warming. Green Century announced their support of this large step, providing a petition by Environment America, to gather support of the EPA’s effort to combat this environmental issue.

In an article by the New York Times, Obama’s push to tackle climate change is notated as one of the “defining elements of [his] legacy.” This new regulation may bring heavier support of the cap and trade policy that President Obama advocated for in 2010, which meant to inspire business leaders to make safer investments in the clean energy sector, but also recognized the possibility of higher prices.

The necessity for public approval of this decision is quite hefty as drastic environmental changes rooted in carbon pollution bring about a cry for help. By signing the climate action petition, individuals will be able to share their support for an effort that will icrease the likelihood of positive change for our climate.

EPA releases the Clean Power Plan, new rules that set targets for states to reduce their climate emissions from power plants.  The Clean Power Plan is a key component of the United States meeting its obligations under the Paris Climate Agreement.  The fossil fuel industry and several states are fighting the Clean Power Plan, and the Trump Administration is threatening to undo the regulations.  Green America’s Green Business members provided extensive comments supporting the Clean Power Plan.

This month, we celebrate National Pollinator Week from June 16^th – 22^nd. The unanimous US Senate vote seven years ago instated an official week each year to reflect upon and take action to address the urgent issue of declining pollinator populations. Pollinators—bees, birds, butterflies, bats, beetles, and others—are vital to our food supply and ecosystem and positively impact all of our lives. We can thank pollinators for every third bite of food we take.

Unfortunately, a mysterious phenomenon is posing a major threat to the food industry: Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). The recent decline in honey bee populations is a devastating event attributed to CCD. In the US, over 25% of commercial honey bees have disappeared, sparking a scientific investigation into the drivers behind CCD. Emerging research on the impact of pesticides, particularly neonicotinoids (neonics for short), on honey bees is creating cause for concern. Neonics are a relatively new family of pesticides that are sprayed on plants, coated on seeds prior to planting, and applied to soil. They are one of the most commonly used pesticides in the world; and while they are fairly new, since they are so widely used, they may have a much larger impact than expected.

The Harvard School of Public Health released a study this month suggesting that neonicotinoids may significantly harm honey bee colonies over the winter because the bees abandon their hives and eventually die.The study replicated a 2012 finding from the same research group that found a link between low doses of neonics and CCD. According to a recent article by Earthjustice, one prevailing theory is that neonics damage, “the bees’ ability to find their way home; they simply get lost, run out of gas and die.” Harvard researchers are not the first to find a negative impact of neonics on bee colonies; the Amerian Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS), reported similar results.

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are increasing the use of toxic herbicides. Friends of the Earth and author Michele Simon recently released a new report called Follow the Honey which exposes how chemical pesticide companies are using the same PR tactics as previously used by tobacco. Another notable highlight in the report is that Monsanto—the number one GMO seed company in the world—has a lot of business at stake in the bee crisis because it sells seeds pre-treated with neonics. Friends of the Earth’s report states that Monsanto’s “Seeds and Genomics” segment netted $9.8 billion in sales in 2012. “In the US, roughly 90 percent of corn is treated with neonicotinoids. Monsanto promotes “Acceleron®” as a designer seed treatment for its genetically modified seeds — corn, soy and cotton.” It is too soon to tell if the Harvard study will lead to the ultimate demise of neonicotinoids; therefore, opponents of GMOs and toxic pesticides need to continue to advocate against their usage.

GMO Inside is taking a stand against chemical and GMO seed companies through corporate pressure campaigns. Currently, we are calling on General Mills to take the lead in the packaged-goods sector and move toward offering more sustainable products. In addition to removing GMO ingredients from Cheerios, we are asking General Mills CEO Ken Powell to make a long-term commitment to sourcing ingredients that reduce toxic pesticide usage; followed by putting out a call to suppliers to begin phasing out over the next five years the three most devastating pesticides for human and pollinator health, atrazine, neonicotinoids, and glyphosate. As growing evidence reveals the ecological and environmental harms of GMOs and related pesticides, and as a growing number of consumers become aware of the potential health risks, consumers will increasingly seek out products that are produced sustainably. General Mills would be wise to act now.

Keep an eye out for details on a national call-in day of action planned for Tuesday, June 17th.

TAKE ACTION TODAY: Say No to Honey Nut GMOs and sign our petition!

Nestlé's baby formulas are exposing American and Canadian babies to unhealthy and under-studied GMOs (genetically modified organisms).

GMOs have never been proven safe for human consumption; and the inadequate research that has been done on GMOs does not look at long term effects in humans, let alone infants. Babies are particularly vulnerable when it comes to eating GMOs.

Nestlé is the world's #1 food company in terms of sales. Researching Nestlé's products and its business practices is disheartening, to say the least. I am sure you will be angry too. Here is a list of Nestle’s crimes, including some associated with infant formula:

• Nestlé is a member of the Grocery Manufacuturers Association, who constantly lobbies for loose restrictions on GMO foods and donates absurd amounts of money against GMO labeling initiatives.
• What do they have to hide? A million dollars’ worth? Nestlé USA donated $1,052,743 to the anti-GMO labeling campaign in Washington last year.
• In 2012, Business Insider published an article called “Every Parent Should Know the Scandalous History of Infant Formula”. The article explains the tumultuous history of Nestlé's baby formula and why it is a predatory company that undermines breastfeeding. Nestlé has gone into developing poor countries and intensely promoted infant formula. This has led to many deaths because of the lack of clean water sources to prepare formula safely. Also, many families cannot afford to purchase formula after the free samples stop, and by that time, many babies die from malnutrition. Boycotts of Nestlé’s baby formula have been going on since the early 1970s.
• In November 2002, Nestlé got caught up in a labeling scandal. Police ordered Nestlé Colombia to get rid of 200 tons of imported powdered milk. “The milk had come from Uruguay under the brand name Conaprole, but the sacks had been repackaged with labels stating they had come from a local Nestlé factory, and stamped with false production dates of 20th September and 6th October 2002. The real production dates were between August 2001 and February 2002. A month later another 120 tons with similarly false country of origin and production dates were discovered, pointing to systematic fraud. The discoveries caused a stir, with senators insisting the Attorney General conduct a full inquiry leading to prosecutions.” Senator Jorge Enrique Robledo charged Nestlé with using sub-standard, contaminated milk, “a serious attack on the health of our people, especially the children.”
• In January 2013, a video came out of former Nestlé CEO, Peter Brabeck, saying that water is not a human right and it should be privatized.
• In 2012, Mayor Bloomberg of New York City, who is seen as a “health advocate”, launched the Latch On, NYC initiative which wants hospitals to stop promoting formulas.
• Back in 2001, Nestlé was accused of buying cocoa from the Ivory Coast and Ghana, which may have been produced using child slaves. BBC produced a report saying that thousands of children in Mali, Burkina Faso and Togo were being purchased and shipped to the Ivory Coast, to be sold as slaves to cocoa farms.
• Sadly, Nestlé has no fair trade policy to make sure that the producers of its cocoa and coffee are paid a living wage. “As one of the four corporate giants dominating the coffee-roasting industry, along with Sara Lee, Kraft and Procter & Gamble, it is thus partially responsible for the plight of millions of coffee growers in the global south, who are being paid unfairly for their produce and face economic ruin due to collapsing world prices.”
• Nestlé has been accused of promoting unhealthy food, especially marketing unfairly to kids; a recent report by the UK Consumers Association claims that 7 out of the 15 breakfast cereals with the highest levels of sugar, fat, and salt were Nestlé products.
• Nestlé, which makes Nestea, conducts—and pays others to conduct—painful and deadly tea tests on animals.
• According to Forbes, for many years, Nestlé used palm oil from companies that were ruining Indonesian rainforests, threatening the livelihoods of local people and pushing orangutans towards extinction.

For even more information on the history of criticisms of Nestlé, click this link. 

Join GMO Inside in standing up to Nestlé. Our babies deserve better than GMOs. 

Here's a message from our friends at Just Label It:

Please join us in thanking Vermont for leading the way on GMO labeling! The Vermont Legislature just passed a bill to label genetically engineered foods and ingredients without any contingencies on other states passing similar legislation. This brings Vermont one-step closer to being the first state to enact legislation that will require GE labeling.

To thank Vermont and show support for its GMO labeling bill, print out this sign and take a picture holding it. Then send it back to us or post it on our Facebook page.

The bill is now headed to Governor Peter Shumlin's desk and once he signs it, it will require that genetically engineered food sold in Vermont be labeled starting in July 2016 - no "ifs," "ands," or "buts!"

Let's show our support!

Let's make this happen nationally!

One of Green America’s goals is to teach consumers how the businesses you choose to support can have a big impact on the world around you. From the food we buy each week, to the clothes we wear, to the energy we use to heat and power our homes – on almost all levels of the economy, we have a choice between companies that operate with an awareness of the effects of their presence on the world, and companies that pursue the goal of growth over anything else.

And while it is easy to see the negative impacts of massive agricultural engineering companies, clothing companies’ sweatshops in faraway countries, and dirty international oil companies, the financial services industry influences nearly every sector of the economy – often with serious implications for people and the planet. And as banks actually sell very few tangible products, it is more difficult to recognize that our choices can drastically affect our environment and our communities. To give an example, let us look at commodities: the raw materials for nearly every product you can buy.

Recent news coverage of the banking industry has revealed that large investment institutions like JP Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs have been spending their money on warehouses. As in the large empty buildings where industrial materials, like aluminum and copper are kept before manufacturers buy them to produce goods. Why would a bank be interested in owning a warehouse?

There are a few reasons. When an entity like Goldman owns the rights to its warehouse, it can control the time it takes to process an order from a manufacturer for raw materials. While manufacturers wait for their orders, the banks make trades based on the projected future price of the materials in their warehouses. The catch is that the banks already know how much they have, where it is stored, and exactly when they plan on moving it. They use their knowledge of the location and inherent value of the commodities to make purchasers less “in-the-know” believe that the commodities are worth more. And as the owner of the facilities and the commodities inside, the banks are the ones who overwhelmingly profit from their position in an industry where they really do none of the work.

What is the result of a large investment bank purchasing industrial amounts of something like aluminum and then artificially charging more for it? Companiesthat use the metal, like Coca-Cola, pay more for the materials they need to make their soda cans, and then they pass this cost onto the consumers. So when you pay a few more cents for a can of coke at the vending machine, you are essentially supporting the monopoly created by the bank that purchased the warehouse in the first place.

So if banks are presently deregulated to the point where they can exert influence upon multiple levels of industry and profit across all of them, where does that leave us as consumers? It leaves us right where we started – with a choice. When we deposit our paychecks at, or use credit from a mega-bank, we are directly supporting activities like monopolistic commodities speculation that inhibit industrial efficiency and raise prices for consumers. And just like purchasing an organic apple, or fair-trade clothing, we can support local financial institutions that abstain from activities that come at a great cost to society. Green America’s Break Up With your MegaBank and Take Charge programs offer information and resources to help you make the switch from a megabank to a local institution that serves people and the planet. Check them out today!

Supporters of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) say that they lower the use of pesticides and benefit the environment. However, the record demonstrates that there are growing negative environmental impacts from GMOs. One major problem caused by the widespread use of GMOs, and the herbicides and pesticides they were developed to withstand, is the emergence of superweeds and superbugs - plants and insects now resistant to these chemicals. Contrary to the claim made by the biotech companies producing and patenting the genetically modified seeds, herbicide and pesticide use has actually increased since the adoption of GMO crops. A study published by Environmental Sciences Europe found that between the years 1996 and 2011, herbicide use in the United States increased by 527 million pounds. Pesticide use is estimated to have increased by 404 million pounds, about 7%.[1] This increased use of herbicides and pesticides in our agriculture has accelerated the evolution of weeds and insects to withstand these chemicals.   Resistant Plants The most prevalent herbicide is Monsanto’s Roundup (glyphosate). According to a report by Food & Water Watch, the total amount of Roundup applied on crops of soybeans, corn, and cotton (three major genetically engineered crops) increased tenfold from 1996 to 2012.[2] Therefore, it’s no surprise that Roundup-resistant weeds were the first to appear. In a survey of US farmers, nearly half (49 percent) said they had Roundup-resistant (glyphosate-resistant) weeds on their farm in 2012, up from 34 percent of farmers in 2011.[3]  

  The USDA also recognizes the increase in herbicide use.The USDA’s recent report, Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States, states “HT [herbicide tolerant] adoption likely reduced herbicide use initially, but herbicide resistance among weed populations may have induced farmers to raise application rates in recent years, thus offsetting some of the economic and environmental advantages of HT corn adoption regarding herbicide use.”[4] Weed resistance to Roundup has forced farmers to turn to higher-risk herbicides such as 2,4-D, one of the components of Agent Orange used in the Vietnam War. As a supposed solution to the Roundup-resistance, biotech companies have genetically engineered corn and soybeans to be tolerant of 2,4-D. As the biotech companies try to get these new crops approved, scientists and organizations worry what effect that will have on the environmental, air, and water. The study from Environmental Sciences Europe projects that if these new crops are approved, the volume of 2,4-D sprayed could increase herbicide usage by about another 50%.[1] Unfortunately, 2,4-D is following in Roundup’s footsteps as plants develop resistance to 2,4-D as well. The scientific journal Weed Science reported that waterhemp, a major problem in the Midwest, was discovered to be resistant to 2,4-D in Nebraska. This adds to the 17 weeds already known to be resistant to 2,4-D.[5] Even the USDA’s report mentions the problem with adopting crops tolerant of 2,4-D. “Thus, weed resistance may be offsetting some of the economic and environmental advantages of [herbicide tolerant] HT crop adoption regarding herbicide use. Moreover, herbicide toxicity may soon be negatively affected (compared to glyphosate) by the introduction (estimated for 2014) of crops tolerant to the herbicides dicamba and 2,4-D.”[4]   Resistant Insects Rootworm, one of the most destructive pests in corn production, was abated for years by the development and adoption of Bt corn. Bt corn is engineered corn with the genes of the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis, poisonous to rootworm, inserted in it. With the adoption of Bt corn, introduced initially in 1996 to counter European corn borer and again in 2003 to counter rootworm[6], insecticide use on corn acreage fell from 25% in 2005 to 9% in 2010.[7] However, in the last several years, farmers and scientists have found rootworms with resistance to Bt corn. A study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by entomologists at Iowa State University and the University of Illinois asserts numerous incidents in different states across the US of resistant rootworm.[8][9] Initially, the rootworm was only resistant to one of the three varieties of Bt corn. However, scientists have now found resistance to a second variety as well. In addition, developing resistance to one variety increases the chance of developing resistance to a second. So the effort of biotech companies to create new genetically engineered seeds with “stacked traits” in one doesn’t seem like that good of an idea anymore. To help combat the problem, scientists say larger refuges with non-Bt corn need to be planted as well as planting different crops year to year. While an advisory panel to the EPA back in 2002 said that 50 percent of each corn field should have only non-Bt corn, the biotech companies and EPA managed to merely recommend that 5 to 20 percent be dedicated to non-Bt corn.[8]  Why It Matters So what if insects and plants, viewed as pests and weeds interfering in our agricultural process, are resistant to our weapons against them? Can’t we just keep piling on more and more chemicals to deter them?  Unfortunately, these chemicals take a toll on our environment and our health. Herbicides and pesticides have been linked to chronic kidney disease in Sri Lanka[10], developmental problems in children in California[11], and birth defects in Argentina[12]. Furthermore, herbicides are blamed for the disappearance of the monarch butterfly[13] and pesticides are suspected to cause Colony Collapse Disorder of bee populations[14]. Short-term benefits of killing “pests” on cultivated fields come with a price. When will we realize the price is too high?   Resources: [1] http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/24 [2] http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/Superweeds.pdf [3] http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2013/02/report-spread-monsantos-superweeds-speeds-12-0 [4] http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err-economic-research-report/err162.aspx#.UzmVJKhdWuk [5] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/15/us-usa-agriculture-weeds-idUSBRE87E13420120815 [6] http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/use-and-impact-of-bt-maize-46975413 [7] http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323463704578496923254944066 [8] http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2014/03/rootworm-resistance-bt-corn/ [9] http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/03/12/1317179111 [10] http://dailynation.lk/glyphosate-herbicide-linked-ckdu-finally-banned/ [11] http://www.thenation.com/article/178804/warning-signs-how-pesticides-harm-young-brain# [12] http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/521710/20131113/argentina-pesticide-birth-defect-cancer-monsanto.htm [13] http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2014-01-29/monarch-butterflies-drop-migration-may-disappear [14] http://gmoinside.wpengine.com/colony-collapse-disorder/

Starbucks is a company uniquely posed to trigger world-wide supply chain shifts. That's why Green America's GMO Inside campaign is calling on Starbucks to switch to serving all-organic dairy products.Click here to help us take action.

With more than 20,000 retail locations throughout the world, Starbucks is a company uniquely positioned to trigger major supply-chain shifts when it makes changes to the products in its stores.

That's why Green America's GMO Inside campaign is calling on Starbucks to switch to serving all-organic dairy products.

Such a switch would be consistent with other recent changes in Starbucks products.  For example, in 2008, in response to consumer and investor concerns, Starbucks committed to source only rBGH-free milk (milk from cows not injected with growth hormones).  Plus, Starbucks already serves soy milk that is organic and non-GMO; we want their dairy milk held to the same standard.

Tell Starbucks you want only organic milk from cows raised on non-GMO feed »

Because Pret-a-Manger, another quick-service food and coffee chain, serves organic milk and sells coffee at competitive prices, we believe Starbucks can also do the right thing, and help shift more US agriculture --  the corn, soy, alfalfa, and cottonseed used to feed dairy cows -- to organic.

Find more background information and campaign materials (along with our action) at gmoinside.org/starbucks, and thanks for all you do for a greener America.

The SRI Conference celebrates 25 years this November 9th-11th. Take a look at this impressive timeline from the SRI Conference team, which shares four decades of socially responsible investing history.

Take a look at 1982. It was an exciting time in SRI: the launch of Calvert Social Investment Funds, Trillium Asset Management, and the first environmental mutual fund from New Alternatives Fund. This same year, our parent organization Green America was born as a nonprofit driven to solve social and environmental challenges through economic solutions.

Three years later, we saw the birth of US SIF, the Forum for Sustainable and Responsible Investing. Green America served as US SIF's secretariat for over a decade of its history.

In 1988, First Affirmative Financial Network (FAFN) was founded. FAFN owns and produces the SRI Conference in collaboration with many other SRI industry organizations, and all FAFN members are part of Green America's Green Business Network as well..

The SRI Conference was founded as SRI in the Rockies back in 1990. At the time, Green America and the SRI community played a critical role in ending apartheid in South Africa through major divestment campaigns. The Calvert Foundation's community development programs, for example, helped the South African people create the jobs and businesses that drive prosperity, pushing the nation towards greater social, political and economic justice.

The years since have seen booming growth in SRI assets, the birth of many new funds, shareholder advocacy, and coalescing around fossil fuel divestment. See the complete timeline of four decades of SRI (PDF) - and check out how the SRI Conference has grown steadily over time along with this critical sector of the green economy.

Save the date for this year's SRI Conference, celebrating 25 years: Nov. 9-11, back at the Broadmoor in Colorado Springs. We'll be there along with hundreds of investors and investment professionals who are SRI members of the Green Business Network, working to direct investment capital towards a greener future. If you're an SRI professional, join your peers in GBN by becoming a member. 

To join the conference as a sponsor or submit a proposal for the agenda, head on over to the SRI Conference site.

Ending “Bad Apple” Devices: It Could Take Just a Dollar Per Device to Fix Apple’s Poisonous Practices; Green America Takes on Apple After Success in Changing General Mills’ Cheerios.

March 12, 2014

WASHINGTON, DC -- With more than a million workers in Apple supplier factories in China at risk for exposure to toxic substances on the assembly line, U.S. consumers should consider putting a hold on planned purchases or upgrades of iPhones, iPads, and other Apple devices, according to “Bad Apple:  End Smartphone Sweatshops” (www.bad-apple.org), a major new campaign launched today by the nonprofit organization Green America. 

The campaign also encourages all Apple customers to express their concerns to Apple directly via an online petition (http://www.greenamerica.org/bad-apple/take-action.cfm) In recent months, Green America scored a major success with a similar social media-based campaign that pressured General Mills into dropping GMOs in original Cheerios.

Most consumers would be surprised to learn that Apple could curb the toxic threat to 1.5 million people working in supplier factories in China for as little as $1 in additional cost per device.   The threat to Chinese workers is outlined in a new short film released as part of the campaign:  Who Pays the Price?  The Human Cost of Electronics (www.whopaysfilm.org).

An estimated 1.5 million people work in Apple’s supplier factories in China. Smartphones, including iPhones, are regularly made in factories where workers do not have adequate training or protective gear for handling toxic substances. According to the EPA’s Air Toxics website, exposure to dangerous chemicals can lead to cancer, leukemia, nerve damage, liver and kidney failure, and reproductive health issues, depending on the chemical and level of exposure. 

Protective gear and rigorous trainings on safe handling are needed but not always enforced, and problems of exposure are sometimes not detected until workers are already sick. It’s difficult to quantify exactly how many workers have been diagnosed with occupational poisoning in China and it is widely believed that incidents are underreported. One 2010 study in the Journal of Environmental Health and Preventative Medicine showed that between 1991 and 2008, 42,890 work-place poisonings had been documented with a mortality rate of 16.5 percent. It concluded that the situation of occupational health in China is still serious.

“Apple is a highly popular brand, one that consumers trust and expect to act responsibly,” said Elizabeth O’Connell, campaigns director at Green America.  “Apple is also highly profitable so it can easily afford to do right by its workers and make the necessary changes to appeal to its socially-conscious consumers.”

China Labor Watch joined the two organizations announcing today’s campaign, in order to call attention to the plight of Chinese workers in Apple factories.

“Manufacturers adapt to the ever-tightening price and time demands of consumer electronics brand companies by lowering costs through longer hours, faster work, less worker safety training, and the use of harmful chemicals,” said Kevin Slaten, program coordinator of China Labor Watch. “Even knowing what it means for the people making its products, Apple continues to maximize profits through such demands. In the end, the price for profit maximization is paid for by Apple’s workers.”

“The changes required for Apple to switch to less-toxic chemicals in its manufacturing facilities and offer real worker training are estimated to cost Apple roughly $1 per phone, if even that,” said Associate Communications and Journalism Professor Jack Qiu and advisor to the Hong Kong-based Students and Scholars against Corporate Misbehavior (SACOM). “Apple is clearly unwilling to share its success with frontline workers, thus depriving them of a safe and decent place to work.  While each iPhone boasts it was ‘designed by Apple in California,’ the true story is that it was made in China by a worker Apple is quick to ignore.”

Apple is the smartphone pioneer and seen as a leader in the consumer electronics market. As a massive global company, Apple has the power to improve working conditions throughout the electronics-manufacturing sector by influencing both its suppliers (i.e. Foxconn, Pegatron, Quanta, Primax) and its competitors.

Apple is also highly profitable, earning $37 billion in profits in 2013.  On average, Apple’s profit margins on iPhones are close to 40 percent, higher than any of Apple’s competitors. Industry experts have estimated that Apple could remove dangerous chemicals from its supply chain for less than $1 per phone.

To learn more about Bad Apple: End Smartphone Sweatshops, watch Who Pays the Price?  The Human Cost of Electronics, and take action visit www.bad-apple.org.

ABOUT THE GROUPS

Green America is the nation’s leading green economy organization. Founded in 1982, Green America (formerly Co-op America) provides the economic strategies, organizing power and practical tools for businesses, investors, and individuals to solve today’s social and environmental problems. http://www.greenamerica.org.

Founded in 2000, China Labor Watch (CLW) is an independent not-for-profit organization.  CLW has collaborated with unions, labor organizations and the media to conduct a series of in-depth assessments of factories in China that produce toys, bikes, shoes, furniture, clothing, and electronics for some of the largest U.S. companies. CLW’s New York office creates reports from these investigations, educates the international community on supply chain labor issues, and pressures corporations to improve conditions for workers. www.chinalaborwatch.org

Students and Scholars against Corporate Misbehavior (SACOM) is not-for-profit organization founded in Hong Kong in June 2005. SACOM aims at bringing concerned students, scholars, labor activists, and consumers together to monitor corporate behavior and to advocate for workers’ rights.  www.sacom.hk

MEDIA CONTACT:  Alex Frank, (703) 276-3264 or afrank@hastingsgroup.com.

Starbucks Urged to Serve Only Organic Milk and Stop Serving Milk From Cows Fed GMOs; GMO Inside Launches New Push Fresh Off Success with Getting GMOs out of Cheerios.

March 4, 2014

WASHINGTON, DC -- Green America’s GMO Inside campaign today launched a major push to get Starbucks, America’s largest coffee chain with more than 20,000 stores in 62 countries, to serve only organic milk sourced from cows not fed GMOs. In early January, GMO Inside made worldwide headlines when its social media campaign led General Mills to announce that it would drop genetically modified ingredients in basic Cheerios.

The new campaign website (http://www.gmoinside.org/starbucks) and Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/GmoInside) call on Starbucks to stop sourcing milk from cows fed genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in feed, including corn, soy, alfalfa, and cottonseed, and to use a third-party verifier to ensure that the milk used at Starbucks stores is, in fact, sourced from cows eating non-GMO feed.

“Starbucks already serves soy milk that is organic and non-GMO. Consumers also deserve dairy milk held to the same standard and level of quality,” stated Green America’s GMO Inside Campaign Director Nicole McCann. “Consumers will put pressure on Starbucks to serve only organic, non-GMO milk. And the reality is that the process Starbucks put in place to remove rBGH from its milk source can be used to source organic milk.”

In 2008, in response to consumer and investor concerns, Starbucks committed to source only milk that is rBGH-free (milk free of a growth hormone injection in cows). GMO Inside is now asking the company to take the next step by serving only organic milk from cows that are not fed GMOs. In the current industrial animal agriculture system, most cows providing non-organic milk are fed corn and soy, which are dominated by GMOs. Additionally, the overuse of antibiotics in industrialized farming is contributing to the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, putting us all at risk.

The move GMO Inside presents is commercially feasible inasmuch as Pret a Manger, another quick service food and coffee chain, has already made a commitment to serving organic milk in its stores and sells coffee at competitive prices.

“Starbucks made the right move in removing growth hormones from its milk,” stated Green America President and GMO Inside Co-Chair Alisa Gravitz. “However, Starbucks has sent confusing messages to its customers by stopping short of addressing long-term environmental as well as human and animal health concerns. In contrast, Pret A Manger, a growing and thriving quick service chain, already serves only organic dairy and soy at comparable prices.”

“The days when a global company like Starbucks can hide GMOs from the customer are over. The age of transparency is here and I expect Starbucks will shortly realize it’s in its best interest to eliminate GMOs from its supply chain,” said GMO Inside Co-Chair John W. Roulac.

“As a dues paying member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), Starbucks has helped bankroll efforts to defeat GMO labeling in the US for the past two years. It’s time for Starbucks to commit to transparency and the highest quality ingredients for their customers,” said Dave Murphy, founder and executive director of Food Democracy Now!

“Consumers are increasingly looking for organic milk. I stopped drinking Starbucks lattes once I found out the health implications of consuming non-organic milk. Starbucks would be surprised to see how many more customers would start visiting their stores if they started serving it. This is a win-win situation for everyone,” stated Vani Hari, creator of FoodBabe.com.

GMO Inside’s campaign is launched on the heels of the consumer victory to get GMO ingredients out of original Cheerios. GMO Inside mobilized 50,000 people to post comments on Cheerios’ Facebook wall and mobilized over 35,000 consumers to write to and telephone the company. General Mills’ decision to remove GMOs from original Cheerios was joined in the past year by Post Cereals removing GMOs from original Grape Nuts; Chipotle, Ben & Jerry’s, and Kashi agreeing to phase out GMOs from their foods; and Whole Foods announcing that it will label GMOs sold in its stores by 2018.

GMO Inside is urging Starbucks to sell organic milk and end the consumption of GMOs by cows because of environmental and health concerns affiliated with GMOs. A majority of all GMOs are engineered to tolerate being sprayed with herbicide. As a result, the use of chemical herbicides, like Roundup, has continued to increase, not decrease as Big Ag promised. Lately, the emergence of “super weeds” resistant to Roundup require more toxic herbicides to be applied to crops. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved GMOs based on studies conducted by the same corporations that created and profit from them. GMOs have yet to be proven safe for humans, animal, or the planet by independent long-term studies.

ABOUT GMO INSIDE

GMO Inside is a campaign dedicated to A) helping all Americans know which foods have GMOs inside, and B) removing GMOs from our food supply. We believe that everyone has a right to know what’s in their food and to choose foods that are proven safe for people, their families, and the environment. GMO Inside provides the information for a growing community of people from all walks of life, to make informed decisions around genetically engineered foods. Join the campaign at www.gmoinside.org, and take part in the GMO Inside community on Facebook and Twitter. GMO Inside coalition partners include Nutiva, Food Democracy Now!, Institute for Responsible Technology, LabelGMOs.org, and Vani Hari, creator of FoodBabe.com.

ABOUT GREEN AMERICA

Green America is the nation’s leading green economy organization. Founded in 1982, Green America (formerly Co-op America) provides the economic strategies, organizing power and practical tools for businesses, investors, and individuals to solve today’s social and environmental problems. http://www.greenamerica.org.

MEDIA CONTACT:  Will Harwood, (703) 276-3255 or wharwood@hastingsgroup.com.

GreenMedInfo.com is a new Coalition Member of GMO Inside. We welcome them on board! This week, we are featuring a guest blog shared by founder Sayer Ji. See the original post here. 

The #1 Children's Vitamin Brand in the US contains ingredients that most parents would never intentionally expose their children to, so why aren't more opting for healthier alternatives?

Kids vitamins are supposed to be healthy, right? Well then, what's going on with Flintstones Vitamins, which proudly claims to be "Pediatricians' #1 Choice"?  Produced by the global pharmaceutical corporation Bayer, this wildly successful brand features a shocking list of unhealthy ingredients, including:

•    Aspartame
•    Cupric Oxide
•    Coal tar artificial coloring agents (FD&C Blue #2, Red #40, Yellow #6)
•    Zinc Oxide
•    Sorbitol
•    Ferrous Fumarate
•    Hydrogenated Oil (Soybean)
•    GMO Corn starch

On Bayer Health Science's Flintstones product page designed for healthcare professionals they lead into the product description with the following tidbit of information:

82% of kids aren't eating all of their veggies. Without enough vegetables, kids may not be getting all of the nutrients they need.

Reference: 1. Lorson BA, Melgar-Quinonez HR, Taylor CA. Correlates of fruit and vegetable intakes in US children. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009;109(3):474-478.

The implication? That Flintstones vitamins somehow fill this nutritional void. But let's look a little closer at some of these presumably healthy ingredients....

ASPARTAME
Aspartame is a synthetic combination of the amino acids aspartic acid and l-phenylalanine, and is known to convert into highly toxic methanol and formaldehyde in the body.  Aspartame has been linked to over 40 adverse health effects in the biomedical literature, and has been shown to exhibit both neurotoxicity and carcinogenicity [1]  What business does a chemical like this have doing in a children's vitamin, especially when non-toxic, non-synthetic non-nutritive sweeteners like stevia already exist?

CUPRIC OXIDE
Next, let's look closer at Cupric Oxide, 2mg of which is included in each serving of Flinstone's Complete chewable vitamins as a presumably  'nutritional' source of 'copper,' supplying "100% of the Daily Value  (Ages 4+), according to Flintstones Vitamins Web site's Nutritional Info.[2]
But what is Cupric Oxide? A nutrient or a chemical?

According to the European Union's Dangerous Substance Directive, one of the main EU laws concerning chemical safety, Cupric Oxide is listed as a Hazardous substance, classified as both  "Harmful (XN)" and "Dangerous for the environment" (N).  Consider that it has industrial applications as a pigment in ceramics, and as a chemical in the production of rayon fabric and dry cell batteries. In may be technically correct to call it a mineral, but should it be listed as a nutrient in a children's vitamin? We think not.

COAL TAR ARTIFICIAL COLORING AGENTS
A well-known side effect of using synthetic dyes is attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. For direct access to study abstracts on this topic view our Food Coloring research page.  There is also indication that the neurotoxicity of artificial food coloring agents increase when combined with aspartame,[3] making the combination of ingredients in Flintstones even more concerning.

ZINC OXIDE
Each serving of Flinstones Complete Chewable vitamins contain 12 mg of zinc oxide, which the manufacturer claims delivers 75% of the Daily Value to children 2  & 3 years of age.  Widely used as a sun protection factor (SPF) in sunscreens, The EU's Dangerous Substance Directive classifies it as an environmental Hazard, "Dangerous for the environment (N)."  How it can be dangerous to the environment, but not for humans ingesting it, escapes me.  One thing is for sure, if one is to ingest supplemental zinc, or market it for use by children, it makes much more sense using a form that is organically bound (i.e. 'chelated') to an amino acid like glycine, as it will be more bioavailable and less toxic.

SORBITOL
Sorbitol is a synthetic sugar substitute which is classified as a sugar alcohol. It can be argued that it has no place in the human diet, much less in a child's. The ingestion of higher amounts have been linked to gastrointestinal disturbances from abdominal pain to more serious conditions such as irritable bowel syndrome.[4]

FERROUS FUMARATE
The one clear warning on the Flinstone's Web site concerns this chemical. While it is impossible to die from consuming iron from food, e.g. spinach, ferrous fumarate is an industrial mineral and not found in nature as food. In fact, ferrous fumarate is so toxic that accidental overdose of products containing this form is "a leading cause of fatal poisoning in children under 6." The manufacturer further warns:

Keep this product out of reach of children. In case of accidental overdose, call a doctor or poison control center immediately.

HYDROGENATED SOYBEAN OIL
Finding hydrogenated oil in anything marketed to children is absolutely unacceptable. These semi-synthetic fatty acids incorporate into our tissues and have been linked to over a dozen adverse health effects, from coronary artery disease to cancer, violent behavior to fatty liver disease.[5]

GMO CORN STARCH
While it can be argued that the amount of GMO corn starch in this product is negligible, even irrelevant, we disagree. It is important to hold accountable brands that refuse to label their products honestly, especially when they contain ingredients that have been produced through genetic modification. The 'vitamin C' listed as ascorbic acid in Flintstones is likely also produced from GMO corn. Let's remember that Bayer's Ag-biotech division, Bayer CropScience, poured $381,600 of cash into defeating the proposition 37 GMO labeling bill in California. Parents have a right to protect their children against the well-known dangers of genetically modified foods and the agrichemicals that contaminate them, don't they? GMO corn starch is GMO, plain and simple. We'd appreciate it if Bayer would label their "vitamins" accordingly.

In summary, Bayer's Flintstone's vitamin brand is far from a natural product, and the consumer should be aware of the unintended, adverse health effects that may occur as a result of using it.

References:

•    [1] GreenMedInfo.com, Adverse Health Effects of Aspartame
•    [2] FlinstonesVitamins.com, FLINSTONES Complete Chewable, Nutritional Info Overview
•    [3] Karen Lau, W Graham McLean, Dominic P Williams, C Vyvyan Howard. Synergistic interactions between commonly used food additives in a developmental neurotoxicity test. Toxicol Sci. 2006 Mar;90(1):178-87. Epub 2005 Dec 13. PMID: 16352620
•    [4] GreenMedInfo.com, Sorbitol's Adverse Health Effects
•    [5] GreenMedInfo.com, Health Effects of Hydrogenated Oil

Thanks for letting us share your blog, GreenMedInfo.com! If you’re looking for non-GMO vitamins, look for the New Chapter brand and many others verified by the Non-GMO Project.

New Chapter was the first brand of vitamins and supplements to be Non-GMO Project Verified. The company has been the leading advocate of the non-GMO cause within the vitamin and supplement industry.  Reaching an incredible depth of verification in the vitamin market, “more than 85% of all New Chapter products (multivitamins, prenatal vitamins, heart-healthy fish oil, healthy aging supplements and much more) have already been Non-GMO Project Verified”.

Smucker’s, a Team USA official sponsor at the Sochi Olympics, is one of the most recognizable food brands in the US.  But contrary to popular belief, Smucker’s is no food champion; while using genetically modified ingredients in its 'family-friendly' products, the company has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to anti-GMO labeling efforts over the past two years.

In 2012, Smucker’s provided about $485,000 of the $46 million agribusiness-fueled campaign against Proposition 37, which demanded mandatory labeling of foods containing genetically engineered ingredients in California.  In 2013, Washington’s GMO labeling initiative I-522 was marginally defeated after an onslaught of anti-GMO labeling political ads, paid for by members of the Grocery Manufacturer's Association (Smucker's being one of them), which has since been sued by the Attorney General of Washington state for violating campaign finance laws.

Well, now Smucker’s might be caught in a jam.  Environmental Action has garnered 35,000 petition signatures against Smucker’s role in funding anti-labeling efforts and delivered them to CEO Richard Smucker on February 8th. The delivery was supported by over one hundred Environmental Action events throughout the US on that day.

Environmental Action has been working on this campaign since mid-November. Since the start of the campaign, Environmental Action members have sent over 35,000 emails to CEO Richard Smucker, made hundreds of calls clogging up Smucker’s phone lines, and overwhelmed Smucker’s Facebook and Twitter with comments. Environmental Action also ran educational internet ads on Smucker’s bad GMO habits and the need for GMO labeling.

It’s “We the people of the United States”, not “we the corporations".  Consumers have the right to know what’s in their food.

P.S. Smucker’s bought JIF Peanut Butter company, so now they own the whole sandwich. Beware!

Chase and Citi Cards Get “F” for Investing in Coal-Fired Power and Mining, BofA and Wells Fargo Get D- and D+; Cards from Smaller Banks Get A+ for Shunning Coal and Focusing on Bettering Communities

February 11, 2014

WASHINGTON, DC -- Concerned consumers who do not want to do business with banks that support coal-fired power plants and coal mining should take the opportunity of Valentine’s Day to break up with their mega-bank and switch to credit cards from smaller, community development banks and credit unions that shun dirty fossil fuels, according to the nonprofit Green America.

In a new ranking at http://www.greenamerica.org/PDF/2014BigCoal.pdf based on the nearly $21 billion in financing that major banks provided to coal plants and coal mining, Green America assigned the following grades:

• Chase and Citigroup:  F.
• Bank of America and Wells Fargo:  D- and D+, respectively.
• US Bank and Capital One:  C- and C+, respectively.

The institutions earning A+ rankings were community development banks and credit unions that shun financing for coal:

• One Pacific Coast Bank - www.onepacificcoastbank.com. 
• Hope Credit Union - www.hopecu.org.     
• Albina - www.albinabank.com.  
• Permaculture - www.permaculturecu.org.
• Southern Bancorp - https://banksouthern.com.

Green America noted that two other major credit cards – American Express and Discover – do not have business models that are likely to support coal-related financing.  However, both of those cards were awarded lower than A+ grades since they are not focused on supporting communities.

Green America Corporate Responsibility Division Director Todd Larsen said:  “If you have irreconcilable differences between dirty fossil fuel and your personal values, it’s time to take action.  Valentine’s Day is the perfect opportunity for concerned consumers to reach into their wallets and purses, remove mega-bank credit cards that support dirty fossil fuels and to replace them with credit cards from fossil-free community development banks. Green America’s Take Charge of Your Card Campaign makes it easy to do.”

Larsen explained that there are three things consumers can do on Valentine’s Day to make a clean break between their personal finances and dirty energy:

• Dump your mega-bank credit card and get a credit card with a responsible bank or credit union!   Go to the Take Charge of Your Card campaign (www.greenamerica.org/go/takecharge) to find a better card.

• Move your checking and savings account to community development banks and credit unions that are supporting people and the planet.  Go to the Break Up With Your Megabank Campaign  (www.BreakUpWithYourMega-Bank.org) to find hundreds of options.

• Take part in fossil fuel divestment.  Make your investment portfolio fossil-fuel-company-free and support clean energy today!  Find resources in Green America’s Fossil Fuel Divestment Guide:  www.GreenAmerica.org/fossilfree/.  

The Green America bank scorecard is based on research from the Rainforest Action Network, the Sierra Club, and Banktrack.  For more information on the role of major banks in coal-related financing see: http://ran.org/coal-finance-reportcard-2013.

ABOUT GREEN AMERICA

Green America is the nation’s leading green economy organization. Founded in 1982, Green America (formerly Co-op America) provides the economic strategies, organizing power and practical tools for businesses, investors, and individuals to solve today’s social and environmental problems. http://www.greenamerica.org. 

MEDIA CONTACT:  Will Harwood, (703) 276-3255 or wharwood@hastingsgroup.com

Shareholder activists usually play the long game, filing shareholder resolutions with companies, requesting dialogues with corporate managers, and issuing investor statements calling for industry-wide action. These efforts add up, over time, to spur social and environmental changes at corporations. But last December, an investor coalition led by Green Century Capital Management took rapid, emergency action to save one Pennsylvania family from having to drink water contaminated by natural gas fracking.

“Most of the filings and discussions with companies take place over at least six months, and sometimes it takes years to secure the changes you seek,” says Green Century president Leslie Samuelrich.

“But Green Century has started a rapid-response program to weigh in on important and timely issues.”

That program recently came to the aid of Tammy Manning and her family. The Mannings had moved to Franklin Forks, PA, a few years ago, just as energy companies were ramping up hydraulic fracturing operations in the Marcellus Shale region, an area stretching across Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia, Ohio, and Maryland. When WPX Energy opened up two fracking wells near the Mannings’ property, Tammy noticed that something was very wrong in her household.

Her granddaughter Madison started waking up in the mornings vomiting, and this happened several times a week. Eventually, Manning pinpointed the family’s drinking water as a potential cause of the problem.

Natural gas fracking involves shooting thousands of gallons of chemical-laden water into rock formations deep in the ground to extract the natural gas contained below those formations. The process can result in fracking chemicals or methane—the main component in natural gas—leaking into drinking water tables. Fracking has negatively affected 161 wells across Pennsylvania, according to the nonprofit Environment America.

Manning called her township office, which directed her to WPX. WPX in turn called in the state Department of Environmental Protection to test the Mannings’ water.
“He came in, turned on the faucet in the kitchen,” Manning told Environment America. “He held a wand next to the faucet, and it started beeping and sounding off like crazy.”

The state investigator found toxic heavy metals and flammable methane in the Mannings’ water. It asked WPX to install a water tank on the Mannings’ property to replace the contaminated drinking water, and Madison’s health took a dramatic turn for the better shortly thereafter.

Late last year, however, WPX obtained a court order to seize the water tank on or after December 16th. While the Mannings thought WPX had given them the tank, a judge sided with WPXruling that the tank was on loan, and the company could take it back when it wished.

“To us, it seemed like petty vindictiveness and spiteful, beyond-the-pale behavior, the kind of corporate behavior where if the spotlight was shone on it, they would perhaps back away,” says John Rumpler, senior attorney at Environment America, which Manning contacted for help. “We thought direct pressure on the company could have an impact.”

So Environment America called on Green Century, with whom the organization had collaborated in the past.

“People like Tammy Manning are living on the front lines of fracking, and their kids are getting sick, their water’s getting contaminated, their air is getting polluted,” says Rumpler. “This wasn’t the kind of thing that could be addressed through political channels, so we thought that turning to our friends at Green Century, who regularly engage in shareholder activism, would be a natural way to address this.”

With only a matter of days in which to act, Green Century pulled together a group of investors to issue a shareholder response letter asking WPX to allow the Mannings to keep their water tank.

“Hydraulic fracturing operations are increasingly controversial, and WPX’s recent actions to remove clean drinking water from the Manning family have increased the reputational risk for the company and its shareholders,” the letter stated. “The company’s decision to remove the drinking water tank has resulted in negative media attention for the company and risks damaging the company’s community relations. ... We urge WPX to immediately drop its plans to remove the drinking water tank from the Mannings and make its change public.”

The pressure worked. Within less than a week, WPX agreed to continue to supply clean drinking water to the Mannings and other affected families in the area.
“We are monitoring the situation to do everything we can to make sure the Mannings have access to the water they need to drink, bathe, and cook for as long as they need it—it is the minimum that should be provided,” says Samuelrich.

This isn’t the only victory Green Century’s new rapid-response shareholder program has achieved. Last fall, it learned that Wilmar, the world’s largest palm oil trader, was considering joining forces with grocery giant Unilever to develop a sustainable palm oil supply chain. Conventional palm oil harvesters often raze large swaths of rainforest to grow palm oil crops.

“We had been tracking the issue and wanted to signal support from the investment community,” says Samuelrich.

So the company organized 40 institutional investors with over $270 billion in assets under management to call for “the development of transparent, traceable, deforestation-free palm oil supply chains.”

“In less than a month, Wilmar and Unilever announced their new policy, which is already having positive reverberations up and down the supply chain,” says Samuelrich.

For details on 2014 shareholder resolutions asking for corporate improvements around fracking and palm oil supply chains, see Green America’s 2014 Shareholder Resolution Focus List »

Consumers across the country took action with the GMO Inside Campaign to push General Mills to make Cheerios non-GMO.

General Mills' announcement of non-GMO Cheerios was huge news, since this was one of the first major consumer brands to go non-GMO based on public pressure, and paved the way for a growing number of non-GMO products.

(January 2014)

Regions, US Bank, Fifth Third, and Wells Fargo agreed to phase out short term loans with interest rates up to 365%. These “deposit advance loans” commonly as “payday loans” trapped people in ongoing cycles of debt. Green America and our allies mobilized to halt these abusive loans.

No Letup in Pressure:  New Consumer Campaign Builds Off Recent Victory In Getting General Mills To Remove GMOs From Original Cheerios

January 21, 2014

WASHINGTON, DC -- Green America’s GMO Inside campaign today launched  a major push to get General Mills to drop genetically modified organisms (GMOs) from Honey Nut Cheerios--the company’s and the nation’s’  #1  breakfast cereal.  The campaign’s website (http://gmoinside.org/cheerios/ ) and Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/GmoInside) call on General Mills to remove GMOs from Honey Nut Cheerios and to use a third-party verifier to ensure that the cereal is, in fact, non-GMO.

On January 2, 2014, GMO Inside broke the news that its campaign to pressure General Mills had resulted in the major U.S. food producer to eliminate GMOs from original Cheerios.  In a campaign relying heavily on social media to inform and involve consumers, the company was deluged with over 50,000 online postings to make original Cheerios GMO free.  General Mills’ acknowledgment that it was dropping GMOs from original Cheerios created a firestorm of media attention and made millions more Americans aware of the GMOs that are common in the cereals that start their days.

Now, GMO Inside is urging General Mills to take the next logical step in relation to consumer demand and concerns. Over 6 million people – many of them children -- start their day with Honey Nut Cheerios. Honey Nut Cheerios contains a number of the same ingredients that are at-risk for GMOs as regular Cheerios, just with a higher concentration of sugar.  Now that General Mills has completed a year-long process to remove GMOs from regular Cheerios, consumers will pressure the company to remove GMOs from their other cereals, starting with Honey Nut Cheerios.  In addition consumers will continue to push General Mills needs to use third party verification to provide consumers with the assurance that its products are genuinely non-GMO.

Recently, Post Foods revealed to its customers that it is removing GMOs from its original Grape Nuts Cereal.  Post is going one step further than General Mills by using third party verification to ensure Grape Nuts is non-GMO.  Post has also stated to its customers that it is exploring removing GMOs from other products.

“General Mills has the opportunity to build on the important step they took in making regular Cheerios non-GMO by now taking the GMOs out of America’s favorite breakfast cereal, Honey Nut Cheerios,” stated Green America’s GMO Inside Campaign Director Nicole McCann.  “More and more consumers are looking for non-GMO options, especially for the foods that they feed to their children, and those consumers will be letting General Mills know they want the GMOs off their breakfast table.”

 “General Mills made the right move in removing GMOs from original Cheerios,” stated Green America President and GMO Inside Co-Chair Alisa Gravitz.  “However, General Mills has sent confusing messages to its customers by saying that it was able to remove GMOs from original Cheerios because of their unique formula, but can’t remove them from other flavors of Cheerios.  And the company denies that it made the change due to consumer demand, while claiming it listens to its customers. The truth is that General Mills responded correctly to enormous consumer pressure in removing GMOs from original Cheerios. Now consumers will put pressure on General Mills to remove GMOs from their other cereals, starting with Honey Nut Cheerios.  And the reality is that the process General Mills put in place to remove GMOs from original Cheerios can be used with other varieties of Cheerios, starting with Honey Nut.”

Green America is the nation’s leading green economy organization. Founded in 1982, Green America (formerly Co-op America) provides the economic strategies, organizing power and practical tools for businesses, investors, and individuals to solve today’s social and environmental problems. http://www.greenamerica.org.

GMO Inside is a campaign dedicated to helping all Americans know which foods have GMOs inside, and the non-GMO verified and organic certified alternatives to genetically engineered foods. We believe that everyone has a right to know what’s in their food and to choose foods that are proven safe for themselves, their families, and the environment. GMO Inside gives people information and tools, and provides a place for a growing community of people from all walks of life, to share information and actions around genetically engineered foods. Join the campaign at www.gmoinside.org, and take part in the GMO Inside community on Facebook and Twitter.

MEDIA CONTACT:  Will Harwood, (703) 276-3255 or wharwood@hastingsgroup.com.

If you’re just hearing about General Mills removing GMOs from its original yellow box Cheerios, you might be wondering, “What does this announcement mean anyway?” Well, let’s start from the beginning.

In November 2012, GMO Inside called on consumers to tell General Mills to take the GMOs out of Cheerios. After a year of countless Facebook posts (over 50,000!), email actions, phone calls, media, and a video that went viral, General Mills complied. On January 2nd, GMO Inside discovered an article on the Cheerios website titled, “Cheerios and GMOs.” GMO Inside crafted a press release titled, “Victory for Consumers: General Mills Announces that Original Cheerios are Now Non-GMO” and blasted it out that day to the media and our lists. Throughout that week the story was picked up by every major news outlet and created quite the buzz on social media. We tracked over 250 news hits and collected thousands of comments on news articles, tweets, social media posts, and blogs.

We noted there were many unanswered questions, and some of the coverage failed to provide the factual information needed to understand the scope of the announcement. We’ve pulled together the top five questions and answered them here. Those questions that we couldn’t answer, we are calling on General Mills to clear up.

Q1. Will Cheerios get verified non-GMO from a third party such as the Non-GMO Project?

A. Currently, General Mills said it will put "Not Made with Genetically Modified Ingredients," on its boxes; however, that it is not an official certification. We suggest you call General Mills and tell them you’re not satisfied until Cheerios is verified!

Q2. Did Cheerios change their GMO source for vitamin E, or was this ingredient always non-GMO?

A. Cheerios has not responded to GMO Inside. We will continue to ask them about this ingredient (which tends to be sourced from GMO soy), and we encourage you to ask them too. Cheerios has indicated that corn and sugar ingredients will be sourced non-GMO.

Q3. Why not remove GMOs from all Cheerios products?

A. General Mills stated they will not remove GMOs from any of their other products. Additionally, they stated removing them from their other Cheerios products would be “impossible.” However, with an orderly transition, it is not impossible. There are other similar cereals on the market that are non-GMO, such as Cascadian Farm’s Honey Nut O’s (which is also organic!). Call General Mills’ customer service and ask them to remove GMOs from the rest of their products.

Q4. What’s the big deal about Cheerios removing GMOs anyway?

A. The big deal is that GMO Insiders targeted Cheerios for over a year to remove GMO ingredients from their yellow box product. Last year, General Mills CEO Kendall Powell said that “labeling GMO foods would require labeling virtually every product” in the grocery store. Yet, earlier this month, General Mills announced the removal of GMOs from Cheerios and claimed they “made investments in new systems at our production facilities to separate the ingredients we use to make original Cheerios from our other products.” They also claimed making this change to Cheerios “required significant investment over nearly a year.” The changes in the storing and processing facilities, as well as changes in sourcing non-GMO corn and sugar, are all important and commendable first steps for this company to take. However, General Mills needs to follow up on its commitment by becoming non-GMO verified by a third party, and then expanding non-GMO sourcing to additional products. Remind General Mills that you’re thankful they’ve started this process but you want verification.

Q5. Is General Mills removing GMOs from their original Cheerios yellow box product in Canada and Mexico too?

A. The announcement came from the US Cheerios website and no such announcement has been made on any other Cheerios websites outside of the US. If you would like to call and inquire about Canada or Mexico from inside the US, please call customer service here: 1-800-248-7310 between (7:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. CT, weekdays).

Canada: Contact customer service and ask if they are removing GMO ingredients from Canadian Cheerios: 1-800-767-5350 between (9:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. ET, weekdays). You can also send them a letter addressed to: General Mills Canada Corp, 5825 Explorer Drive, Mississauga, ON L4W 5P6

Mexico: In Mexico, Cheerios is sold under the Nestlé brand. You can find more information here. Teléfono de Nestlé España de atención al consumidor: 902 112 113

Got more questions? Ask us here in the comment section or call up General Mills today with your concerns.

Thank you, GMO Insiders, for taking action with us! Together we will take back our food supply!

Greetings, GMO Insiders, and nice to meet you! I am the new food campaigns director here at Green America, leading the GMO Inside campaign. 2014 is starting off great with the consumer victory to get Cheerios to go non-GMO for their original namesake cereal and I’m so happy to join the team. I’m looking forward to forging ahead alongside all of you to claim more victories this year.

For my inaugural blog post, let’s talk about Vitamin E (Tocopherol). Many of you may already know that it is often made from GMO crops, but for others this may be news, so let’s explore it a bit. What is Vitamin E? What does Vitamin E do?

Vitamin E is a nutrient that is found naturally in some foods, added to others, and available as a supplement. Its purpose? When added to foods it is predominantly used as a preservative to increase shelf life, by preventing the deterioration of fats. If Vitamin E is not found naturally in a food there are a couple of ways to produce it, including in a laboratory by chemical synthesis or by extracting from plants. The most common plants in the US used for GMO Vitamin E are soy, corn, and cottonseed. The majority of the supply of these crops in the US is GMO.

What foods are high in Vitamin E? The answer might surprise you. When we launched our campaign against Cheerios we pointed to the three ingredients we (consumers) wanted them to convert to non-GMO: sugar, cornstarch, and Vitamin E. In last week’s announcement that the original Cheerios would soon be hitting the shelves without GMOs, they only listed changes in sourcing of sugar and cornstarch. We need General Mills to clarify if their Vitamin E is or is not derived from GMO sources, like soy, corn, or cotton. Any commitment to non-GMO sourcing is incomplete without addressing all possible GMO ingredients.

So will you join us in asking General Mills if the vitamin E they use in Cheerios is non-GMO? Call General Mills at (800) 248–7310 and ask them to clarify. Additionally, take action with us by sending the CEO a note thanking him for removing GMOs from Cheerios and asking General Mills to get third-party verified.

Great news for our work together for a sustainable food system!

Just a few days into the new year, we have our first victory of 2014 to celebrate.

After a year of pressure from you and other Green Americans, General Mills announced on its corporate Web site that its "original" Cheerios are now produced without genetically modified ingredients.  General Mills announced that the company was "able to change how we source and handle ingredients to ensure that the corn starch for original Cheerios comes only from non-GMO corn and our sugar is only non-GMO pure cane sugar."

This announcement comes after tens of thousands of you called, e-mailed, and posted on Cheerios Facebook page demanding non-GMO options for the US market.

One year ago, in November 2012, Green America's GMO Inside campaign starting organizing consumers to put pressure on General Mills to make Cheerios without GMOs. Cheerios are a top-selling cereal in the U.S. and often one of the first solid foods fed to children.  As soon as the campaign launched, tens of thousands of consumers started flooding Cheerios’ Facebook page with concerned comments regarding GMOs in Cheerios, and used an app put out by Cheerios to spell out anti-GMO messages in the Cheerios font.  In October 2013, Green America issued a real corporate responsibility report for General Mills, and called on consumers to email and call the General Mills to get GMOs out of Cheerios.  Our GMO Inside campaign also put out a video highlighting the GMOs in Cheerios  that was watched by over 200,000 viewers. Over 25,000 people took part in the email actions and calls to the company. In the last week of 2013, callers to the company were told that Cheerios would have a big announcement about GMOs soon.

“Removing GMOs from original Cheerios is an important victory in getting GMOs out of our food supply and an important first step for General Mills," says Todd Larsen, Green America's Corporate Responsibility Director.  "Original Cheerios in its famous yellow box will now be non-GMO and this victory sends a message to all food companies that consumers are increasingly looking for non-GMO products and companies need to meet that demand.”
This is a great victory for the non-GMO movement, as a major manufacturer of a top breakfast cereal proves that it is possible to shift a supply chain to non-GMO ingredients in response to consumer demand.

Throughout 2014, Green America's GMO Inside campaign will push for more food brands to follow General Mills' lead, and we'll push for General Mills to shift the rest of its cereal, and other products, to non-GMO sourcing.  We'll also push to make sure that all companies who remove GMOs from their food, provide supply chain transparency and verification.

For now, only "original" Cheerios in the iconic yellow box have been announced as GMO-free.  General Mills continues to manufacture 11 other varieties of Cheerios.  Please take a moment today to thank General Mills for its first step toward non-GMO breakfast cereals.  General Mills listened to YOU.  Please let them know you appreciate it.

GMO Insiders,

There's big news to share. Cheerios are now Non GMO.  On a new page launched over the holiday, General Mills announced that they no longer use genetically modified ingredients in original Cheerios.

"It’s the unique and simple nature of original Cheerios that made this possible – and even that required significant investment over nearly a year. Cheerios’ principal ingredient has always been whole grain oats, and there are no GMO oats.  We use just a small amount of corn starch in cooking, and just one gram of sugar per serving for taste.  So we were able to change how we source and handle ingredients to ensure that the corn starch for original Cheerios comes only from non-GMO corn, and our sugar is only non-GMO pure cane sugar. "

It's no coincidence that General Mills began investing in non-GMO Cheerios when it did. 

When GMO Inside began in November 2012, we chose General Mills as our first target for using genetically modified ingredients in Cheerios. It all started when General Mills launched a customer feedback Facebook app, only to be flooded with comments from GMO Insiders, causing the whole project to shut down.

Throughout the year, GMO Insiders continued to ramp up consumer pressure on the beloved Cheerios brand, signing over 37,000 petitions to General Mills' CEO Ken Powell. Green America Executive Director Larry Giammo and Campaigns Director Liz O'Connell went the extra mile to deliver petitions to General Mills executives face-to-face. Liz went on to attend the General Mills stakeholder meeting at GM headquarters, presenting on behalf of consumers to explain our concerns.

In October 2013, GMO Inside took to the media and held a virtual press conference to release the GMO Inside report on General Mills' real corporate social responsibility, garnering 17 media stories. The GMO Inside Cheerios video soon gained over 200,000 views on YouTube. Meanwhile, GMO Insiders continued to take action with the GMO Inside Send Back Attack, mailing "Satisfaction Guaranteed" Cheerios labels to General Mills' headquarters along with handwritten letters demanding a better product.

And just before the holidays, GMO Insiders calling into General Mills' phone lines were told to expect a big announcement from the brand, inspiring our team to turn up the heat on Cheerios through the end of the year.

All thanks to you.

But the fight isn't over. This new development only applies to original Cheerios in the iconic yellow box. Other Cheerios cereals such as Honey Nut and Multi-Grain still contain genetically modified ingredients.

"For our other cereals, the widespread use of GM seed in crops such as corn, soy, or beet sugar would make reliably moving to non-GM ingredients difficult, if not impossible. "

Non-GMO, yellow box original Cheerios is just one step, but it's a big one. Stay tuned over the next few days so you can join us in thanking General Mills, and to ask for continued progress with all of their cereals.

Congratulations, GMO Insiders! You made this victory possible.

Click here to read the official press release.

Consumers across the country took action with the GMO Inside Campaign to push General Mills to make Cheerios non-GMO

January 2, 2014

WASHINGTON, DC -- With 40,000 Facebook posts from consumers who took part in GMO Inside’s campaign calling on General Mills to make Cheerios non-GMO (http://gmoinside.org/cheerios/), General Mills today posted its statement on GMOs http://cheerios.com/en/Articles/cheerios-and-gmos. The company states: “It’s the unique and simple nature of original Cheerios that made this possible – and even that required significant investment over nearly a year,” and “we were able to change how we source and handle ingredients to ensure that the corn starch for original Cheerios comes only from non-GMO corn, and our sugar is only non-GMO pure cane sugar.”

One year ago, in November 2012, GMO Inside starting calling on consumers to put pressure on General Mills to make Cheerios without GMOs due to concerns over the health and environmental impacts of GMOs. Cheerios are a top-selling cereal in the U.S. and often one of the first solid foods fed to children.  As soon as the campaign launched, tens of thousands of consumers started flooding Cheerios’ Facebook page with concerned comments regarding GMOs in Cheerios (http://gmoinside.org/launch-gmo-inside-campaign-cheerios/), and used an app put out by Cheerios to spell out anti-GMO messages in the Cheerios font (http://gmoinside.org/cheerios-facebook-page-bombarded-by-anti-gmo-activists/).  In October 2013, GMO Inside issued a real corporate responsibility report for General Mills (http://gmoinside.org/cheerios/), and called on consumers to email and call the General Mills to get GMOs out of Cheerios.  GMO Inside also put out a video highlighting the GMOs in Cheerios (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbiDgOkhoyY&feature=youtu.be) that was watched by over 200,000 viewers. Over 25,000 people took part in the email actions and calls to the company. In the past week callers to the company were told that Cheerios would have a big announcement about GMOs soon.

Green America Corporate Responsibility Director Todd Larsen stated: “Removing GMOs from original Cheerios is an important victory in getting GMOs out of our food supply and an important first step for General Mills.  Original Cheerios in its famous yellow box will now be non-GMO and this victory sends a message to all food companies that consumers are increasingly looking for non-GMO products and companies need to meet that demand.”

John W Roulac, GMO Inside co-founder and co-chair stated: "This is a huge victory for the non-GMO movement. I want to thank all the GMO Insiders for using social media to convince America’s largest packed food brand to go non-GMO with a major product. History is being made today and more food brands will rush towards non-GMO foods. "

GMO Inside, a campaign of national non-profit organization Green America, welcomed the news that General Mills is now producing original Cheerios without GMOs, and is encouraging consumers to let General Mills know that now is the time to make all Cheerios non-GMO.  In addition to original Cheerios, General Mills manufactures 11 other varieties of Cheerios for sale in the U.S., including highly popular Honey Nut Cheerios, and the other 11 varieties continue to include GMOs.  General Mills admits on its website that all Cheerios cereals sold in Europe are made without GMOs, and increasingly, U.S. consumers will be calling on General Mills to make all its cereals non-GMO in the U.S. as well.

Green America is the nation’s leading green economy organization. Founded in 1982, Green America (formerly Co-op America) provides the economic strategies, organizing power and practical tools for businesses, investors, and individuals to solve today’s social and environmental problems. http://www.greenamerica.org.

MEDIA CONTACT: Will Harwood (703) 276-3255 or wharwood@hastingsgroup.com

Land O'Lakes: A household name for the dairy-inclined, and an iconic American brand with a proud legacy as a farmer cooperative. But is it the best butter out there?

Founded in 1921, Land O'Lakes is now the nation's second largest member-owned co-op. Made up of almost 4,000 producer members, the co-op is made up of six different types of enterprises: dairy foods, animal feed, crop seed, business development services, and transport and licensing.

Taking a closer look at Land O'Lakes crop seed enterprise, you'll find that Land O'Lakes owns Forage Genetics, the co-developer of genetically engineered alfalfa (Monsanto was the other developer). The USDA approved GMO alfalfa for deregulation and commercial use in January 2011.

If you go one step further and look into Land O'Lakes management team, you'll find that their vice presidents, supply chain management experts, and operations officers are linked to companies such as General Mills, Pepsi, and Mobil Oil. Additionally, some of Land O'Lakes products are licensed by Dean Foods, the largest producer and distributor of dairy in the U.S.

From their website: "Land O’Lakes, Inc. will continue to advocate for the continued safe and effective use of agricultural biotechnology to increase the food supply while lowering cost.  And we will continue to engage in an informative dialogue with our consumers so that they understand the safety, prevalence and benefits of GM technology and can make informed choices for themselves and their families."

Keep in mind, Land O'Lakes contributed nearly $100,000 to defeat I-522 in Washington state.

By playing a direct role in developing GMO alfalfa for commercial use, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to block labeling, and denying the facts about genetically modified crops and their impact on humans and the environment, Land O'Lakes contradicts its self-proclaimed dedication to helping consumers make informed choices. Especially considering that Land O'Lakes has built its reputation on being a member-owned cooperative, we think Land O'Lakes can do better.

For your winter holidays this year, opt for non-GMO verified or USDA organic butters to ensure that your holiday cookies are just like Grandma used to make. Stay tuned this month for some of our favorite holiday cookie recipes.

Think Land O'Lakes can do better than GMO butter? Take action now and demand better butter. Click here to get GMOs out of dairy!

BUTTER. A key ingredient in so many delicious things. If your diet includes dairy, you're probably a big fan.