Hey GMO Insiders,

First off, thank you! The feedback we've gotten so far after our report release last week has been great, and we know we're lucky to have thoughtful and engaging activists following our work. On that note, we've received a lot of questions about Cheerios in Europe, and thought it'd be good to clarify our point on this one.

Cheerios sold in Europe do not contain any genetically modified ingredients. General Mills addresses this briefly in their Global Responsibility Report for 2013: "As a consumer-focused company, GM tries to deliver what consumers what and need. For that reason, products we produce for Europe do not use genetically modified ingredients."

(Quick note: In Europe, General Mills operates under a joint "cereal partnership"venture with Nestle, which is why European Cheerios display the Nestle logo. However, General Mills still profits from all their products sold under Nestle's name in Europe.)

Since 1997, the EU has required mandatory labeling of all genetically modified foods. Regulations were updated in 2000 and 2003, reinforcing a rigorous safety assessment on a case-by-case basis for any GMO foods. Due to this use of the precautionary principle, many growers and consumers in European markets are careful to check labels for genetically modified ingredients.

With the lack of consumer approval (or even demand) for foods containing GMOs in Europe, General Mills provides accordingly - with Cheerios that do not contain GMOs. Unfortunately, the same does not apply here in the U.S.

As part of our GMO Inside campaign, we believe that General Mills should offer the same, non-GMO Cheerios that they already produce for consumers in the EU to consumers outside of the EU (that's us!). Until then, if you want to be sure your Cheerios are free of GMOs, all you have to do is book an $800 round trip flight to Europe and stock up.

If $800 is too steep, take action now by signing our petition at NoGMOsCheerios.org and sending our new YouTube video to 10 friends. 

Until next time,

Michelle

Verve, Inc. announced its full line of Glee Gum as the world’s first Non-GMO Project Verified chewing gum. 

Verve, Inc., maker of Glee Gum, is an independent, certified woman-owned business, dedicated to creating environmentally and socially responsible products.

GMOs, or "genetically modified organisms,” are plants or animals that have been genetically engineered with DNA from bacteria, viruses, and other animals and plants. These experimental combinations of genes cannot occur in nature and have not been proven safe. Learn more about the dangers of GMOs and how you can fight them at Green America’s GMO Inside Campaign.

Non-GMO Project Verification signifies that all flavors of Glee Gum have been produced in compliance with the Non-GMO Project Standard—following rigorous best practices for GMO avoidance, including segregation and traceability to prevent contamination.

“We believe in consumers’ right to know when GMOs are in their food,” Verve president and founder Deborah Schimberg explains. “And we hope that the US will join the 60-plus other countries around the world that require labeling. In the meantime, it was important to our company and our customers to seek Non-GMO Project Verification. We’re thrilled to receive it, and consider it another great reason to feel good about chewing Glee Gum.”

Since October 2011, Glee Gum has been a proud partner of the Just Label It! campaign, calling for the mandatory labeling of genetically engineered food.

Glee Gum contains no artificial flavors, colors, sweeteners, or preservatives, and does contain some Fair Trade ingredients. It’s the only gum in North America made with chicle, a tree sap harvested sustainably to help conserve the rainforest.

Gap and Old Navy claim their “corporate monitors” audit working conditions. So how'd they miss 3,750 workers in Bangladesh clocking in over 100 hours a week at poverty level wages?

Gap and Old Navy claim they’ve deployed “corporate monitors” to audit working conditions. So how did those monitors miss out on 3,750 workers performing sweatshop labor in Bangladesh routinely working over 100 hours a week at less than subsistence income?

The Institute of Global Labour Rights released a report that contradicts Gap and Old Navy’s claims to policing their supply chains. They investigated the Next Collections “Factory”---rightfully called a sweatshop.

Located on the outskirts of Dhaka, the factory is part of the Ha-Meem group, Bangladesh’s second largest garment exporter which owns 26 factories and employs over 30,000 workers. Approximately 70 of production at Next Collections is for Gap and Old Navy.

The report unveiled that:

• Next Collections workers are forced to toil 14- to 17-plus-hour shifts, seven days a week, routinely putting in workweeks of over 100 hours. Workers are visibly sick and exhausted from the grueling and excessive hours.
• Workers are paid in cash, off the books and cheated of 15 percent of their grueling overtime hours. Management hands out phony pay slips to pretend that Gap is in compliance with legal hours and wages.
• Workers live in miserable poverty in tiny primitive hovels, and earn just 20 to 24 cents per hour. By the third week in a month, most have no money left for food.
• Physical punishment and illegal firings are the norm. Pregnant women are illegally terminated and denied their legal paid maternity leave.

All of this to produce clothes like Old Navy’s “Super Skinny Pull-on Jeggings For Baby,” skintight pants for toddler girls sold in the U.S. for $14.94 (pictured).

What can you do to stand up against sweatshop labor, save lives, and prevent another Rana Plaza tragedy?

1. Learn more: Read the report and learn more about abuses by Gap and Old Navy. Plus learn about the United Nations Women’s Empowerment Principles from Pax World in Women, Garment Work and Safety: Clothes to Die For?
2. Take action with Green America: Tell leading clothing companies to protect sweatshop workers’ lives and end labor abuses »
3. Get more resources: Read Green America’s resources about what you can do about sweatshop labor.

This new expert report will help businesses understand what they need to know about the new FTC Green Guides, the standards to avoid “greenwashing” marketing claims.

A new report from marketing experts Jacquelyn Ottman and David Mallen will help businesses understand what they need to know about the new FTC Green Guides, the standards to avoid “greenwashing” marketing claims.

AdAge is releasing the new report, “How to Make Credible Green Marketing Claims: What Marketers Need to Know about the Updated FTC Green Guides,” co-authored by Jacquelyn Ottman of J. Ottman Consulting and David Mallen from the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau.

Save 10% off the new guide with promo code RR10J.

Jacquelyn Ottman, a green marketing guru and author of The New Rules of Green Marketing, is a Green Festival speaker and webinar presenter who has shared her marketing expertise with small green businesses across the country.

About The FTC Green Guides on Environmental Marketing

For readers not familiar with it, the FTC published the first edition of the Green Guides in 1992. Their goal: to help advertisers avoid deceptive or misleading environmental marketing claims. These Guides are the go-to standards for green marketing claims.

The FTC Green Guides have been updated from time to time as the green marketing landscape evolved. This latest update addresses such new terms that have entered the lexicon as ‘carbon offsets’ and ‘renewable materials’.  It spotlights the use of corporate and product-related eco-seals and certifications. Most importantly, it all but eliminates the use of terms, images, and other attempts to communicate generalized environmental claims such as ‘green’, ‘environmentally friendly’ and ‘eco-friendly.” 

The new report provides:

• an overview of the FTC Green Guides and how they can help businesses reduce risks of greenwash and overcome consumer ‘green fatigue’;
• a detailed discussion of what’s new to the FTC Green Guides since they were last updated in 1998 (in a word, a lot!);
• several case studies from the NAD, FTC and other bodies of well-known brands whose claims have been called into question with lessons learned;
• the 43-item “Ottman Checklist for Credible Green Marketing” –  its first time in print.  It guides businesses step-by-step through a process for ensuring they stay in check with the Guides;
• 5 alternative strategies for underscoring credibility — including a discussion as to why cause marketing may be dead;
• seven charts and graphs of hot-off-the-press data on consumer attitudes towards green claims, eco-labels, etc., which are also provided as a free PowerPoint;
• the complete text 2012 FTC Green Guides as well as a variety of helpful links.

Co-Authors:

Jacquelyn A. Ottman is the founding chair of J. Ottman Consulting, one of the first green marketing consultants. Over the past 24 years, her pioneering green marketing consultancy has flourished, working for over 60 Fortune 500 companies and several eco-labels. She has written four award-winning books on green marketing and eco-innovation. She is a respected sustainability leader having chaired juries for the Edison Awards and the Effie Awards and is also the founding co-chair of the Sustainable Business Committee of the Columbia Business School Alumni Club of New York. She is a frequent contributor to The Huffington Post, TriplePundit, and several other websites.

David G. Mallen is the current Deputy Director for Legal Affairs at the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau, having worked there since 1999. He is an established leader in claim substantiation issues and has resolved disputes between food and drug products, telecommunication services, and computer technology. He is an experienced trial lawyer and formerly practiced law at Kensington & Ressler L.L.C, where he concentrated on product liability defense, business counseling, and commercial litigation. 

The Coca-Cola Company and World Wildlife Fund (WWF) are working to advance the Coca-Cola system’s sustainability stewardship with new global environmental goals and an expanded global partnership.

The goals focus on sustainable management of water, energy and packaging use as well as sustainable sourcing of agricultural ingredients through 2020.

Coca-Cola and WWF jointly developed new 2020 environmental sustainability goals and performance targets for the Coca-Cola system, including nearly 300 bottling partners in more than 200 countries. These goals include :

1. Improve water efficiency by 25%.
2. Help ensure healthy, resilient freshwater systems.
3. Reduce CO₂ emissions embedded in ‘the drink in your hand’ by 25%.
4. Responsibly source material for PlantBottle packaging.
5. Sustainably source key agricultural ingredients.

In addition to the goals jointly developed and announced with WWF, Coca-Cola has reaffirmed its water replenishment goal and evolved its package recovery goal through 2020 to include :

1. Replenish 100% of water used.
2. Reach a 75% recovery rate of bottles and cans in developed markets.

Since 2007, Coca-Cola and WWF have worked together to conserve and protect freshwater resources around the world while helping to improve the efficiency of Coca-Cola’s global operations.

To date, the partnership has led to major conservation gains, including helping to improve the ecological health of seven of the world’s most important freshwater basins across five continents, helping improve the Coca-Cola system’s water efficiency by 20 percent, working to prevent 5 million metric tons of CO₂ emissions across Coca-Cola’s global manufacturing operations, and promoting more sustainable agricultural practices in the Company’s supply chain.

WWF is the world’s leading conservation organization, working in 100 countries for half a century. With the support of almost 5 million members worldwide, WWF is dedicated to delivering science-based solutions to preserve the diversity and abundance of life on Earth, halt the degradation of the environment and combat climate change.

Originally published by The Alternative Daily
August 23, 2013
Source article

GMO Inside, a coalition against the use of genetically modified ingredients, is putting pressure on Chobani, Inc. to stop using GMO milk in their yogurt and other products.

The seven member coalition includes GMO Free USA, Label GMOs, Green America, Nutiva, Food Babe, Food Democracy Now! and Institute for Responsible Technology.

GMO Inside has started their national campaign against Chobani, Inc. because most of their milk comes from industrial New York dairy farms. According to campaign director Elizabeth O’Connell, “cows living on industrial farms eat GMO feed.”

Chobani is the leading brand of Greek yogurt in the United States, and many people see Greek yogurt as a healthy snack food or addition to their meals. The health properties of GMO ingredients, however, are shady at best.

Chobani yogurt labels indicate that only natural ingredients are used, and that the milk comes from cows that were not treated with rBST growth hormone. The GMO Inside coalition, however, wants more. They are asking Chobani to stop marketing their products as “natural” and “real” when they they are in fact a part of the GMO Food Family.

O’Connell says, “Chobani has an opportunity to be a leader amongst meat and dairy companies by listening to its customers and ensuring its cows are given non-GMO food.”

Lindsey Kos, Chobani communications manager, has responded, “our team is dedicated to addressing GMOs and is currently navigating its complexities, specific to dairy. As it stands now, we do not claim to be GMO-free… according to some, doing so would require us to ensure the feed to more than 78,000 cows across more than 875 farms is 100 percent GMO-free. It requires teamwork among our employees, farmers and industry partners.”

GMO Inside is inviting all concerned consumers to sign a petition requesting that Chobani use milk from non-GMO-fed cows.

Originally published Before It's News
August 28, 2013

Founded in 2005 by Turkish immigrant Hamdi Ulukaya, Chobani finally launched in 2007 to critical acclaim. The company now commands the top spot in the booming $2 billion a year Greek yogurt category–boasting more than 70 products, and a team of more than two thousand employees around the world.

The Good

Greek yogurt is higher in protein than regular yogurt—about twice as much—and Chobani positions this protein source as an excellent workout food. The company also claims its ingredients are “all natural,” and while not organic, Chobani also says none of the dairy used comes from cows fed rBST—the controversial growth hormone common in conventional dairy. But while they claim not to use rBST, the Chobani website also states “According to the FDA, no significant difference has been shown, and no test can now distinguish, between milk from rBST treated cows and untreated cows.”

Chobani products avoid the use of artificial sweeteners. “The sugars found in our products come from milk (lactose), real fruit (fructose), honey and evaporated cane juice (which is less processed than white table sugar and is used to sweeten the fruit, vanilla and chocolate chunk preps used in our authentic strained Greek yogurt products).”

The Shepherd’s Gift Foundation is Chobani’s charitable arm, giving ten percent of all profits to nearly twenty organizations including the Making Waves to Fight Cancer organization, Earthquake relief efforts in Erds, Turkey, Luke’s Wings and Chenango Memorial Hospital.

The Bad

GMO Inside, the nonprofit organization working to bring attention to genetically modified ingredients in food, recently targeted Chobani for the use of the word “natural,” which is featured prominently on all of its product packaging, website and marketing materials. It’s even earned the conventional yogurt brand a spot in most Whole Foods markets, the retail chain that recently announced it would introduce GMO labeling in its stores by 2018.

While the company does not use milk from dairy cows fed artificial growth hormones, it also does not source organic milk, GMO Inside points out. Conventional dairy cows are most often fed genetically modified alfalfa, corn and soy.  The World Health Organization defines GMOs as not occurring naturally. Several leading food producers have faced class action lawsuits over use of the term “natural” on foods that contained GMOs. As a result of the GMO Inside campaign, thousands of customers have petitioned Chobani to switch to organic dairy. But instead of changing its ingredients to those that are truly natural, it appears the company is simply changing its marketing strategy, opting to use the word “real” instead of “natural”, which has recently been added to the Chobani website. Presumably new packaging will also replace “natural” with “real” in the very near future.

The other major issue that’s giving Chobani a bad name is the manufacturing process. One ounce of the Greek yogurt requires three to four ounces of fresh milk, which produces a very acidic whey by-product once processed. According to an expose in Modern Farmer, “it’s a thin, runny waste product that can’t simply be dumped. Not only would that be illegal, but whey decomposition is toxic to the natural environment, robbing oxygen from streams and rivers. That could turn a waterway into what one expert calls a “dead sea,” destroying aquatic life over potentially large areas. Spills of cheese whey, a cousin of Greek yogurt whey, have killed tens of thousands of fish around the country in recent years.”

The Questionable

The large quantities in acid whey are such a huge problem for Chobani that they’re paying farmers to take it off their hands, but there may be another option. Dave Barbano, a dairy scientist at Cornell thinks the protein in acid whey may find a use in infant formula.

While that might very well do away with some of the whey waste, it is essentially offering newborns a concentrated genetically modified food, and GMOs have been linked to a number of serious health issues. Newborns and infants have particularly sensitive digestive systems, which may not be the healthiest use for genetically modified whey.

Recently, the USDA invited Chobani to supply pilot schools with its Greek yogurt as part of efforts to provide school children healthier meals. If successful, the plan is to roll out the Greek yogurt offering to all of the U.S. school systems.

A higher protein food, Greek yogurt may be a step up from the Pink Slime U.S. schools were serving recently. But a six-ounce serving of fruit flavored Chobani can contain as much as 20 grams of sugar (five teaspoons). The recommendation for children is no more than three teaspoons of sugar per day. Granted, some of the sugars in Chobani yogurts are naturally occurring from fruit and the dairy, but cane sugar is the third ingredient listed on its popular blueberry flavor.

Originally Published by Boise Weekly
By: Carissa Wolf
August 14, 2013
Source Article

The problem of what to do with the company's acid whey biproduct is causing headaches for neighbors

Mike and Deb Courtnay can count miles between their neighbors' homes east of Hollister, where nameless, numbered roads stretch straight and remain off the GPS grid. On some days the only sighting of life near the Courtnays' Southern Idaho farmstead comes in the form of deer that wander down the South Hills toward fields of wheat and alfalfa. For five generations, the Courtnay family relished the peace and quiet in what Deb calls the "suburbs" of Hollister.

Then, Chobani moved in.

"Suddenly, we had trucks going day and night," Deb said of the usually desolate sage- and scrub-lined roads, which last spring were filled with tanker trucks on the half-hour trek southwest from the Twin Falls Chobani plant to the outskirts of Hollister.

The trucks hauled the Greek yogurt industry's biggest quandary and a smelly secret: gallons and gallons of acid whey-spiked wash water.

Protein-hungry Americans' love affair with the thick, velvety variety of yogurt brought economic promise to the Twin Falls area last year with the opening of a Chobani processing plant—the largest yogurt factory in the world. According to CNN Money, Chobani revenue went from zero to $1 billion in five years, a growth rate on par with Facebook and Google.

The company also recently received a boost from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's approval of Greek yogurt as a school lunch menu item and Washington, D.C., lobbying efforts that made Chobani a top supplier.

Along with the economic impact that comes with the roughly 1,000 full- and part-time workers Chobani now employs in the area came hundreds of thousands of gallons of acid whey—a manufacturing byproduct of Greek yogurt—to Hollister-area farmland.

The byproduct of this blooming love affair hasn't found the same embrace consumers and politicians extend to the finished product. Chobani reported record earnings while neighbors near its upstate New York plant complained of odors and environmental concerns. And while Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo stood before the press lauding his favorite Chobani Greek yogurt flavor and industry public relations tout Idaho as the new yogurt state, Greek yogurt producers search to find a place for the whey that left Hollister-area neighbors desperate for fresh air and answers about the environmental impact of Chobani waste disposal in their community.

Until science catches up with Americans' demands for Greek yogurt, much of Chobani's whey travels south to the farmland that neighbors the Courtnays, where it's dumped into an irrigation pond, mixed with water and applied to fields as a soil amendment.

The whey arrives via tanker truck, suspended in a wash water slurry that picks up traces of whey as Chobani workers douse the factory in water for cleaning. Roughly 86 percent of the whey and wash water concoction that Chobani pays one local business to unload goes to area farmers to use as a feed supplement. The rest becomes fertilizer that seeps into Hollister-area farmland.

"I don't know if you've smelled whey or not. It is nasty. Really nasty," Mike Courtnay said.

"I was raised on a farm that had 3,000 pigs and we had whey," Deb said. "And it is not a bad smell at first, but when it gets hot, it ferments and it's a horrible, horrible smell."

The couple sat in the living room of the dream home they built three years ago, looking through the picture window, trying to describe the smell of whey on a warm day as the southern winds blow across the arid landscape. Just below the South Hills' slope and across an alfalfa field, Mike pointed to two trees. Between them lay the irrigation pond that Reed Gibby bet his future on.

When land next to the Courtnay property went up for sale, Gibby saw economic opportunity. He bought the land, installed the irrigation pond and began filling it with water and Chobani's whey waste.

"Instead of wasting it, let's use it," Gibby said.

That's exactly what he did, applying the whey-infused contents of his irrigation pond to neighboring fields as a fertilizer—a practice he characterizes as an eco-friendly alternative to chemical soil amendments.

"Farmers all over apply acid to soil to release nutrients," he added.

As whey soaked the soil, temperatures climbed and the wind blew across the land, prompting neighbors to grill the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality and government officials about noise pollution from heavy traffic, farming rights, disclosure, environmental sustainability and, in general, the smell of the newest operation up the road. The questions paralleled concerns from neighbors nearChobani's New York plant.

"There's the potential for mismanagement that could cause some groundwater concerns," said David Anderson, Idaho DEQ drinking water and engineering manager, noting that while the Gibby operation complies with all state regulations, mismanagement potential remains inherent in any farming practice—pesticides could spill, farmers could over-apply fertilizers and things could leak. And farming almost always stinks, Gibby said.

"You just have to smell it; in my opinion, it's worse than a hog farm," Mike Courtnay said of the whey soaked-fields, whose odor mingled with the spring breeze. Deb likened the aroma to warm, rotting beer.

"Sometimes in the mornings, I can smell it in my house," Mike added.

Protein, Pain and Profit

A chobani.com cartoon paints a picture of how milk becomes a container of Chobani Greek yogurt. "Our local farmers bring us fresh milk," it says. "We pasteurize the milk ... We add five live and active cultures ... Our authentic straining process removes excess whey ... We fill cups with Chobani ... We deliver Chobani to your local grocer."

Simple enough? The cartoon just leaves out a few steps in the process that have Hollister-area neighbors worried about where Chobani trucks away its whey.

The protein-heavy punch of Greek yogurt comes from a high concentration of solids derived from separating yogurt from its watery whey. Homemakers of Greek yogurt start with a batch of regular yogurt, pack it in cheesecloth and let it strain for a couple of hours. An overnight strain yields cream cheese, and both processes leave a sour, lactose- and protein-laden acid whey that often goes down the kitchen drain.

Where to put industrial-sized portions of whey is more complicated.

Unlike sweet cheese whey, which finds a home as a valuable ingredient in baby formula and bodybuilding supplements, acid whey for the most part finds only two homes—in livestock feed and fertilizer.

It's the latter use of acid whey and milky whey-spiked wash water from the Chobani plant that put Hollister neighbors in a malodorous maelstrom. Where Gibby smells a business boost, neighbors smell a nuisance.

"The fertilizer nutrients in the whey doesn't even pay for the fuel to haul it out here. So they're basically just trying to get rid of it," said Mike Courtnay.

One container of yogurt yields about three containers of whey plus a dose of whey-infused wash water from factory processing. And that 3-1 ratio keeps milk scientists busy.

"Whey produced in cheese making has a different composition, pH balance and nutritional make-up. These differences mean our whey has to be used in an alternative manner than cheese whey," said Chobani spokeswoman Laura Herbert, who noted that the company invests in efforts and research to find more uses for acid whey.

If you step back 30-plus years, cheese producers shared a lot in common with today's yogurt producers. Making cheese produced millions of gallons of whey that had few uses.

"It was used as a fertilizer or in animal feed. That's basically what they were doing with it until the 1970s," said John Lucy, professor and food science director at the Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research. "Then industry found new technologies to convert this waste product into valuable ingredients."

Generations of babies suckled on formula and body builders buffed up thanks to the extraction of lactose and protein from cheese whey, a sweeter version of whey with a slightly higher pH than its more acidic cousin, yogurt whey, or "acid whey" as it's often called because of its roughly 4.5 pH—an acidity similar to orange juice. Figuring out how to extract and concentrate sweet whey's nutritional components proved so profitable that producers began manufacturing cheese just to sell the whey as a food supplement. The discovery turned the industry upside down, Lucy said, but dairy scientists have yet to discover a similarly useful second life for yogurt's acid whey.

"The Greek yogurt side of [whey] is a new phenomenon in the U.S.," he said.

Few Miss Muffets reside among the American population of dairy lovers and while we'll happily eat our curds, we prefer to pass on the whey.

Traditional European diets include a good dose of Greek-style yogurt, which leaves plenty of acid whey in its wake. Much of the whey becomes fertilizer to neutralize the pH of soil or goes down the hatch in many parts of the world, where beverage producers add sweeteners and flavorings to the whey to create a protein-fortified drink. Sans an American penchant for sipping whey, livestock that can live on whey alone and a technology to convert whey into profitable food products, Greek yogurt companies end up with a lot of whey on their hands.

Market researcher Packaged Facts noted a 50 percent surge in Greek yogurt sales in 2012 at $1.6 billion—an increase that took Greek yogurt from just 1 percent of yogurt sales in 2007 to 35 percent of sales in 2012. Chobani would not disclose Twin Falls production numbers, but told the Twin Falls Times News that the company's New Berlin, N.Y., plant uses almost 4 million pounds of milk to produce 1.7 million cases of yogurt weekly. A Chobani spokesperson told the Times News that the Twin Falls plant would make at least that much yogurt. In an email interview, Herbert said the Twin Falls plant was built with growth in mind.

To yogurt magnates, investors and the Twin Falls community, those numbers translate into prosperity; to those in the Hollister "'burbs," they mean yet more truckloads of whey shipments.

The Way to Hollister, Idaho

Addresses don't mean much in Hollister. And most people drive past it on Highway 93 without stopping. If you've driven to Jackpot, Nev., via Twin Falls, you passed Hollister, population 272. A halfway point between gambling and Twin Falls remains one of its claims to fame, along with the Nat-Soo-Pah Hot Springs and RV Park, to the east.

Absent names and numbers—much less GPS coordinates—for some roads, residents give directions in relation to Nat-Soo-Pah and the big sign telling travelers to head eastward for a hot soak. The local moniker for whole swathes of land often refers simply to the family that lives there, as in, "The Smith Place" or "The Courtnay Place." Some places still bear the names of folks who occupied the farmland in generations past when gopher hunting, canal swimming and trips into Twin Falls kept area youth occupied. Conversation and a handshake go a long way in Hollister and many neighbors step up for each other like family in times of need. Deb Courtnay remembers when the father of a new immigrant family was seriously injured in a farming accident. Neighbors kept the family dairy running for months in his absence.

"We really are genuine people," Deb said of her neighbors. "Most of the farms that are out here have been farmed for generations."

Much of Hollister and the surrounding area quietly slept through decades of state growth, where shells of old buildings from a generation ago still stand and neighbors notice little changes like a new porch addition on a house. Alfalfa, wheat, irrigation and cows still occupy most people's time. A local ordinance that limits residential building to one unit per 160 acres makes the Hollister area a quiet place, neighbors say.

The quiet ended in March, said Hollister excavation contractor Carl Jones.

The Jones Place sits slightly north and across the road from the irrigation pond that took in shipments of Chobani's cast-off whey. The loads ran 24/7 and shook Jones' trailer. In three months, neighbors guess that 1,000 truckloads passed Jones' home. He couldn't sleep.

"There really wasn't anything you can do," Jones said.

Jones and his neighbors called every government agency they could think of, trying to find solutions to what Mike Courtnay puts in the nuisance category. Calls to Chobani representatives went unanswered. Conversations with Idaho DEQ officials were vague.

"They just played dumb," Jones said.

Neighbors also wanted answers. What was in the tanks? Was the irrigation pond lined? Why weren't neighbors notified before the shipments started? What about spills, seepage and water quality?

"It's going to ruin the aquifer here. We have a very shallow one here. Our water stands at 30 feet," Deb Courtnay said. "We don't want to cause problems, but we don't want our livelihoods to change either."

Mike Courtnay farms wheat. He also drills wells and said the water level in some areas stands at as little as 4 feet to 5 feet.

"The ground out here is flat and it's under a layer of gravel. I think eventually [whey] will leak into the soil and it's going to change the nitrate level that's in the water," he said.

As spring wore on, questions went unanswered and business dropped downwind from the irrigation pond at Nat-Soo-Pah.

"There were trucks running all night long and there were campers who complained and pulled out early," said Nat-Soo-Pah owner Jim Herman.

And the farmland festered.

"I did smell it a couple of times. It was pretty rank," Herman said.

At one point, a Nat-Soo-Pah maintenance worker thought something had died in the pool's vacuum room.

Then rumors began to fly.

Neighbors say they heard that government agencies were told to look the other way and let Chobani do what it wants.

"If I hauled 2,000 loads of crap and dumped it in Boise, I'd be sitting in a courtroom," Jones said.

"They saw [Hollister] as a small little town they could take advantage of. If they dumped [whey] in Twin Falls, they'd have thousands of people screaming about it, rather than 100 or 50," Herman said. "I can't fight them, I'm just a little guy compared to them. They look at me and think they can do whatever they want. You've seen their factory."

A way with the whey

Livings don't come easy in Hollister. Farmers work the water-impoverished region raising dairy cows, growing wheat and feed and tending to the demands of agriculture. Some land jobs at the canal company and other civic offices while a few put their dialect-neutral voices to work at the now defunct Dell call center. There are no McDonalds for teen workers but plenty of factory jobs at the meat packing plant, sugar beet processor and, now, the Chobani factory in Twin Falls.

The December 2012 opening of the Chobani plant earned a nod on the Congressional record, and after touring the Twin Falls plant, Idaho Falls native and Republican U.S. Sen. Mike Crapo, who joined lobbying efforts to get Chobani on school lunch menus, gave a broad accounting of his favorite Chobani flavors.

"I don't know that there's one kind that jumps out at me more than the others, but I can tell you that the kind I just had was blueberry and it was delicious," Crapo told reporters.

The company promised the opening of the Twin Falls plant would yield more than 400 jobs, and Chobani reports that it currently employs more than 1,000 full- and part-time workers from the Twin Falls area. Those employment numbers don't include contract labor from businesses that haul Chobani whey and wash water away from its Twin Falls plant or the jobs Gibby added to his ag business payroll at Carne Inc.

Carne's Chobani-spurred growth started with the hiring of additional staff, the acquisition of new equipment and the purchase of land just outside Hollister, up the road from Nat-Soo-Pah, slightly north and across the street from The Jones Place and an alfalfa field away from The Courtnay Place. He dug the pond and started filling it with Chobani wash water shipments. It could hold five 6,500-gallon truckloads at a time, and he's happy to give press tours of the operation, he said.

"It's a very remote area," Gibby said of the Hollister area land that holds his irrigation pond and the fields he soaks with the diluted whey wash water. Still, he said, "We want to be a good neighbor. We love our little farming [community]."

David Anderson, with the DEQ, says shortly after those shipments began, he began fielding calls from neighbors.

"We had some concerns; it's mostly concerns about trucks," he said.

Neighbors also cite environmental concerns. Leakage, spills and over application hit their radar screens, especially after learning that the Gibby pond isn't lined.

And toxic worries spiked following New York Post and Modern Farmer reports detailing the hazards of Greek yogurt whey. The articles noted that acid whey holds the potential to turn waterways into a "dead sea," killing aquatic life and rendering drinking water unpotable.

"If we can figure out how to handle acid whey, we'll become a hero," the Post quoted a Greek yogurt producer saying at a recent New York yogurt summit.

Scientist John Lucy sees the concern as akin to worrying about milk that hasn't spilled. Whey is simply food, he said, and while the pH of yogurt whey puts the semantically charged adjective of "acid" before its name, the byproduct is no more toxic than orange juice.

But Hollister farmers say they wouldn't pour orange juice into their groundwater, either.

"If it rises the nitrate level of our well, it will be too late," Mike Courtnay said.

The application of whey and whey-tinged wash water as a fertilizer is certified under the U.S. Department of Agriculture as a soil amendment and the Gibby operation complies with all environmental regulations, Anderson said. Calls by neighbors to planning and zoning officials, county commissioners, city leaders and state representatives yielded one answer: Farming sometimes stinks and the Chobani way with whey falls under Right to Farm protections.

Some neighbors think that justification stinks, too.

"The waste water that comes out of a factory is totally different than an agricultural product. It's industrial waste," Jones said. "The dairy lobby is so strong and I don't think they'll get any laws to change."

According to Mike Courtnay, "I think the only thing we can do is go to court over a nuisance suit."

Some Chobani representatives didn't respond to requests for comment, others shuffled Boise Weekly's request for an interview around before corporate spokeswoman Laura Herbert agreed to answer pre-submitted questions about the company's Twin Falls operation and the Hollister area whey disposal contract.

"Chobani is committed to being a good community partner. That extends to the responsible use of whey, which is a natural byproduct of our authentic straining process," read a written statement Chobani issued Boise Weekly.

"We do not, nor have we ever 'dumped' our whey in a manner that is harmful to the environment," the statement continued.

Hollister neighbors said they started seeing some movement over their concerns when Hollister city officials raised questions about the potential threat of acid whey to the city's groundwater supply. Hollister Mayor Dixie Choate, who could not be reached for comment, called a June town hall meeting, drawing out Chobani officials, Gibby and roughly 40 neighbors who quizzed the companies about odors and operations.

"People were concerned about the issue," said Rick Dunn, Twin Falls County Planning and Zoning administrator. "They addressed the issue."

Neighbors said they came away with a different impression of the meeting.

"They said, 'We're going to keep doing this but we'll be nicer about it,'" Jones said.

The meeting yielded some concessions, Gibby said. He agreed to stop night shipments, reroute trucks to avoid high traffic past neighbors' homes, add odor-reducing amendments to the wash water and line the irrigation pond.

"In my opinion, we've gone above and beyond what we need to do, and I want to do more," Gibby said.

On a mid-July day in the Hollister outskirts, the roads stood desolate and the air smelled of cattle and 99-degree baked dirt and sage. The whey wash water shipments stalled for a moment. The supply just wasn't coming in, Gibby said.

"Upon receiving inquiries from citizens in Hollister, we worked in partnership with our contractor to slow hauling to the Hollister site in order to allow time to fully assess and address the concerns of the community," Herbert wrote.

Other cattle feed and fertilizer contracts, along with supplemental anaerobic digestion, processes much of Chobani's whey and wash water for now. And for the moment, Hollister-area neighbors cling to their respite of quiet and fresh air.

"Currently, there's no need to go to Hollister," Gibby said. "When there's a need, we'll go there. There's just no need now."

Grocery store aisles across the country are stocked floor to ceiling with yogurt brands, dozens of which fall into the Greek category.  So why, amongst all the possible GMO yogurts out there, have we decided to focus our effort on Chobani?

We're glad you asked...

1.  Chobani is the biggest, with more than 50% market share in the Greek yogurt sector.  A change from Chobani could impact the entire food system.

Being big means a number of things:
1) Chobani is relying on a huge volume of milk coming from GMO-fed cows, an estimated 11 million pounds of milk per day! 2) A shift from a company with this much market share will have huge impacts over time in decreasing demand for GMO animal feed. 3) Being big means a company has responsibility to a greater number of stakeholders, including and not limited to dairy cows, dairy farmers, the environment, the communities in which Chobani operates, and consumers.  To be sustainable in the long-run, Chobani needs to take the needs of all its stakeholders very seriously.

2. Chobani is a major player in the dairy sector, which is largely dependent on GMOs.

You can't make yogurt without milk and you don't have milk without cows.  (And when it comes to Greek yogurt, we're talking a lot of milk.  It takes 3-4 times the amount of milk needed to make Greek yogurt compared to regular).  Many of the cows in the US, whether living in industrial farms or smaller farms, are fed corn and other GMO crops.  In fact, unless specifically segregated and/or organic, its likely that all animal feed in the US contains GMOs, as a majority of the yields of these crops are genetically modified.  Reducing GMOs in the animal feed sector will be hugely important to eliminating GMOs from the food system overall.

3.  GMO crops have largely failed to deliver on their intended benefits and instead cause harm to the environment, farmers, and the beings that eat them.

In spite of promising higher yields and reduced needs for pesticides, GMO crop outputs have declined overtime and instead require more and more chemicals to fight off immune "super-weeds" in the fields.  GMOs have not been proven safe for human consumption, and no independent, long-term studies have been completed.  The research that has been done in animals point to health concerns ranging from inflammation to increasing rates of food allergies.  Additionally, the GMO DNA in feed has shown to be taken up by animals' organs and detected in the meat, milk, and fish that people eat.

4.  Chobani claims to be made with "Only Natural Ingredients" when it in fact relies on genetically modified crops sprayed with chemicals.

Unlike organic Greek yogurt brands which are actually made without chemicals or unnatural ingredients, Chobani relies on milk from cows that are ingesting feed that has been heavily sprayed with chemicals such as Roundup, or in some cases, these crops even have pesticides and herbicides built into their genetic code, like Bt Corn and Roundup Ready Soy. Animals consuming grains that are sprayed with chemicals are known to have health issues and studies have shown that these pesticides pass through the digestive tracts of cows and into their milk.  The same milk that people then consume.  So how natural is that?

5.  Chobani cares about what its consumers want: healthy food.

Chobani lovers are health conscious and actively pursue healthy choices for themselves and their families.  Chobani, like all companies, is sensitive to its consumers' demands.  However, Chobani consumers hold the brand in a particular halo because they trust Chobani yogurt to be healthy and good for them.  When Chobani consumers learn otherwise, they are shocked and feel empowered to speak out.  Individuals, speaking together, have incredible power to make change happen.  And because Chobani does strive to be a healthy choice, we think they can be a leader and go non-GMO!

Please join us in calling on Chobani to be a leader amongst food manufacturers by committing to work with its suppliers to find non-GMO feed sources for the cows which supply its milk!  Sign our petition!

Originally published by The Progressive Mind
by Daisy Luther
July 20, 2013

Monsanto and their biotech buddies would have you believe that they are super-heroes, set on saving hungry children from starvation wearing a dazzling fake-green cape, and may in fact leave you wondering, are GMOs good or bad? In fact, in a recent attack on activists ^[2], Monsanto’s CEO Hugh Grant said that because critics “can afford” organic food, we don’t care about the plight of those who can’t afford it. “There is this strange kind of reverse elitism: If I’m going to do this, then everything else shouldn’t exist,” said Grant. “There is space in the supermarket shelf for all of us.”

Even Monsanto’s website is on the defense, with page after page attempting to justify what the biotech industry is doing to our food supply. It must be true if even leading “philanthropists” (and I use this term loosely) like Bill and Melinda Gates ^[3] are behind the distribution of Monsanto crops across the globe. Right?

Actually, it’s all about the public’s perception. The push for acceptance of GMO foods has, thus far, been all about which team has the most money. Monsanto and their ilk can afford more television ads and more PR than anti-GMO activists can. Because the biotech companies, Big Food, and Big Agri can pay to spread their message, many people are convinced by their pure propaganda that GMOs are a necessary evil if the Third World is to avoid millions of slow, agonizing deaths by starvation. Because biotech is able to afford to blanket the media with their perspective, their view point is accepted as the correct one because that is the only perspective that many people ever hear.

But just because they shout the loudest, that doesn’t make it true.

How we address these misconceptions can mean the difference between swaying people to examine these claims more closely or causing them to stick their fingers in their ears and sing, “lalalalala…” to block us out. Here are some of the most common myths that Monsanto and friends would like you to believe about the wonderful world of GMOs.

Myth #1: No one has ever proven that GMOs are harmful to people.

Monsanto mouthpieces have been quoted time, time, and time again stating the untruth that genetically modified organisms have never been proven to harm people. It seems that they believe, like Joseph Goebbels ^[4], the uncontested King of Propaganda, that if you repeat a lie often enough, and with enough conviction, that it becomes the accepted truth.

The reality: Just a few of the results of a GMO diet (based on peer-reviewed studies) are: grotesque tumors, premature death, organ failure, gastric lesions, liver damage, kidney damage, severe allergic reactions, a viral gene that disrupts human functions…you can read more HERE ^[5].

Myth #2: GMO crops are the only way to solve world hunger.

The most common pro-GMO argument that you will hear these days is that genetically modified crops are the only way to feed the worlds burgeoning population. Without them, proponents claim that hunger will claim the lives of millions over the next decade. In the gospel of biotech, GMOs are the answer to world hunger. If you protest against GMO technology, you are cast as a cold-hearted elitist and the deaths of all of those suffering children in ***** (pick-a-3rd-world-country) rest firmly on your doorstep.

The reality: Sustainable agricultural practices are the answer to world hunger. GMO farming practices are not sustainable. Farmers who plant GMOs are not able to save their seeds from year to year due to patent infringement and poor fertility in the seeds. Therefore, after getting the first year of good harvests, the following year they must continue buying seeds, leading to perpetual debt and enough financial despair in India (the Bt Cotton scandal ^[6]) that an Indian farmer took his own life every 30 minutes, after becoming the indentured servant of Monsanto and drowning in insurmountable debt. Well over a quarter of a million farmers died by suicide before the country banned the sale of Bt cotton seeds ^[7].

Real Change News ^[8]agrees that biotech farming methods are not the answer to world hunger. They recommend “agroecology”:

Numerous reports from nonprofit, governmental and international organizations have concluded that food can be produced sustainably by bringing ecological principles to agriculture through a practice known as agroecology. The practice supports small-scale, traditional methods of farming and promotes crop diversity over a single-food crop, often referred to as a monoculture. Practicing agroecology also enables farmers to become independent and self-sufficient producers of natural, healthy foods.

Myth #3: GMOs need less pesticide spraying.

Monsanto claims that their Bt products require less spraying. It’s right HERE ^[9]on their website (emphasis mine):

Crops with a Bt trait have been modified to produce a protein that is toxic to various forms of insect larvae. Bt proteins have long been used as topical sprays in conventional and organic agriculture because they are effective and can be used safely. Crops that are genetically engineered to carry the Bt trait allow farmers to protect their crops while eliminating or significantly decreasing the amount of pesticides sprayed.

The reality: Unfortunately, the best laid schemes of mice, men, and Monsanto often go awry. The Cornucopia Institute reports that was true for the first couple of years, but then use of pesticides and herbicides increased dramatically. (This, of course, resulted in a hefty profit for the producers of those chemicals who are…yep, you guessed it, Monsanto and the other biotech companies who produce the seeds.)

But a n ^[10]ew study ^[10] released by Food & Water Watch yesterday finds the goal of reduced chemical use has not panned out as planned.  In fact, according to the USDA and EPA data used in the report, the quick adoption ^[11] of genetically engineered crops by farmers has increased herbicide use over the past 9 years in the U.S.  The report follows on the heels of another such study ^[12] by Washington State University ^[13]research professor Charles Benbrook just last year.

Both reports focus on “superweeds.” It turns out that spraying a pesticide repeatedly selects for weeds which also resist the chemical.  Ever more resistant weeds are then  bred, able to withstand increasing amounts – and often different forms – of herbicide.

At the center of debate is the pesticide glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto ^[14]MON +2.23% ^[14]‘s Round Up.  Food & Water Watch found that the “total volume of glyphosate applied to the three biggest GE crops — corn, cotton and soybeans — increased 10-fold from 15 million pounds in 1996 to 159 million pounds in 2012.”  Overall pesticide use decreased only in the first few years GE crops were used (42 percent between 1998 and 2001) and has since then risen by 26 percent from 2001 to 2010.

Other organizations concur and even the mainstream media has been forced to report that pesticide and herbicide usage is on the rise.  Check out these recent articles from Huffington Post ^[15] and Reuters ^[16] for more information.

Myth #4: GMO technology  is comparable to the cross-breeding that our ancestors did to create hardier versions of heritage crops.

Check out this condescending blurb, straight from the horse’s …ummm….mouth (the Monsanto website ^[17]):

Want to hear something extraordinary? Chances are, almost everything you’ve eaten in your entire life was genetically modified. The same was true for your parents…and your grandparents.

For more than 10,000 years, mankind has selectively bred plants and animals.  The cows you see in farmer’s fields bear little resemblance to the ancient Aurochs from which they descended. And the corn you eat is the domesticated version of a wild grass called teosinte.

The reality: What our ancestors did, and what responsible farmers do, is cross-pollination of different varieties of the same plant. It is a low tech method that can occur naturally – but they just gave it a little bit of help in order to bring forth the desirable characteristics, like the drought-hardiness of one type of wheat combined with the shorter growing season required for another type of wheat. This is selective breeding. Genetically modifying seeds is a whole different ballgame, however. Here’s a great explanation from the Food Renegade website ^[18]:

Unlike hybrid seeds, GMO seeds are not created using natural, low-tech methods. GMO seed varieties are created in a lab using high-tech and sophisticated techniques like gene-splicing.

Furthermore, GMO seeds seldom cross different, but related plants. Often the cross goes far beyond the bounds of nature so that instead of crossing two different, but related varieties of plant, they arecrossing different biological kingdoms — like, say, a bacteria with a plant.

For example, Monsanto has crossed genetic material from a bacteria known as Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) with corn. The goal was to create a pest-resistant plant. This means that any pests attempting to eat the corn plant will die since the pesticide is part of every cell of the plant.

The resultant GMO plant, known as Bt Corn, is itself registered as a pesticide with the EPA ^[19], along with other GMO Bt crops. In other words, if you feed this corn to your cattle, your chickens, or yourself, you’ll be feeding them an actual pesticide — not just a smidgeon of pesticide residue.

What’s even worse is that biotech has the ability to produce their seeds with a built in “terminator technology.” This means that the seeds cannot be saved from one year to the next (unlike the cross-pollinated seeds with which they try to claim kinship). Monsanto has patented the technology (called gene use restriction technology ^[20]) but claims not to use it. This would produce sterile, lifeless seeds that could not be reused, leaving the farmers utterly dependent on the biotech companies for future crops while providing an ongoing stream of income for those companies. At this point they maintain their monopoly through a series of contracts and patents that require the repurchase of seeds annually.

Myth #5: If the FDA and the USDA allow GMO’s, they must be safe to consume.

Organizations like the FDA, the EPA, and the USDA all wear a shiny halo. They receive their power and influence from the mere fact that the public believes that their number one priority is the health and safety of the citizens they are supposed to be serving. All of the agencies vow that they are there to protect the public on their websites:

The FDA ^[21]:

FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring that foods (except for meat from livestock, poultry and some egg products which are regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture ^[22]) are safe, wholesome, sanitary and properly labeled; ensuring that human and veterinary drugs, and vaccines and other biological products and medical devices intended for human use are safe and effective.

The Vision Statement of the USDA ^[23]:

To expand economic opportunity through innovation, helping rural America to thrive; to promote agriculture production sustainability that better nourishes Americans while also helping feed others throughout the world; and to preserve and conserve our Nation’s natural resources through restored forests, improved watersheds, and healthy private working lands.

The EPA ^[24]:

The mission of EPA is to protect human health and the environment.  EPA’s purpose is to ensure that all Americans are protected from significant risks to human health and the environment where they live, learn and work…

The reality: All of the above is just feel-good, warm and fuzzy rhetoric. Perhaps there are employees that truly believe in what they’re doing, but the leadership is as sickeningly tainted as Bt Corn.

Part of the reason Monsanto has been so successful in the courtroom has been the company’s incestuous ties to the US de facto government. Despite the blatant conflicts of interest, Monsanto executives have held Cabinet, judicial and policy-making positions in the Bush, Clinton and Obama administrations. When you’re sleeping with the enemy, the enemy tends to get away with all manner of crimes.

• Michael Taylor: VP of Monsanto > Deputy Commissioner of the FDA ^[25]
• Roger Beachy:  Director of the Danforth Plant Science Center (paid for by Monsanto) >director of the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture
• Elena Kagan:  Obama Solicitor General (when she famously took Monsanto’s side against organic farmers in the Roundup Ready Alfalfa case) > US Supreme Court justice.
• Clarence Thomas:  General Counsel for Monsanto > US Supreme Court justice.
• Margaret Miller:  Monsanto supervisor > Deputy Director of Human Food Safety
• Donald Rumsfield: Board of Directors for Monsanto’s Searle Pharmaceuticals > US Secretary of Defense
• Ann Veneman:  Monsanto Board of Directors > US Secretary of Agriculture
• Linda Fisher: Assistant Administrator at the EPA ^[26] >VP of Monsanto > Deputy Administrator of the EPA
• Dr. Michael A.Friedman: Deputy Commissioner of the FDA > Senior VP of Monsanto

Make no mistake, the commissioners, directors, and secretaries of these agencies are put in place for a reason. That reason is to grease the wheels for the wealthy biotech firms (and drug companies and Big Food companies and…well, you get the idea). Through an abuse of trust placed in them by the American people, they abuse their power and practice deception on the grandest scale imaginable.

If the FDA, USDA, or the EPA approve something, you might want to view it with more suspicion than acceptance. If they can say that radiation and pesticides are acceptable in your food, but that raw milk isn’t acceptable for consumption…well, there’s something incredibly wrong here.

(Read more about the abuses and deceptions of the EPA ^[27] and the FDA ^[28].)

Read more GMO news >>

Don't be fooled, don't start to wonder if GMOs aren't as bad as they seem. Educating yourself is a crucial part of being an activist and environmentalist, so continue to learn the truth about GMOs to spread the word.

Originally published by The Washington Times, Communities
July 5, 2013
Laura Sesana
Source article

WASHINGTON, July 5, 2013 – You are what you eat. And now there may be glyphosate in your food. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has raised the permitted tolerance levels of glyphosate residue—the controversial herbicide and active ingredient in Monsanto’s Round Up—in many of the fruits and vegetables that you eat.

Last spring, when the media was clamoring against the Senate’s passing of the so-called “Monsanto Protection Act,” the EPA quietly promoted the rule change regarding glyphosate levels without much attention from the media or public.

The new regulation raises glyphosate levels in oilseed crops, which include sesame, flax, and soybean, from 20 parts per million (ppm), to 40 ppm.  It also raises the allowable glyphosate contamination level for sweet potatoes and carrots from 0.2 ppm to 3 ppm for sweet potatoes and 5ppm for carrots, that’s 15 and 25 times the previous levels.

The change in tolerance levels affects several other agricultural products, including animal feed, root crops and fruit trees.  While the regulation is effective beginning May 1, 2013, there was an open comment session, closing July 1, that received over 10,800 comments against the proposed change in regulation.  It is unlikely, however, that the comments will have any bearing on the decision, which is already final.

Glyphosate, a powerful herbicide, is the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer, and is the word’s best selling herbicide, used in over 150 crops in over 90 countries.  Today glyphosate can be found in products like Roundup, Touchdown, Rodeo, and others.

Monsanto began marketing glyphosate under the Roundup trade name in the 1970s.  Roundup quickly became popular and gained even wider use with the introduction of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready crops, which are genetically modified (GM) to withstand glyphosate, enabling farmers to use more of the herbicide to kill weeds without harming the crops. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), use of glyphosate has tripled since 1997, due largely to Monsanto’s introduction of Roundup Ready crops.

By 2007, glyphosate was the most widely used herbicide in US agriculture and second most widely used herbicide in the home and garden sector.  In that year, the agricultural sector applied 180 to 185 million pounds, the home and garden sector applied five to eight million pounds, and industry, commerce and government applied 13 to 15 million pounds of glyphosate.

The rise in tolerance levels for glyphosate residue came as a result of a petition prepared by Monsanto in early 2012.  While FDA did not perform independent tests on whether higher residue levels of glyphosate were dangerous to humans or the environment, it relied on tests and data provided by Monsanto.

Alarmed, many activists believe that a rise in tolerance levels will allow farmers to spray food with more chemicals, which will increase health and environmental risks.  While Monsanto (and by default the EPA) guarantees the safety of glyphosate in general and Round Up in particular, recent independent studies conclude the opposite.

Even the EPA’s technical factsheet on glyphosate states that chronic long-term exposure can cause kidney damage and reproductive effects.  It also states that and there is “inadequate evidence” as to whether it can cause cancer.

A 2013 MIT study argues that glyphosate residue in food and water induces disease by disrupting normal cellular detoxifying functions.  According to the study, “negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body.”  The damage is manifested in increased risk of gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease.

In another recent European study, commissioned by Friends of The Earth (FoE) and GM Freeze, volunteers from 18 countries submitted urine samples to be tested for traces of glyphosate.   All of the volunteers lived in cities and had never used or handled glyphosate prior to the test.  Laboratory tests concluded that 44% of people had traces of glyphosate in their urine. The rate of positive samples varied by country, with Malta, Germany, the UK, and Poland having the highest rates and Switzerland and Macedonia having the lowest rates.

Finally, who other than Monsanto will benefit from this raise in tolerance levels in the long run?  While farmers may benefit for a short while because being able to spray more herbicide may give them a larger crop yield, it may be possible that other countries will refuse to import U.S. produce due to the higher tolerance levels.

After all, it was a little over a month ago that Japan refused to buy U.S. wheat after a strain of unapproved Monsanto GMO wheat was unexplainably found in an Oregon field.  A week before that China incinerated three shipments of U.S. corn after discovering it contained unsanctioned GMO corn.

It is unclear whether the EPA took the above independent and other studies into account when making its decision to raise glyphosate residue tolerance levels in many of the foods we eat.  Monsanto and corporate agriculture will argue, as they usually do, that the new tolerant levels are “insignificant” and could not harm humans.  Many disagree.

The bottom line is that the items in your produce department may be a little more poisonous today than they were a few months ago. It's always critical to know what you put in your body or feed your family, so stay tuned for future developments about chemicals, pesticides, and herbicides like glyphosate in your food.

Read more GMO news >>

Originally published by Brand Channel
by Dale Buss
July 17, 2013
Source article

Chobani yogurt, one of the country's fastest-growing CPG brands, is the latest to come under scrutiny from an activist group over its use of GMOs.

GMO Inside, an organization led by environmental group Green America, is calling on the Greek-yogurt segment leader to stop marketing its products as "real" and "natural" until it stops using milk from cows that are fed genetically-modified feed, adding Chobani to the overflowing list of GMO foods. The move represents one of the first attempts by US GMO activists to target dairy brands in addition to the cereal, bakery and grocery brands that have previously come under fire.

"So much of the GMO crops are going to animal feeds, so if we could change the way this is happening it could help to convert a lot of cropland back to non-GMO production," Elizabeth O'Connell, campaign director for the GMO Inside NGO, told Advertising Age.

The challenge is a direct hit to Chobani's ongoing "Go Real" campaign, which launched in February. Upon visiting its website, consumers are bombarded with videos and diagrams detailing the brand's natural ingredients, including an illustration that tracks Chobani's farm-to-factory process.

As CPG brands typically have done so far in this debate, Chobani pointed in the direction of arguments such as how GMOs make foods more affordable and how they haven't been proven unsafe.

"GMO is complex and weighs on the balance of our commitments, particularly affordability, as non-GMO ingredients are fewer and more costly," Chobani's statement said. "We are in the infancy of exploring how we as a company, together with our suppliers, will navigate this important issue. We have never made claims that our products are GMO-free."

Another big dairy brand that has already laid out its GMO policy is Ben & Jerry's, the Unilever-owned ice cream maker that has made a reputation of continuing the activism of its two founders. The Vermont-based brand has pledged to eliminate non-GMO ingredients in its US products by the end of this year—as it already has in Europe—or label those vestigial elements that remain into 2014.

Already in the US and Canada, about 80 percent of Ben & Jerry's ingredients by volume are sourced non-GMO. "We're working mostly on the remaining chunks and swirls that we add in at this point," brand spokesman Sean Greenwood told CPGmatters.com.

Another progressive brand, Whole Foods Markets, has committed to labeling all products in its US and Canadian stores that contain GMOs by 2018. Fast-growing Trader Joe's, another bellwether chain, has responded to anti-GMO critics in part by noting the non-GMO choices it gives its customers, including organic foods.

Chobani isn't the only brand coming under fire for blurring the line between "natural" and GMO-free. PepsiCo-owned Naked Juice just agreed to stop using "all natural" to describe its products after settling a class-action suit for $9 million, citing the lack of global "detailed regulatory guidance around the word 'natural.'" Use of GMO soy also is part of the issue with Naked Juice labeling.

Despite wide-ranging concerns relating to genetically modified foods and crops, the use of GMOs in farming has increased annually since the technology’s commercial introduction in 1996. According to the ISAAA, an international organization that supports crop biotechnology, biotech crops have increased 100-fold, from 1.7 million hectares (4.2 million acres) in 1996, to 170 million hectares (420 million acres) in 2012. These 170 million hectares mean that GMO crops now occupy over 10% of the world’s arable land. 1 While these statistics show how widespread GMO crop usage has become and how lucrative GMO seeds have been for the biotech industry over these last 17 years, it is important to note that with the growth of GMO use there still has not been a clear reflection of improvements for crop yields or for benefits for the welfare of the actual farmers growing GMOs. Figure 1.

In 2012, 17.3 million farmers grew GMO crops 1, and 9 countries grow 97% of world’s GM crops. Together, the US, Brazil, Argentina grow 76.3% of the world’s GM crops 2. A graphic from Mother Jones shows these ISAA statistics: Figure 2.

Worldwide, 8 GMO crops have been approved for commercial production; soy, cotton, corn, canola, sugarbeet, papaya, squash or yellow zucchini, and alfalfa, and the biotech industry is in the process of pushing forward additionally modified foods such as rice, apples, and salmon. The four major crops that account for virtually all of the biotech output are soy, cotton, corn, and canola. The remaining GMO crops are exclusively grown in the United States with the exception being papaya which is grown in China in addition to US cultivation. Figure 3. 

Figure 3 shows the pervasiveness of GMOs in global crops; but in the United States, where every possible approved commercial GM crop is grown, the numbers are even more striking. Recent statistics show that GM varieties account for approximately:

• 94% of US soy crops (which by volume accounts for just under half of all the GM crops grown worldwide)
• 94% of US cotton plantings
• 92% of the US corn crop
• 94% of the US canola crop
• 98.5% of US sugar beet plantings
• Alfalfa (first planted in 2011)
• Papaya (most of Hawaiian crop; approximately 988 acres)
• Zucchini, yellow summer squash (approximately 25,000 acres)

Figure 4.

Where do these GMOs go? While supporters of GMO crops argue that GMOs are essential to feeding a growing world population, the truth is that in the United States (the world’s foremost GMO producer and consumer) and in other major GMO producing countries, an overwhelming majority of the GMO crop is not even consumed directly by humans. In the US, livestock has been fed genetically engineered crops since these crops were first introduced in 1996 and each of the top 6 GMO crops (soy, cotton, corn, canola, sugar beet, and alfalfa) are heavily utilized by the US and global animal feed market. The US, Brazil, China are world leaders of commercially produced animal feed--and these countries are also some of the largest producers of GMO crops (see Figure 2). Public consciousness for the pervasiveness of GMOs in the feed of the animals that produce our eggs, meat, and dairy is extremely low, but it is no coincidence that the largest animal feed producing countries in the world are also the largest producers and consumers of GMOs. Commercial animal feed is composed directly from harvest crops and the leftovers of processed crops. Some of the most common commodity feed ingredients are soy, cotton, corn, canola, sugar beets, and alfalfa. Seeing that the countries that produce the most animal feed--the United States, Brazil, and China--are all leaders in GMO production, it is very clear that their animal feed products are consequently composed of significant amounts of GMOs.

• The commercial animal feed industry is by far the largest purchaser of US corn and soybean meal; the majority of these US crops are genetically modified: corn 88% and soybeans 94%.
• Of the two largest GMO crops in the United States, 98%  soy and 79.5% of corn goes directly into feeding animals and fueling cars in the US. 34

Figure 5.

Taking a Look at Common Commodity Feed Ingredients: Soy 

• Soybean meal is the largest protein meal produced in the world; GMO soybeans are widespread in the main soybean producing countries
• 90% of the world’s soy is used to feed animals  5
• 98% of the soy in the US goes into livestock feeding and car fuel production, with by-products of this used for food ingredients such as lecithin and oils 3

Figure 6.

• 94% of the US soy crop is genetically modified

Cotton

• Cotton is used for more than textiles. It is also an ingredient in animal feed and for various processed foods. 6
• The United States, China, and India together provide two-thirds of the world's cotton. These are also the three countries with the largest percentages of pervasiveness for GMO in their cotton crop production
• The United States, which ranks third in production behind China and India, is the leading exporter, accounting for over one-third of global trade in raw cotton. 7

Figure 7.

• 90% of the US cotton crop is genetically modified

Corn

• Corn is a major feedstuff ingredient, particularly in developed countries. Dairy cows, beef cattle, pigs, sheep, goats, poultry, and fish, and rabbits are fed corn in the US 8
• 32% of the world’s corn supply is grown in the United States. The US is the largest producer of corn.

Figure 8.  

• According to the National Corn Growers Association, now about eighty percent of all corn grown in the US is consumed by domestic and overseas livestock, poultry, fish, and fuel production. 4
• 88% of the US corn crop is genetically modified.

Canola

• Canola meal is one of the most widely used protein sources in animal feed for livestock, poultry, and fish. 9
• Approximately 43% of a canola seed is oil. What remains is a canola meal that is used as an ingredient in animal feed. 10
• Canada, the largest single country producer of Canola, exports 85% of their canola.11 According to the ISAAA, 97.5% of the canola grown in Canada last year was genetically modified. The biggest buyer of canola oil and meal for animal feed is the United States.
• The United States also produces its own canola in states adjacent to Canada - North Dakota, Montana and Minnesota produce over 90 percent of the nation's canola crop.12
• 90% of the US canola crop is genetically modified.

Sugar Beet

• Sugar Beet Pulp – Sugar beets are processed so that the sugar stored in the beet root is separated from the rest of the plant material. The sugar beets are boiled in water and the resulting sugar-containing juice is filtered, concentrated into a thick syrup, and then washed in a spinning centrifuge to separate sugar, molasses, and dried beet pulp. After sugar and molasses have been recovered from the sugar beet, the remaining pulp is utilized for animal feed.
• 57% of American sugar production comes from sugar beets, the rest from sugar cane. 13
• 95% of the US sugar beet crop is genetically modified.

Alfalfa

• Dairy cows are the primary consumers of alfalfa hay .
• GM-alfalfa was first approved in 2011.

Feed Market The American commodity feed industry heavily impacts the global market. The US accounts for 22% of global output according to the International Feed Industry Federation 14. Other major GMO producing countries in South America and Asia are also accountable for large contributions to commercial animal feed production. Figure 9.

In the United States, unlike most other developed countries, there are no specific regulations for foods or products manufactured using GMOs. While GMO labeling is required in 64 countries to various degrees (more here) around the world – only a few countries, like Brazil, Venezuela, and members of the EU also require labels for animal feed that contain GMOs. Brazil is an important country to note, because even though this country is one of the strongest supporters and producers of GMOs, they still allow their citizens to make informed decisions by labeling their animal feed if it contains GMOs.  For livestock farmers in the US this remains a mystery, but if the animal feed is not organic or non-GMO verified, it almost certainly contains GMOs. However, many countries that have food labeling laws do not have labeling requirements for animal feed, or for animal products produced from animals fed GMO crops.  This loophole, where the GMO label is not applied to food products made from animals raised on GMOs, is responsible for a large amount of unnoticed GMO consumption. This loophole and other laws that allow GMOs to be a hidden part of the food system, mean that products like meat, eggs, and milk that were produced by animals consuming GMOs are able to enter the marketplace free of any GMO labeling. The United States of course, infamous for the pervasiveness of GMOs and the country’s lack of labeling laws, does not have to deal with the particular complexities of GMO animal feed labeling. In the United States, in order to avoid animal products that have not been influenced by GMO animal feed, consumers have to look for certified organic products (since organic standards prohibit the intentional use of GMOs) and for the recently release Non-GMO Project certification for meat, egg, and dairy products. The pervasiveness of GMOs in animal feed, also makes it a challenge for organic producers to secure uncontaminated organic feed. This is a challenge that will continue to grow if GMO crops are allowed to continue their land cover growth as a result of limited supply, increasing the risk of irreversible cross-contamination. Without clear labeling laws, consumers are being deceived into thinking they are not contributing to the consumption and production of GMOs. However, the statistics show that GMOs are hidden in our everyday foods and consumed by the animals that produce the meat, eggs, and dairy products that Americans consume in vast quantities.

___________________________________________________

Take action today by calling on #1 US yogurt brand Chobani…  Chobani is the United States’ top Greek yogurt brand and it prides itself on adding no GMO ingredients to its yogurt.  However, it is likely that the company is relying on milk from cows eating a diet of genetically modified organisms. GMO Inside, a national coalition led by Green America, is calling on Chobani to cease marketing its products as “real” and “natural” until the company switches to verified non-GMO milk sources. Tell Chobani to shift to non-GMO feed for their cows, to help accelerate the shift to a non-GMO food system!  We and the cows thank you.

___________________________________________________

Resources 1 http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/44/executivesummary/default.asp 2 http://www.cban.ca/Press/Press-Releases/Global-Growth-of-GM-Crops-Overblown-ISAAA-yearly-report-misleads-says-CBAN 3 http://inspiredeconomist.com/2013/02/26/economic-argument-against-gmo/ 4 http://www.ncga.com/upload/files/documents/pdf/WOC%202013.pdf 5  Brown, L., 1999. The United States and China, the Soybean Connection. Worldwatch Institute, November 9, 1999. 6 http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/grocery_shopping/crops/161.genetically_modified_cotton.html 7. http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/cotton-wool.aspx#.UeJy49I3uCc 8. http://www.feedipedia.org/node/71 9. http://www.uscanola.com/site/epage/102391_956.htm 10. http://canolacouncil.org/media/503589/canola_guide_english_2009_small.pdf 11. http://www.canolacouncil.org/markets-stats/markets/ 12. http://www.agmrc.org/commodities__products/grains__oilseeds/canola-profile/ 13. http://www.sugaralliance.org/more-sugar-facts. 14. http://www.ifif.org/uploadImage/2012/1/4/f41c7f95817b4c99782bef7abe8082dd1325696464.pdf      

Nike is launching a free mobile app called Making that allows designers to research fabrics or materials, tapping into years of Nike research into sustainability.

Making, available initially for Apple iOS, works by allowing designers to research fabrics or materials they'd like to use. The software publicly exposes information from an internal database amassed over the past eight years, the Nike Materials Sustainability Index (MSI), which has also been embraced by the Sustainable Apparel Coalition as part of its Higgs Index.

The app has a use for consumers, too, who could access it to check out the materials choices that their favorite apparel brands are making.

Nike's MSI was originally created for internal use, but the company decided to open the information to other designers to accelerate creation of sustainable products. The app offers feedback on the environmental impact for 22 commonly used apparel materials in four different areas: water consumption, chemistry, energy and waste. Get more details on the Nike sustainable materials app Making from GreenBiz.com.

The Sustainable Apparel Coalition represents 80 leading apparel and footwear brands, retailers, suppliers, nonprofits and NGOs, that work towards reducing the environmental and social impact of the fashion industry.

Join us on calling on Chobani – the most popular US yogurt brand – to shift to non-GMO feed for their cows! (Take action here!)

Chobani Greek Yogurt is one of the common foods with GMOs that surprise people, often because it is touted as a "natural" and healthy source of protein. But if you thought that one way to cut GMOs from your diet was to avoid foods with high-risk GMO ingredients, think again.

Meat and dairy products, while not genetically modified themselves (yet[1]), are not immune to the insidious impacts of GMOs.  In fact, your favorite yogurt brand may be made with “Monsanto Milk” – milk from cows that are fed GMO silage.

Cows living on industrial farms eat GMO feed two to three times a day, every day.  This silage may consist of GMO corn, soy, alfalfa, cotton seed, and/or sugar beets, plus synthetic vitamins that are often times also derived from GMO crops.  In fact, 98% of GM soy and 49% of GM corn goes to feeding livestock and poultry.

Animals, like humans, are deeply impacted by the quality of their diets. A recent study showed that pigs fed an entirely GMO diet suffered from severe stomach inflammation when compared to pigs given non-GMO feed.0[2]  Additionally, while industry has claimed that genetically modified particles are broken down in the digestive tracts of the animals that eat them, these GM particles have shown up in the organs and milk of animals fed GMOs, the same milk and meat that humans then eat.[3]

Greek yogurt, popular today for its high protein content, is likely made with milk from cows fed GMOs, unless otherwise specified.  It’s impossible for consumers to know which meat and dairy products are derived from GMO-fed livestock, unless the product has gone through the Non-GMO Project’s certification for non-GMO feed, recently approved by the USDA as a credible label.[4]  Even more than regular yogurt, Greek yogurt relies on a lot of “Monsanto Milk” since it is strained more than regular yogurt (It takes roughly 4 ounces of milk to make 1 ounce of Greek Yogurt).  And Greek yogurt is gaining in popularity every day!

Chobani, the US’s number one Greek yogurt brand, which markets itself as being “real” and “natural”, in fact most likely uses milk gathered from cows who are fed GMOs.  Chobani prides itself in adding no GMO ingredients to its yogurt, but its main ingredient, milk, is coming from cows that are eating GMOs.  Chobani also said on facebook that it is carefully monitoring its customers' concerns when it comes to GMOs, so it’s time to speak up!

We hope you will join us in calling on Chobani Greek Yogurt to shift to non-GMO feed for their cows, to help accelerate the shift to a non GMO food system! Take action now!

And in the meantime, we hope you will choose organic and non-GMO verified Greek yogurt choices for your family, such as Stonyfield Farm or Straus Family Creamery.   Please leave a comment and share your own suggestions or recipes for non-GMO yogurt.

The season of charcoal smells and checkered tablecloths has begun.  It's a great time to get together with family and friends to share laughs and delicious food.  However, there may be an uninvited guest at your picnic or BBQ - GMOs.  Unfortunately, almost everything on our typical plate is likely to have some GM ingredients, from the ketchup to the bun.  Sometimes these GMOs are disguised and, unfortunately, often overlooked.

Adding to the discreet infiltration of GMOs is the fact that meat, dairy, and eggs - even though not genetically modified themselves - are produced using GMOs.  Corn and soy make up the majority of animal feed in the US.  With 88% of corn and 93% of soy in the US grown genetically modified, our farm animals are raised on GMOs.  Animals, like humans, are deeply impacted by the quality of their diets. One study showed that pigs fed an entirely GMO diet suffered from severe stomach inflammation when compared to pigs given non-GMO feed.  Their GMO-fed bodies are then turned into food for us.

So before you head off to your Fourth of July picnics and BBQs, review the picnic items below for likely GM ingredients and tasty non-GMO alternatives.  Then share the knowledge.  While the topic of GMOs has hit the mainstream, not everyone knows all the facts or understands the destruction GMOs are causing to our planet and our bodies.  So use this season of gathering as an opportunity to talk to your loved ones about GMOs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

GMO Picnic Items (and Better Options)

Buns - High Fructose Corn Syrup, Cottonseed Fiber, Vegetable Oil (Soybean And/Or Cottonseed Oils), Distilled Vinegar (often derived from corn), Mono and diglyceride (often derived from soybean, cottonseed, corn, canola), Sodium Stearoyl Lactylate (stearic acid maybe from soy), DATEM (usually derived from soy or canola oil), Maltodextrin (maybe from corn), Corn Starch, Soy Lecithin, Soy Flour

Non-GMO/organic option: Rudi's Bakery, Berlin Natural Bakery, Ener-G Foods, Silver Hills Sprouted Bakery, local bakery

Veggie Burger (meat-free) - Textured Vegetable Protein (Soy Protein Concentrate), Corn Oil, Canola Oil, Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein (Corn Gluten, Soy Protein), Dextrose, Soy Protein Isolate, Natural And Artificial Flavors From Non-Meat Sources, Maltodextrin, Soy Sauce, Soy Lecithin

Non-GMO/organic option: Sunshine Burgers (also wheat-free and vegan!), Hilary's Eat Well Burgers (also gluten-free and vegan!), Amy's Veggie Burgers (also vegan options)

Meat Burger - Cows Fed Corn and Soy Silage

Non-GMO/organic option: Cows raised on an actual farm, allowed to graze, and fed roughage.  Applegate Organic Beef and Turkey Burgers, Organic Prairie Organic Burgers (Organic Valley), check out your local farmers market

Hot Dog - Mechanically Separated Turkey (fed GMOs), Mechanically Separated Chicken (fed GMOs), Pork (fed GMOs), Corn Syrup, Flavor

Non-GMO/organic option: Applegate Organic Beef and Pork Hot Dogs, Organic Prairie Organic Hot Dogs (Organic Valley), check out your local farmers market

Veggie Hot Dog (meat-free) - Corn Syrup Solids, Methylcellulose (sometimes from corn), Dextrose, Egg Whites, Natural Flavors, Sugar, Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein (Corn Protein, Soy Protein), Hydrolyzed Corn Protein, Soy Protein Isolate, Maltodextrin, Xanthan Gum, Hydrolyzed Soy Protein, Soybeans, Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein (Corn Gluten, Soy Protein), Soybean Oil, Citric Acid

Non-GMO/organic option: Field Roast Frankfurters

Ketchup - Distilled Vinegar, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Corn Syrup

Non-GMO/organic option: Annie’s Organic Ketchup

Mustard - Distilled Vinegar, Natural Flavors

Non-GMO/organic option: Annie’s Organic Yellow Mustard, Eden’s Organic Yellow Mustard

Pickle Relish - Sugar, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Vinegar, Xanthan Gum, Natural Flavors, Polysorbate 80

Non-GMO/organic option: Bubbie’s Pure Kosher Dill Relish (no sugar), Woodstock Organic Sweet Relish

Mayonnaise – Soybean Oil, Whole Eggs And Egg Yolks, Vinegar, Sugar, Natural Flavors

Non-GMO/organic option: Woodstock Mayonnaise, Earth Balance Mindfulmayo

Processed Cheese – Milk (cows fed GMOs), Whey, Milk Protein Concentrate, Milkfat, Lactic Acid, Artificial Color, Enzymes

Non-GMO/organic option: Organic Valley cheese, Rumiano Family Cheese, any organic cheese

Chips - Soybean oil and/or Canola oil; Corn if corn chips; possibly Sugar, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Natural Flavor, Maltodextrin, and many more depending on chip flavor

Non-GMO/organic option: Kettle Brand Chips, Boulder Canyon Chips

Soda - High Fructose Corn Syrup, Caramel Color, Sugar, Citric Acid, Natural Flavor

Non-GMO/organic option: DRY Soda, Reed's Ginger Brew, SANS All Natural Soda

Sweet Corn - GM varieties entered the market last year

buy organic

You can always buy other brands that you like too.  Just look for the Non-GMO Project or USDA Organic labels to stay away from GMOs.

School is your child’s second home, a place where they spend one-third of their day. Yet, student, faculty and staff health is compromised and adversely affected everyday by toxic chemicals found in cleaning products, pesticides, and food served in the school. As schools become increasingly laden with toxic chemicals, the issue of chemicals in schools becomes ever more crucial.

According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), at least half of the approximately 53 million students and five million staff “may be exposed to polluted indoor air, lead, asbestos, chemical fumes, pesticides, molds and other toxins.” Traditional cleaning products and pesticides contain harmful chemicals that are known to cause cancer, asthma, reproductive disorders and major organ damage, among other health ailments. In fact, “one out of every three cleaning chemicals used to clean school buildings in the United States is known to cause human health or environmental problems,” explains Mary Jo Snavely, the Center for a New American Dream’s Responsible Purchasing Network/Marketplace Associate. Health alone is not the only negative outcome of these toxicants; they can also cause a dramatic drop in student performance and school attendance.

This means that now is the time for action. There are healthier alternatives and solutions to reducing school toxicants, in the form of community organizations working to ensure that schools are as toxicant-free as possible. So now it is up to parents and even the students themselves to take the initiative and begin the process of minimizing toxins in schools.

One organization working towards creating a toxic-free school environment is the Center for Health, Environment and Justice (CHEJ). Through CHEJ’s Green Flag Program, students advocate for school-wide reforms to make their schools safer and healthier.

In cooperation with CHEJ, parents, students, and faculty can form a “Green Committee” that conducts an environmental assessment of the school, such as looking at cleaning products being used, how pests are controlled, products used for construction materials and the ventilation system. CHEJ’s Stacey Gonzalez explains that a Green Committee is necessary because “you need them to be part of the conversation and keep the school toxin-free. The Committee holds the school responsible to continue [with green improvements] and move forward.”

Another component of the Green Flag Program is the joint project between CHEJ and GreenFaith, which Stacey Kennealy, project coordinator for GreenFaith, describes as “an interfaith environmental coalition based in New Jersey” and is open to all schools. 

Student Shayna Schor, believes the changes she helped make through her school’s GreenFaith Program will have a lasting effect. As Shayna explains, “People now know that by incorporating even the most minor eco-friendly differences into our daily routines, wecontribute toa healthierfuture of our planet.”

The Green Flag/GreenFaith Program does not have to stop at schools either. Adi Segal, another student at Solomon Schechter Day School, started a Green Camp Initiative at her summer camp, where recycling was “effectively accomplished throughout the bunks and a large-scale ‘ad campaign’ was launched to increase awareness about ‘green’ living in camp.”

Another solution, Stacey suggests, is to “look at what the contract says with vendors the school purchases products from.” Find out if they mention anything about using toxic-free chemicals.  If they do, it is easy to find healthy cleaning methods that should be part of the contract. There are hundreds of cleaning products certified by Green Seal and/or EcoLogo. New Dream's responsible purchasing center features a list of recommended certified products.

If you would like your school to join CHEJ’s Green Flag Program, you can register for free at www.greenflagschools.org.

Another solution is establishing a Green Cleaning Program at your school to protect students, faculty and staff health against toxic chemicals without harming the environment. This program replaces toxic chemical-loaded cleaning products with certified green cleaning ones.

Developing and implementing a Green Cleaning Program does not have to be expensive either. There are many manufacturers who offer “certified” green cleaning chemicals that are cost-competitive compared to traditional products. So, find suppliers with “certified” green cleaning products and create guidelines for their use in your school.

An additional solution to reducing the amount of toxicants in schools is to ensure that the school serves locally grown food in the cafeteria. The food served in schools is especially critical to a toxic-chemical-free environment because “research has shown that kids are 2-3 times more susceptible to absorbing the harmful toxins in food, on a pound-by-pound basis, than adults,” explains Anupama Joshi, Occidental College’s Center for Food & Justice Director. Anupama also notes that “the school meal is the major meal of the day for low-income kids.” Therefore, we need to “be a lot more careful about the food served in cafeterias and track the source of food.”

Since many local producers are turning to organic growing methods, local food usually means fewer pesticides in kids’ school lunches.

The Farm-to-School lunch program, headed by The Center for Food and Justice, connects schools with local farms to provide healthy cafeteria food, while incorporating nutrition-based curriculum and supporting local farmers. According to Anupama, “Farm-to-School focuses on providing healthy, safer alternatives. Because smaller-scale farmers use sustainable methods of farming, even if the food is not certified organic, it is still a better quality.”

The program is nationally based, with 10,943 schools in 34 states currently involved. The schools that take part in this program buy farm-fresh, local foods, such as fruits, vegetables, eggs and beans, and serve them in the cafeteria.

The program not only consists of healthier food options in the school cafeteria, but also education about where the food is coming from and how it affects our health. It also includes an education component for cafeteria staff on dealing with fresh products by properly cooking, cleaning, and presenting the food to the students so it is an attractive option for them. Schools also participate in a gardening or recycling project or a waste management program, as well as having hands-on experience with field trips to the farms themselves and cooking demonstrations in the classroom.

To implement the Farms-to-Schools program at your school, you can order a free information resource packet from the Farm-to-School Web site at www.farmtoschool.org. The Web site provides information on local contacts to get in touch with and get a sense about what’s happening locally in terms of options for connecting with local farmers.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) also runs a similarly focused program called Small Farms/School Meals. To learn more, check out the agency’s “Step-by-Step Guide on How to Bring Small Farms and Local Schools Together,” which is available online at www.usda.gov.

A fourth solution to reducing the amount of toxic chemicals in schools involves the elimination of pesticides sprayed on the school buildings themselves, which are extremely hazardous to children’s health. There are several important steps parents and students can follow to ensure that their school is pesticide-free.

Parents can help protect the health of children by working to establish Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in their schools, a proven alternative to pesticide use. IPM is a progressive process that starts with the least harmful methods of pest prevention and progresses to more intense chemical methods until the problem is solved.

With IPM, non-chemical methods of managing pests are used first. These methods can include restricting where food is eaten, moving the dumpster away from the school, repairing and maintaining leaking pipes and pressure cleaning food service areas.

If all non-chemical methods of managing pests do not work and a pest problem still persists, requiring the need for pesticide use,a school's pest companyshould use the least-toxic pesticide available, only applying the pesticide to the infested areas. Boric acid is a good option, as it has relatively low toxicity compared to other pesticides, does not evaporate into the air and therefore does not cause indoor air pollution. It is important to use boric acid with less than one percent of inert ingredients so you have a better idea about what you are applying and the risks involved, compared to other pesticides. Only use a more chemically-powerful pesticide if none of the above options work. And in the case that a stronger pesticide is absolutely necessary, use it in as minimal an area as possible.

 To establish IPM at your school, the Iowa School’s IPM System recommends the following procedure: First, talk with the principal and teacher about what is being done to control pests in the school. Second, find other parents who share concerns about pesticide exposure. Third, form a school IPM advisory committee with the school’s administration and adopt an IPM policy. For more information, go to www.ipm.iastate.edu/ipm/schoolipm.

Other ideas are to notify the school community when pesticides are used and provide resources about the use of pesticides. Students can also get involved by logging pest sightings, writing articles in newsletters, or giving class presentations on the dangers of pesticides and possible solutions, such as IPM.

An additional great solution to protecting your school against toxic chemicals is becoming a political agent. Snavely at the Center for a New American Dream says, “Take action by sending a letter to local and state officials and other community members encouraging them to use safer greener products.”       

For sample letters and instructions on effective strategies to involve school and government staff in keeping toxic chemicals out of schools, go to the Center for a New American Dream’s Web site at www.newdream.org/cleanschools/letters.php.

Resources:

The Center for a New American Dream

Center for Health, Environment and Justice, Green Flag Program: (703) 237-2249

Child Proofing Our Communities Campaign

Environmental Health News

Healthy Schools Network: www.healthyschools.org

Healthy Schools Campaign: “The Quick & Easy Guide to Green Cleaning in Schools” brochure and CD-Rom, (888) HSC-1810

Inform Inc.

Information on Integrated Pest Management in Schools:

Integrated Pest Management for Iowa Schools

National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Sales for green products and services increased over the course of the economic downturn, according to a survey of small businesses in our groundbreaking new report The Big Green Opportunity.

THE GREENER THE BOTTOM LINE

Most Small Firms Polled Say Going Green Eased Pinch of Most Recent Recession

 Three out of four small businesses responding to a recent survey, reported that, unlike much of the economy, sales for green products and services actually increased over the course of the recent economic downturn. Among those businesses, the greener the company’s practices, the higher their sales, according to a major new survey conducted by Green America (GA), EcoVentures International (EVI), and the Association for Enterprise Opportunity (AEO). The results are published in The Big Green Opportunity for Small Green Business in the U.S.

In this report presenting the survey findings, the three groups note that, over the past 10 years, the market for green products and services has expanded dramatically. For example, the green building market has increased by 1,700 percent while the conventional building market has contracted by 17 percent. The organic food market has increased by 238 percent in comparison to the non-organic food market’s expansion of only 33 percent.

Conducted from early 2011 through 2012, the survey of 1,305 small businesses shows that:

• Of the respondents that reported gains during the recession, the more green the company was, the more likely it was to report increased sales. The survey segmented the 1,305 respondents into three groups based on the green attributes of their products and services and their level of adoption of specific actions intended to make more efficient use of water, energy and/or waste. The “deep green” segment in the survey (the 27 percent of business owners whose answers reflected the most intense embrace of “green”) reported stronger performance compared to their “light green” peers (38 percent of respondents) on nearly every dimension tested. There also was a “medium green” segment accounting for 35 percent of surveyed businesses.

• Nearly six out of 10 (58 percent) small businesses said that they had been able to expand their products and services with green offerings during the recent economic downturn. Of this group, 84 percent said their investment in these new green products and services had been rewarded with increased sales.

Survey analyst Dr. Julie Cincotta, principal, CLA Organizational Solutions, LLC, said:  “This survey shows that green business is not just about feeling good, it positively impacts an organization’s bottom line. Green products and services are in growing demand by the American public. Small business operators agree that green practices and products can be the key to more sales and bigger profits.”

Russ Gaskin, chief business officer, Green America, said:  “In the three decades since Green America first starting promoting sustainable practices in business, the market has clearly shifted dramatically. We believe that the market preference reported by the small businesses in this study is just the tipping point. Sustainability is clearly becoming a competitive imperative in business.”

Lauren Frederic, program manager, EcoVentures International, said: “The market is clearly demonstrating its preference for sustainable business practices.This is evident by the rapid growth of industry green segments – from green cleaning to socially responsible investing, which are systematically seizing market share from the conventional economy.”

Tammy Halevy, senior vice president, New Initiatives, Association for Enterprise Opportunity, said:” This survey and report clearly demonstrate that adopting green practices provides even the smallest businesses an opportunity to grow. These insights into what green strategies and practices actually contribute to profitable growth will be invaluable to business owners, and also AEO’s growing network of members and partners that provide capital and advisory services across the country.”

OTHER KEY SURVEY FINDINGS in The Big Green Opportunity for Small Green Business in the U.S.:

• Nearly four out of five (79 percent) of small business survey respondents strongly agreed that offering green products and services gave their businesses a competitive advantage.
• 75 percent of small businesses surveyed planned to expand their portfolio of green products and service offerings.

The Big Green Opportunity Survey Methodogy

The new findings are based on a survey conducted by Green America, EcoVentures International, and the Association for Enterprise Opportunity from early 2011 through 2012. The survey sample was self-selecting and comprised 1,305 small businesses with various levels of commitment to green practices, services and products.  A number of institutions, including Intuit, eBay and non-profit community lenders, and service providers across the U.S., distributed the survey to their small business clients and customers.

The survey results and executive summary are in the new report: The Big Green Opportunity for Small Businesses in the U.S. 

ABOUT THE GROUPS

Green America/Green Business Network 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 and individuals to solve today's social and environmental problems. Green America’s Green Business Network helps small businesses adopt and benefit from their green practices through an assessment and certification program, discounted business services, and access to a national market of caring consumers.  www.GreenAmerica.org

www.GreenBusinessNetwork.org

EcoVentures International helps small business harness the power of environmentally and socially responsible “green” practices to grow revenue, create jobs, and strengthen local economies. EVI deploys strategies that promote sustainable, market-based business development by working with citizens, businesses, community organizations, and industry stakeholders. www.eco-ventures.org

The Association for Enterprise Opportunity is the voice of microbusiness in the United States. For two decades, AEO and its more than 400-member organizations have helped millions of entrepreneurs contribute to the economic growth of their communities and America. Its network includes a broad range of organizations that provide capital and services to assist underserved entrepreneurs in starting, stabilizing and expanding their businesses. AEO’s One in Three Alliance is a national movement to create awareness that if one in three Main Street microbusinesses hired one additional employee, the country would reach full employment. www.aeoworks.org

CONTACT: Todd Larsen, Programs and Media Director at Green America, 202-872-5310 | toddlarsen @ greenamerica.org

Download the Report

{module Big Green Opportunity Report Download|none}

Cheerios are an iconic breakfast cereal eaten by millions of American’s every day, owned by staunch GMO enthusiast General Mills. These millions of Americans have been told by General Mills that Cheerios are a healthy breakfast and snack item that brings the benefits of wholesome oats, low sugar, and essential vitamins and minerals into their diets.

While GMO Inside recognizes that whole grains like oats, moderation of sugar, and balanced consumption of vitamins and minerals are certainly part of a healthy eating plan, a deeper look at Cheerios uncovers that their claimed benefits are also accompanied by a high risk of GMOs, surprisingly controversial ingredients, and a less than stellar overall nutritional profile.

Taking a careful look at Cheerios, GMO Inside would like to help consumers answer the question; Are Cheerios really a healthy choice?

Let us start by breaking down the ingredients for the entire Cheerios line.

GMO Inside has bolded the likely GMO ingredients in each variety below.

Cheerios: Whole Grain Oats (includes the oat bran), Modified Corn Starch, Sugar, Salt, Tripotassium Phosphate, Wheat Starch, Vitamin E (mixed tocopherols) Added to Preserve Freshness.

Honey Nut Cheerios: Whole Grain Oats (includes the oat bran), Modified Corn Starch, Honey, Brown Sugar Syrup, Salt, Tripotassium Phosphate, Canola and/or Rice Bran Oil, Natural Almond Flavor, Vitamin E (mixed tocopherols) Added to Preserve Freshness.

Multi Grain Cheerios: Whole Grain Corn, Whole Grain Wheat, Whole Grain Oats, Whole Grain Barley, Whole Grain Rice, Corn Starch, Brown Sugar Syrup, Corn Bran, Salt, Tripotassium Phosphate, Canola and/or Rice Bran Oil, Color Added, Vitamin E (mixed tocopherols) Added to Preserve Freshness.

Apple Cinnamon Cheerios: Whole Grain Oats, Sugar, Brown Sugar, Corn Meal, Corn Starch, Corn Syrup, Canola and/or Rice Bran Oil, Apple Puree Concentrate, Salt, Cinnamon, Trisodium Phosphate, Sodium Citrate, Vanillin, Wheat Starch, Vitamin E (mixed tocopherols) Added to Preserve Freshness.

Chocolate Cheerios: Whole Grain Corn, Sugar, Corn Syrup, Cocoa Processed with Alkali, Whole Grain Oats, Canola and/or Rice Bran Oil, Salt, Color Added, Dried Corn Syrup, Corn Bran, Barley Malt Extract, Trisodium Phosphate, Vanillin. Vitamin E (mixed tocopherols) and BHT Added to Preserve Freshness.

Dulche de Leche Cheerios: Whole Grain Corn, Sugar, Whole Grain Oats, Canola and/or Rice Bran Oil, Corn Syrup, Caramel Syrup (caramelized sugar, water), Salt, Brown Sugar Syrup, Corn Bran, Trisodium Phosphate, Color Added, Natural Flavor, Vitamin E (mixed tocopherols) and BHT Added to Preserve Freshness.

Multi Grain Cheerios Peanut Butter: Whole Grain Corn, Sugar, Peanut Butter (peanuts, monoglycerides), Whole Grain Oats, Whole Grain Sorghum, Whole Grain Barley, Whole Grain Rice, Corn Syrup, Dextrose, Salt, Canola and/or Rice Bran Oil, Peanut Oil, Color Added, Vitamin E (mixed tocopherols) and BHT Added to Preserve Freshness.

Cinnamon Burst Cheerios: Whole Grain Corn, Sugar, Corn Bran, Corn Meal, Soluble Corn Fiber, Canola and/or Rice Bran Oil, Whole Grain Oats, Brown Sugar Syrup, Salt, Cinnamon, Guar Gum, Natural Flavor, Color Added, Vitamin E (mixed tocopherols) and BHT Added to Preserve Freshness.

Frosted Cheerios: Whole Grain Oats (includes the oat bran), Sugar, Corn Meal, Corn Starch, Corn Syrup, Salt, Trisodium Phosphate, Color Added, Brown Sugar Syrup, Vanillin, Vitamin E (mixed tocopherols) Added to Preserve Freshnees.

Fruity Cheerios: Whole Grain Corn, Sugar, Whole Grain Oats, Corn Syrup, Canola and/or Rice Bran Oil, Pear Puree Concentrate, Salt, Corn Starch, Dried Corn Syrup, Corn Bran, Trisodium Phosphate, Natural Flavor, Color (red 40, yellow 6, blue 1, and other color added), Sodium Citrate, Vitamin E (mixed tocopherols) BHT and Ascorbic Acid Added to Preserve Freshness.

Yogurt Burst Cheerios: Whole Grain Oats (includes the oat bran), Sugar, Naturally Yogurt Flavored Coating (sugar, fractionated palm kernel oil, dextrose, corn starch, dried strawberries, dried nonfat yogurt [heat treated after culturing](cultured nonfat milk), color added, soy lecithin, nonfat milk, natural flavor, maltodextrin), Corn Meal, Modified Corn Starch, Corn Syrup, Salt, Trisodium Phosphate, Brown Sugar Syrup, Color Added, Wheat Flour, Vitamin E (mixed tocopherols) Added to Preserve Freshness.

Banana Nut Cheerios: Whole Grain Corn, Sugar, Whole Grain Oats, Brown Sugar Syrup, Corn Syrup, Canola and/or Rice Bran Oil, Salt, Dried Corn Syrup, Banana Puree, Corn Bran, Corn Starch, Trisodium Phosphate, Color Added, Sodium Citrate, Natural Flavor, Natural Almond Flavor, Vitamin E (mixed tocopherols) and BHT Added to Preserve Freshness.

Once again, all of the bolded ingredients above are likely GMOs.

Analysis

Currently on the Cheerios website, General Mills claims their Cheerios varieties are a part of a healthy diet because they are low in saturated fat, naturally cholesterol free, can help lower cholesterol, are made with whole grains like oats, and provide essential vitamins and minerals.

Over the years public perception has been shaped by these and similar claims so that Cheerios cereals have become widely considered to be a healthy choice that is low in sugar, unprocessed, and made with natural ingredients.

But what is true, and what is fiction? Let's break it down.

Are Cheerios Made with Wholesome Grains and Oats?

Originally called “Cheerioats”, the Cheerios name was selected so the cereal would be associated with the taste and wholesome appeal of oats. One of the main nutrition angles that General Mills exploits is the use of natural oats in Cheerios, however, in seven out of the twelve Cheerios varieties currently sold in the U.S. marketplace, oats are not even listed as the first ingredient (remember, ingredients are listed in order of abundance by weight within a product).

All Cheerios cereal varieties are made with whole grains and do have at least 8 grams per serving, but whole grains ground into flour, do not have the same health benefits as unprocessed whole grains. On the Cheerios website they say that their process is simply mixing, cooking, forming, and toasting. While that sounds nice, the final product – uniform and indistinguishable O’s – bears little resemblance to whole oats or any other whole grains. Cheerios are indeed made with whole grains, but “processed whole grains” would be a more appropriate listing.

Are Cheerios Low in Sugar?

In terms of Sugar - Only Regular Cheerios, Multi Grain Cheerios, and Dulche De Leche Cheerios have less than 9 grams of sugar per serving. The nine other Cheerios varieties have a sugar content that is much too high to be considered low or healthy when compared to other accessible breakfast cereal options. The American Heart Association recommends that women consume no more than 25 grams of added sugar per day, and no more than 38 grams for men.  The average amount of sugar per serving (1 or ¾ Cups depending on variety) across all varieties of Cheerios is 7.92 grams per cup or quarter cup.

According to the nutritional information on the Cheerios website, the serving sizes are not consistent across the whole Cheerios line. The serving size is 1 cup for both regular Cheerios, which has 1 gram of sugar serving, and for Multi Grain Cheerios, which has 6 grams of sugar per serving.

Conversely, the more sugary varieties of Cheerios: Honey Nut Cheerios, Apple Cinnamon Cheerios, Banana Nut Cheerios, Chocolate Cheerios, Multi Grain Cheerios Peanut Butter, Fruity Cheerios, and Yogurt Burst Cheerios - have a smaller serving size of ¾ Cup. This is not something that Cheerios advertises as broadly as the other aspects of its cereals, probably because it would draw attention to the fact that even though you are supposed to be eating less of these Cheerios varieties, you are still getting more sugar. Since this is not as widely publicized, then there are almost certainly consumers who are unaware of these different serving sizes and are starting their days off with an even higher amount of unexpected sugar.

Do Cheerios Reduce the Risk of Heart Disease and High Cholesterol?

Cheerios are infamous for their heart healthy claims and for being low in saturated fat and cholesterol. The brand in the past pushed these claims so heavily that in 2009 the FDA had to send a letter asking General Mills to alter Cheerios marketing strategies because of “unauthorized health claims” and because said claims would mean that Cheerios would fall under the label of an “unapproved new drug”. Cheerios has since reworked their marketing and health claims into the message that Cheerios CAN be a part of a healthy diet that COULD reduce the risks of heart disease.

It is important to note that part of what allows Cheerios to claim that it can be part of a diet that could reduce the risk of heart disease is the cereals’ fiber and whole grain content. We already covered the whole grain aspects of Cheerios, and when looking at fiber it appears that ONLY Regular Cheerios, Honey Nut Cheerios, and Yogurt Burst Cheerios contain soluble fiber, with Cheerios having just 1 gram per serving, Honey Nut Cheerios having 0.75 gram per serving, and Yogurt Burst Cheerios with “less than 1 gram of soluble fiber”.

Concerning insoluble fiber, listed on the boxes as dietary fiber – Only Regular Cheerios, Multi Grain Cheerios, Multi-Grain Cheerios Peanut Butter, and Cinnamon Burst have over 2 grams of Dietary Fiber. The remaining 8 out of the 12 varieties are only at an inadequate 2 grams per serving.

The bottom line for this is that if you are eating cereal for breakfast and we were only paying attention to fiber numbers, then regular Cheerios is the only variety of Cheerios that would provide an adequate amount of fiber to start your day in a healthy way.

What about the other ingredients in Cheerios that are not bolded because of a high risk of being GMOs?

BHT is Butylated Hydroxytoluene a food additive used to preserve freshness in some products, but in scientific studies it has been shown to be possible carcinogen. As shown above, BHT is used in Chocolate Cheerios, Dulche De Leche Cheerios, Multi Grain Cheerios Peanut Butter, Cinnamon Burst Cheerios, Fruity Cheerios, and Banana Nut Cheerios.

Other ingredients used in some or all of the Cheerios varieties that have raised red flags for health conscious consumers include: Trisodium Phosphate, Artificial Colors, Natural Flavors, Vanillin (synthetic Vanilla), Corn Syrup, Soy Lecithin, Maltodextrin, and Glycerides. Each of these ingredients have been possibly linked to negative health impacts by studies in recent years and many health conscious consumers have put these ingredients on their do-not-eat lists.

Do Cheerios Contain GMOs?

The most common GMO crops to look out for in the U.S. are Soy, Corn, Cotton, Canola, Sugar Beets, and Papaya. Foods that clearly have these words in their ingredient lists are all at risk of being GMO if they are not certified organic or Non-GMO.

General Mills sources its corn from the United States, where 88% of the crop is genetically modified, and our ingredient breakdown showed that corn-based ingredients are a common ingredient in all Cheerios varieties. While the corn ingredients are easy to spot and flag, some other high GMO risk ingredients that have been bolded are a little more inconspicuous. For example, Vitamin E is in each and every one of the Cheerios products, and is a hidden GMO ingredient that many consumers are unaware of. Vitamin E in Cheerios comes from Mixed Tocopherols which are most commonly derived from soy, corn, or cotton –the most extensively genetically engineered crops. For a list of other GMO ingredients that are commonly hidden in processes foods, Non-GMO Shopping Guide has built this highly useful list.

As a refresher, If you were to sample each and every Cheerios product –since General Mills does not make organic Cheerios or allow GMO testing – the following are the likely GMOs you would be consuming: Modified Corn Starch, Sugar, Vitamin E (mixed tocopherols), Honey, Brown Sugar Syrup, Canola Oil, Natural Almond Flavor, Whole Grain Corn, Corn Starch, Corn Bran, Corn Syrup, Dried Corn Syrup, Caramel Syrup made from Caramelized Sugar, Natual Flavors, Peanut Butter made with Monoglycerides, Dextrose, Corn Meal, Soluble Corn Fiber, Sodium Citrate, Ascorbic Acid, Soy Lecithin, Maltodextrin.

Multi Grain Cheerios are the only Cheerios variety that has just one likely GMO ingredient in its first three ingredients listed. The likely GMO ingredient however is its first-listed and most abundant ingredient: Whole Grain Corn. This Whole Grain Corn is almost certainly genetically modified.

Besides Multi Grain Cheerios, the ingredients list for every single other variety of Cheerios starts with at least two out of its most abundant ingredients as likely GMOs. Taking this a step further – each of the first three ingredients for both Chocolate and Multi Grain Cheerios Peanut Butter are likely GMOs, and all of the first six ingredients in Cinnamon Burst Cheerios are very likely to be made from GMOs.

Conclusions

Cheerios of all types are loaded with likely GMOs, and the brand across the board does not live up to the positive public perception and nutritious message that General Mills has cultivated through years of advertisements, loose health claims, and public relations strategies.

For people interested in eating for optimal health, consuming whole foods and staying away from processed products are good basic guidelines to follow. The lengthiness of the Cheerios ingredient lists and the inclusion of unrecognizable synthetic ingredients, unnecessary and controversial food additives, cheap sweeteners, and unwholesome ingredients are directly inconsistent with those basic health rules.  After reading the labels, it should be clear that there are definitely safer and less processed sources for your breakfast fiber, vitamins, and whole grains.

What Can We Do?

If you are an individual concerned about the risks of GMOs and the health of your families and the environment,  GMO Inside invites you to reach out to General Mills through our petition and let Cheerios know what you think of their use of GMOs on their Facebook Page.

If you have any questions about GMOs or comments about how some of these ingredients are at high risk of being a GMO, please leave a comment below!

Originally published by Natural News
Thursday, June 13, 2013
by: Jonathan Benson
Source article

(NaturalNews) The recent decision by Whole Foods Market to label all genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) sold in its stores by the long-off date of 2018 looks silly and almost meaningless compared to the right-now policy of fresh food chain Chipotle, which is officially the first and only major U.S. food supplier to voluntarily incorporate GMO labeling. On its "Ingredients Statement" website, Chipotle clearly outlines which of its food products contain GMOs, and also states that it is working aggressively to source completely non-GMO ingredients for all of its products as it moves forward.

Chipotle has always marketed itself as a healthy alternative to fast food, having taken steps from the beginning to eliminate things like dairy products produced using the artificial growth hormone rBST, for instance, and replacing them with pasture-raised dairy products. Chipotle has also played a key role in propelling forward the local agriculture movement by sourcing as many locally-grown and organic ingredients as possible, and eliminating artificial additives and other toxins commonly used in fast food. Chipotle's latest success: GMO labeling.

But now Chipotle has set the bar even higher, and by choice, delineating each and every ingredient used in its meats, beans, rice, and dressings, and clarifying which ones contain GMOs. The primary GMO offender, as you will notice on Chipotle's "Ingredients Statement" page, is soybean oil, which is reluctantly used in several of the chain's meat and rice products. In fact, this commercial frying and cooking oil appears to be one of the only, if not the only, GMO ingredient still used by Chipotle.

"Our goal is to eliminate GMOs from Chipotle's ingredients, and we're working hard to meet this challenge," explains the page. "For example, we recently switched our fryers from soybean oil to sunflower oil. Soybean oil is almost always made from genetically modified soybeans, while there is no commercially available GMO sunflower oil. Where our food contains currently unavoidable GM ingredients, it is only in the form of corn or soy."

You can view the Chipotle "Ingredients Statement" page at the following link. Note that all items containing a "G" in the pink box contain GMOs:
http://www.chipotle.com

Whole Foods' track record on GMOs an embarrassment to the health freedom movement

While much of what Chipotle sells still admittedly contains GMOs in the form of corn and soybean oil, the company's willingness to be forthcoming with its customers and the public about this fact is highly commendable. And it is a lot more than we can say for Whole Foods Market, which is still not being completely honest with its customers. The fact that Chipotle is already voluntarily labeling GMOs, and clearly indicating its intent to continue phasing them out right now, shows that Whole Foods' 2018 labeling deadline is more of a political move to save face than a practical move to actually get the job done.

Other health food retailers like Trader Joe's have already phased GMOs out of their private label brands (http://www.traderjoes.com/about/customer-updates-responses.asp?i=4), while health food stores like Natural Grocers source only organic produce and require that their packaged food suppliers fully disclose the source of any potential GMO ingredients. Natural Grocers even states directly on its website that, as a company, it does not consider GMOs to be at all safe for human consumption (http://www.naturalgrocers.com).

But Whole Foods, despite being a prominent leader in health food industry, has long taken the most ambiguous stance on GMOs. Besides its recent GMO labeling announcement and adoption of Non-GMO Project labeling back in 2009, both of which are commendable in their own rite, Whole Foods has not been nearly as forthcoming with its customers about GMOs, and yet continues to charge a premium for its products. While eventual labeling in 2018 may still be a positive step forward, it clearly lacks the proactive approach already being taken by companies like Chipotle.

Without GMO labeling requirements in the US it can be very difficult to know if you are eating GMOs.  Luckily, there are some tricks if you want to avoid GMOs in your diet and support a more sustainable food supply.

Here's how!

1. Choose Organic

Buying 100% Organic, Certified Organic, and USDA Organic-labeled products is usually the easiest way to avoid genetically modified ingredients.  Plus organic farming does not allow for non-organic pesticides to be used on crops so its better for our eco-systems and the farmers growing our food.

The U.S. and Canadian governments do not allow companies to label products "100% Organic" or  Certified Organic if they contain GMOs.

2. Choose Non-GMO Verified Products

The Non-GMO Project seal indicates that a product has gone through the Non-GMO Project's verification process to ensure that any potential genetically modified ingredients are tested and non-GMO. (This includes ingredients that are currently being genetically modified and commercially available such as corn, soy and sugar beets.

3.  Avoid potential GMO Ingredients altogether

There are currently 9 crops in the US that have been approved to be genetically modified:  Alfalfa, Canola, Corn , Cotton, Papaya, Soy, Sugar Beets, Zucchini and Yellow Summer Squash.  By avoiding these foods and ingredients altogether you can avoid GMOs. However  it can be very tricky since over 85% of processed foods in the grocery store contain one or more of these ingredients, often disguised in other names such as corn syrup, maltodextrin, or lecithin.

Understanding the Details:

To recognize Organic and Non-GMO foods more easily, it's helpful to review the various organic and non-GMO labels and the current labeling requirements in the U.S. and Canada.

1. 100% Organic: Must contain 100% organically produced ingredients (excluding water and salt). This is the only label that certifies a completely organic product AND is also completely non-GMO.

2. Certified Organic / USDA Organic / Organic: At least 95% of content is organic by weight (excluding water and salt). The <5% remaining ingredients must consist of substances approved on the USDA’s NOSB National List. GMOs are NOT on this list, so these products are also non-GMO.

3. Made with Organic: Up to 70% of the ingredients are organic. These products can NOT carry a “USDA organic” label and may possibly contain GMO ingredients.

4. Non-GMO Verified: The verification seal indicates that the product bearing the seal has gone through the Non-GMO Project's verification process. Any GMO ingredient being grown commercially must be tested prior to use in a verified product. The Non-GMO Project has an Action Threshold of 0.9% and is in alignment with laws in the EU, where any product containing more than 0.9% GMO must be labeled. This DOES NOT mean that the crop ingredients have been grown without harmful pesticides, insecticides or chemical fertilizers it simply means that the ingredients are non-GMO.

5. GMO Ingredients: If a product contains any potential GMO ingredients (or derivatives of these ingredients) that are not organic or Non-GMO Project verified, its likely these ingredients could be genetically modified.  GMO Ingredients to look out for in teh US include corn, soy, canola, cotton, sugar beets, zucchini, yellow squash, papaya and alfalfa.

What are your favorite tips for avoiding GMOs? Please let us know in the comment section!

As a parent, we're sure you've considered which brands will have the best infant formula for your newborn. But have you ever thought about GMOs? If you prioritize avoiding GMO foods in your diet, what about your baby?

In May 2013, GMO Inside called on the three largest US infant formula manufacturers to remove their GMO ingredients.  Beyond obstructing the consumer's right to know what they are eating (by not labeling their GM ingredients) and contributing to the increasing corporate control of our food system, GMOs pose particular health risks to infants. We asked our friend and ally - Dr. Michelle Perro - a California based pediatrician to break down for us why GMO ingredients are particularly risky for babies. 

Guest Post by Michelle Perro, M.D.

For the infant that is unable to nurse, formula is the next best choice.  But whether to use a home-prepared formula or a commercial brand depends on many factors.  For my patients, I usually recommend a commercial brand.  While there are several formulas to choose from, there are certain 'musts' that I do insist upon--first and foremost, the formula should be organic.  Because of the toxic effects of herbicides, particularly glyphosate (due to its prolific usage) as well as other organophosphates and genetically engineered foods [in non-organic commercial formulas], these are not an option for infant feeding.

Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, the inert ingredients in Roundup, as well as Roundup ready seeds (which do not perish under increased spraying of the herbicide) have been shown clearly to have profound toxicity on health.  One particular issue is that it eliminates beneficial bacteria [in our intestines].  More pathologic bacteria that can reside in our intestines have been shown to be resistant to its effects and can thrive.  The beneficial bacterial play a key role in many important functions in the body, particularly immune function.  In addition, glyphosate inhibits the activity of a group of enzymes ubiquitous in the body called cytochrome P450 enzymes which are important for oxidation and well as detoxification in the liver. [Read more about the studies linking health effects of Roundup here.]

Full maturity of the liver in the infant takes approximately two years.  As soon as the umbilical cord is cut, rapid induction of liver functions begin.  The infant liver is delayed in achieving normal detoxifying and synthetic functions such as making proteins, coagulation factors, breaking down products from hemoglobin synthesis (bilirubin being one and, hence, the development of  neonatal jaundice), etc.  If you expose newborns to substances that further impair liver and immune function, the infant has increased health risks.

Lets look at Similac, for example:

You will note that the number one and two ingredients are corn syrup and sugar.  Both of these products are highly genetically modified, so unless you stick to organic, your infant will be eating pesticide-laden, GMO processed food.

Why not GMOs?  There is an alarming rate of childhood disorders now including allergies, autoimmunity, neurological disorders (Autism and ADHD), growth failure, endocrine disruption, etc.  There are modifications to the immune function that can take place prenatally and early in life which leads to the above disorders ("developmental immunotoxicity").  Increased exposure to environmental toxins during those sensitive times may contribute to the health conditions noted above.  In animal studies where they were fed GMOs, there were profound changes in their intestines as well as immune function.  There is likely synergistic toxicity.  If there is an insult to the intestine whether it be in its structure or normal bacterial biome, a negative health cycle can begin.

From this pediatrician's perspective, I do believe we can successfully feed our babies with organic foods.  I like to add additional organic probiotics (bifidus) to the formula.  In order to ensure the health of our infants and children, there is no amount of acceptable herbicide or GMO that should be in their diets.

***

Want to share this post with other doctors or parents? Download our PDF version here to print.

Looking for other alternatives if you are not able to breast feed? Check out our list of resources for donor milk banks and non-GMO homemade recipes.

GMO Inside would like to express enormous gratitude to Dr. Perro for her contributions to this post and the GMO Inside campaign.

To take action, please sign our petition to Similac, Enfamil and Nestle, and learn more about infant formulas and the GMO ingredients that may be hiding inside these foods and more at GreenAmerica.org/gmo-inside!

Alicia, a Girl Scout, is leading the charge for non-GMO Girl Scout cookies

“Please take the GMOs out of the cookies, because they are not natural for our bodies, and I bet Australia doesn't want them, or Texas, or Santa Ana or anywhere. And, because if we don't know that they're safe, we don't want them in our food.”

You might not expect it, but this compelling statement comes from 6-year-old Girl Scout, Alicia Serratos.  Alicia recently started the Change.org petition, “Girl Scouts: Please make cookies without GMOs,” that has over 8,000  supporters so far, and urges the Girl Scouts to see the dangers of GMOs and to make a positive change in their cookie recipes.

Selling upwards of 200 million boxes of cookies every year, the Girl Scouts could have a huge impact on the availability of non-GMO foods and ingredients, and Alicia is spreading the word to get us there.

We recently interviewed Alicia about her activism:

Green America (GA): Why do you think it’s important to get GMOs out of the Girl Scout cookies?

Alicia: Because they are dangerous. They make bugs’ tummies explode, and the rats get tumors. GMOs are not natural. I don't want my family to eat them, or my friends, or the whole world.

GA: How do you tell other people about this? 

A: On the computer. By sending emails, posting it on Change.org, on my Facebook, and I can tweet it. And we pass out fliers [about] GMOs and that they're not safe and not natural for our bodies.

GA: Do you think there are other girls across the country who also want non-GMO Girl Scout cookies?

A: Yes, like in America, New York, Colorado, Australia, Florida, and Louisiana. I think I'm helping everyone in the world and I think I’m doing the right thing.

We think she’s doing the right thing too. There are an increasing number of studies linking GMOs and the chemicals they are sprayed with to food allergies and auto-immune diseases. These health concerns, along with the damage that GMOs cause for the environment and farmers (both here and abroad), should be reasons enough to make the switch to non-GMO cookies. Millions of Americans enjoy Girl Scouts’ cookies every year, but we agree with Alicia from Troop #2753 – we deserve cookies that we know for certain are safe for humans and the environment.

Please help Alicia and sign her Change.org petition here: http://www.change.org/petitions/girl-scouts-please-make-cookies-without-gmos.

And visit the Girl Scouts’ Facebook page to tell them that you love their cookies, but that next cookie season, you want ones that are free of GMOs: https://www.facebook.com/GirlScoutsUSA.

For updates on Alicia and her non-GMO quest, you can visit her blog: http://rickyrosie.wordpress.com/.

Green America is dedicated to educating consumers and businesses about the impacts of genetic engineering and genetically modified organisms (GMOs), shifting corporations away from a reliance on toxic herbicides and GMOs towards organic and regenerative farming practices. Learn more about our efforts against genetic engineering.

Originally published by Nation of Change
by GM Watch
March 19, 2013

Genetically modified (GM) foods are often promoted as a way to feed the world, leaving people wondering if GMOs are good or bad. But this is little short of a confidence trick. Far from needing more GM foods, there are urgent reasons why we need to ban them altogether.

1. GM foods won’t solve the food crisis

A 2008 World Bank report concluded that increased biofuel production is the major cause of the increase in food prices. Biofuels are crops grown for fuel rather than food. GM giant Monsanto has been at the heart of the lobbying for biofuels — while profiting enormously from the resulting food crisis and using it as a PR opportunity to promote GM foods!

“The climate crisis was used to boost biofuels, helping to create the food crisis; and now the food crisis is being used to revive the fortunes of the GM industry.” — Daniel Howden, Africa correspondent, The Independent (UK)

“The cynic in me thinks that they’re just using the current food crisis and the fuel crisis as a springboard to push GM crops back on to the public agenda. I understand why they’re doing it, but the danger is that if they’re making these claims about GM crops solving the problem of drought or feeding the world, that’s bullshit.” – Prof Denis Murphy, head of biotechnology, University of Glamorgan, Wales

2. GM crops do not increase yield potential

Despite the promises, GM has not increased the yield potential of any commercialised crops. In fact, studies show that the most widely grown GM crop, GM soya, has suffered reduced yields.

A report that analyzed nearly two decades worth of peer reviewed research on the yield of the primary GM food/feed crops, soybeans and corn (maize), reveals that despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase US crop yields. The author, former US EPA and US FDA biotech specialist Dr Gurian-Sherman, concludes that when it comes to yield, “Traditional breeding outperforms genetic engineering hands down.”

“Let’s be clear. As of this year [2008], there are no commercialized GM crops that inherently increase yield. Similarly, there are no GM crops on the market that were engineered to resist drought, reduce fertilizer pollution or save soil. Not one.” – Dr Doug Gurian-Sherman

3. GM crops increase pesticide use

US government data shows that in the US, GM crops have produced an overall increase, not decrease, in pesticide use compared to conventional crops.

“The promise was that you could use less chemicals and produce a greater yield. But let me tell you none of this is true.” – Bill Christison, President of the US National Family Farm Coalition

4. There are better ways to feed the world

A major UN/World Bank-sponsored report compiled by 400 scientists and endorsed by 58 countries concluded that GM crops have little to offer global agriculture and the challenges of poverty, hunger, and climate change, because better alternatives are available. In particular, the report championed “agroecological” farming as the sustainable way forward for developing countries.

5. Other farm technologies are more successful

Integrated Pest Management and other innovative low-input or organic methods of controlling pests and boosting yields have proven highly effective, particularly in the developing world. Other plant breeding technologies, such as Marker Assisted Selection (non-GM genetic mapping), are widely expected to boost global agricultural productivity more effectively and safely than GM.

“The quiet revolution is happening in gene mapping, helping us understand crops better. That is up and running and could have a far greater impact on agriculture [than GM].” – Prof John Snape, head of the department of crop genetics, John Innes Centre

6. GM foods have not been shown to be safe to eat

Genetic modification is a crude and imprecise way of incorporating foreign genetic material (e.g. from viruses, bacteria) into crops, with unpredictable consequences. The resulting GM foods have undergone little rigorous and no long-term safety testing. However, animal feeding tests have shown that GM foods have toxic effects, including abnormal changes in organs, immune system disturbances, accelerated ageing, and changes in gene expression. Very few studies have been published on the direct effects on humans of eating a GM food. One such study found unexpected effects on gut bacteria, but was never followed up.

It is claimed that Americans have eaten GM foods for years with no ill effects. But these foods are unlabeled in the US and no one has monitored the consequences. With other novel foods like trans fats, it has taken decades to realize that they have caused millions of premature deaths.

“We are confronted with the most powerful technology the world has ever known, and it is being rapidly deployed with almost no thought whatsoever to its consequences.” — Dr Suzanne Wuerthele, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) toxicologist

7. People don't want GM foods – so they're hidden in animal feed

As a spokesperson for Asgrow, a subsidiary of Monsanto, said, "If you put a label on genetically engineered food, you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it." The GM industry has got around the problem of consumer rejection of GM foods by hiding them in animal feed. Meat, eggs and dairy products from animals raised on the millions of tons of GM feed imported into Europe do not have to be labelled. Some studies show that contrary to GM and food industry claims, animals raised on GM feed ARE different from those raised on non-GM feed. Other studies show that if GM crops are fed to animals, GM material can appear in the resulting products and affect the animals’ health. So eating these “stealth GMOs” may affect the health of consumers.

8. GM crops are a long-term economic disaster for farmers

A 2009 report showed that GM seed prices in America have increased dramatically, compared to non-GM and organic seeds, cutting average farm incomes for US farmers growing GM crops. The report concluded, “At the present time there is a massive disconnect between the sometimes lofty rhetoric from those championing biotechnology as the proven path toward global food security and what is actually happening on farms in the US that have grown dependent on GM seeds and are now dealing with the consequences.”

9. GM and non-GM cannot co-exist

GM contamination of conventional and organic food is increasing. An unapproved GM rice that was grown for only one year in field trials was found to have extensively contaminated the US rice supply and seed stocks. In Canada, the organic oilseed rape industry has been destroyed by contamination from GM rape. In Spain, a study found that GM maize “has caused a drastic reduction in organic cultivations of this grain and is making their coexistence practically impossible”.

The time has come to choose between a GM-based, or a non-GM-based, world food supply.

“If some people are allowed to choose to grow, sell and consume GM foods, soon nobody will be able to choose food, or a biosphere, free of GM. It’s a one way choice, like the introduction of rabbits or cane toads to Australia; once it’s made, it can’t be reversed.” – Roger Levett, specialist in sustainable development

10. We can’t trust GM companies

The big biotech firms pushing their GM foods have a terrible history of toxic contamination and public deception. GM is attractive to them because it gives them patents that allow monopoly control over the world’s food supply. They have taken to harassing and intimidating farmers for the “crime” of saving patented seed or “stealing” patented genes — even if those genes got into the farmer’s fields through accidental contamination by wind or insects.

“Farmers are being sued for having GMOs on their property that they did not buy, do not want, will not use and cannot sell.” – Tom Wiley, North Dakota farmer

See the source article and all its wonderful resources here

Read more GMO Inside News »

Last week we received a response from Coca-Cola about our petition to Coke and Pepsi asking for GMO labeling and/or the removal of GMO ingredients from their products.

We wanted to share Coke's  response letter (below), since more than 4,000 of you have already taken action with us, and we wanted to share with you our latest reply to Coke:

Dear Coca-Cola,

While we do appreciate you getting back to us, (truly we do, we have haven't heard a word from Pepsi) we do not agree with your stance on GMOs or your views on labeling.

Coke Says: "California voters made the right decision in defeating Proposition #37, a poorly written measure that would've been costly and caused confusion about the safety of products labeled."

GMO Inside says:  Regardless of the "safety" debate, we believe consumers have a right to know what they are putting in their bodies, and therefore have a right to know if the ingredients in their food have been genetically modified.  GMOs have never been proven safe for consumption, and a growing body of studies is raising concerns around the health effects of eating them and their negative environmental impacts. (See Earth Open Source's summary on some of the health concerns)

Coke Says: Because we sell our products nationwide, we oppose state-specific regulations which oppose unreasonable burdens on the food and beverage industry.

GMO Inside says:  Ingredient labeling is not an unreasonable burden on the food and beverage industry--it's a rule consumers have come to expect of any product they purchase with plans to ingest.  But, if you want to play that card, we'd like to point out that labeling GMO ingredients  will will create minimal costs and that the Coca-Cola corporation earned no less than $48 billion in revenues last year.

Major food companies change their packaging all the time, for reasons relating to changing ingredients to seasonal promotions. We aren't demanding that this change happen overnight, but that the labeling of GMOs in the ingredient lists on Coke's products be added to the queue for the next run of packaging.  GMO labeling has not increased the costs of food in Europe, according to the former European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, and an Emory Study found that GMO labeling would not increase food prices in the US either.

Coca-Cola, you have the opportunity to be a leader amongst major beverage companies by being the first to end your use of GMOs and let the public know you have done so. Please take this important step for human and environmental health!

Sincerely,

GMO Inside

Sign our petition to Coke and Pepsi>>

GMO has been a slowly creeping threat for a while, but it’s ramped up lately. (Rosebud Magazine)

Originally published by Rosebud
by GL Woolsey
September 13, 2012
Source article

GMO foods are such an embedded part of our food system these days, but it's not difficult to think back to a time when food was simpler and healthier. How did we get to the point that genetically modified organisms infiltrate so much of what we eat? In a recent issue of Rosebud Magazine, GMO expert GL Woolsey took a look at the history of GMOs. We present that for you here now.

Originally published by Mother Jones
By Jaeah Lee
February 26, 2013
Source article

Despite persisting concerns over genetically modified crops, a new industry report (PDF) shows that GM farming is taking off around the world. In 2012, GMO crops grew on about 420 million acres of land in 28 countries worldwide, a record high according to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, an industry trade group.

If all the world's GMO crop fields in 2012 were sown together, it would blanket almost all of Alaska. As the chart from the report shows, globally GM farming has been on an uninterrupted upward trend. What's especially noteworthy is the growth of GMO farming area in developing nations (see red line), which surpassed that in industrial nations for the first time in 2012. The ISAAA's report doesn't project into the future, but we may see this upward trend continue as "a considerable quantity and variety" of GMO products may be commercialized in developing countries within the next five years, according to a recent UN Food and Agriculture Organisation forum (PDF).

Clive James/ISAAA

The ISAAA says the area of land devoted to genetically modified crops has ballooned by 100 times since farmers first started growing the crop commercially in 1996. Over the past 17 years, millions of farmers in 28 countries have planted and replanted GMO crop seeds on a cumulative 3.7 billion acres of land—an area 50 percent larger than the total land mass of the United States, the group adds.

"This makes biotech crops the fastest adopted crop technology in recent history," ISAAA chair Clive James states in the report. "The reason—it delivers benefits."

What kinds of benefits? According to the ISAAA, GM farming has reduced use of pesticides, saved on fossil fuels, decreased carbon dioxide emissions, and "made a significant contribution to the income of < 15 million small resource-poor farmers" in developing countries. These small-scale farmers now make up over 90 percent of all farmers growing GMO crops, the group states.

But just looking at the United States—consistently the biggest GMO crop producer in the world by a long shot—there is much reason to doubt on some of ISAAA's claimed benefits. (More after the chart.)

For today's installment of homemade Girl Scout cookie recipes we'll be sharing how you can make your own Non-GMO, organic Do-si-dos cookies.

GMO Inside has been calling on the Girl Scouts to remove GMO ingredients from their cookies.  Until then, we’re inviting you make a donation to support the Girl Scouts (in the same amount you would have spent on cookies this year) and to bake your own so you can be sure of what you are eating and feeding your family, when it comes to GMOs.

You can join us in sending this message to the Girl Scouts of America by posting a supportive comment on their Facebook wall.

Homemade Organic Do-si-dos Cookies

Recipe adapted by GMO Inside's resident organic baker.
Makes about 48 sandwich cookies.

Preparations: Preheat oven to 350F.

SANDWICH

• 2 1/4 cups all purpose organic flour
• 2 tbsp baking soda
• 1 tbsp baking powder
• 1/2 tsp sea salt
• 1 1/2 cups unsalted organic butter, room temperature
• 3/4 cup chunky organic peanut butter
• 1 cup organic brown sugar
• 1 cup organic sugar
• 3 large organic eggs
• 1 tsp vanilla extract
• 1 1/2 cups quick-cooking organic oats (not instant or regular)

FILLING

• 1 1/2 cups creamy organic peanut butter, room temperature
• 1/2 cup organic butter, room temperature
• 1/4 cup organic confectioners’ sugar

Start with the cookies. In a medium bowl, whisk together the flour, baking powder, baking soda and salt.

In a large bowl, cream together butter and peanut butter. Beat in the sugars until fluffy, then add in the eggs one at a time, waiting until each is fully incorporated before adding the next. Stir in vanilla extract.

Working at a low speed, mix in the flour, followed by the oats (if you don’t have quick-cooking, pulse whole rolled oats in the food processor to chop them up a bit).

On a parchment-lined baking sheet, drop teaspoonfuls of batter (roughly 3/4-in. sized balls), leaving about 2 inches between each to allow for spread.

Bake for about 10 minutes, until cookies are a light golden brown. Cool on baking sheet for 5 minutes, making small holes in 1/2 of the cookies (for the tops of the sandwiches) before they set up. Transfer to a wire rack to cool completely.

Once cookies have cooled, make the filling.

In a large bowl, cream together smooth peanut butter, butter and confectioners’ sugar until very smooth. Spread 2-3 tsp onto half of the finished cookies and sandwich with the remaining halves. If you chose to make yours with Girls Scout lookalike holes in some of the cookies, use these as the tops of the sandwiches.

Store in an airtight container.

Guest post by Vani Hari (a.k.a. The Food Babe)
Vani is a member of the GMO Inside Steering Committee and a regular contributor on 100 Days of Real Food. 

Thoughts of outrage, unfairness, disbelief, and ultimately grief consumed me while I was doing this investigation. A list of ingredients that are banned across the globe but still allowed for use here in the American food supply recently made news. While I have written about some of those ingredients before, this list inspired me to look a little deeper and find out how pervasive this issue is for us. Could these banned ingredients be contributing to the higher mortality and disease rates here in the U.S.? Why is there such a dichotomy between foods banned in Europe and around the world versus right here in the US?

The health of Americans is downright grim according to a report just released by theInstitute of Medicine and the National Research Council. It declares “Americans are sicker and die younger than other people in wealthy nations.” The United States spends 2.5 times more on health care than any other nation, however, when compared with 16 other nations we come in dead last in terms of health and life expectancy for men and near the bottom for women.

Here is the breakdown for you:

• More than two thirds of United States citizens are overweight – 33% being obese.
• 32% of children are either obese or overweight.
• 43% of Americans are projected to be obese in 10 years.
• After smoking, obesity is America’s biggest cause of premature death and is linked to 70% of heart disease and 80% of diabetes cases.
• And 41% of Americans are projected to get cancer in their lifetime!

Continue reading here>>

Breakfast is the most beneficial meal of the day, yet who knew that cereals are the latest to be added to the GMO Food blacklist. General Mills & Kellogg’s offer a not so fresh start of the day with a cereal bowl-full of GMOs. Throughout January 2013, GMO Inside called on consumers to make a Fresh Start with 4 Easy Steps, and to let Kellogg’s and General Mills know that we prefer our breakfasts GMO Free and with clear labels letting us know if products do contain GMOs.

Both Kellogg’s and General mills are icons in the breakfast food world, and while these companies claim to be healthy and wholesome, their products present a very strong argument to the contrary.

As part of GMO Inside’s call to action for a Fresh Start, we are focusing on cold cereals and snack bars, two common breakfast choices that carry a high risk of containing GMOs.

The following are breakfast cereals and bars from Kellogg’s and General Mills that deserve special acknowledgement for their intense use of controversial ingredients, a high risk of GMOs, negligible benefits as a breakfast food item, and additional transgressions in the GMO and health world.

Cold Cereal - While cereal by default is not the worst way to start your day, the following options are certainly lowering the bar for the whole category. These subsequent items stood out based on their particularly high use of likely GMOs, some clear nutritional no-no’s, and the inclusion of controversial ingredients beyond GMOs

Kellogg’s Honey Smacks Cereal:

The Honey Smacks ingredients list is a learning opportunity for those new to GMOs, presenting consumers with a solid list of ingredients that are either GMOs themselves or at a high risk of being derived from GMOs. Looking at the ingredients you see Sugar, Dextrose, Honey, Vegetable Oil, Caramel Color, Soy Lecithin, Vitamin C, and Vitamin B12 - all carrying their own risk of being a GMO. In fact, the only ingredients that are not on a possible GMO list are Wheat, Salt, the added Vitamins, and BHT.

Even if someone was trying to defend Honey Smacks as a breakfast choice, and they got you to ignore the fact that the vast majority of ingredients   are probable GMOs, they would still have to address the fact that this cereal contains a considerable 15 grams of sugar per serving, very low fiber content for a breakfast cereal (good fiber content is something you should look for if you are looking for a healthier breakfast cereal), and that the ingredients list also includes hydrogenated oils and BHT, which have their own health controversies to deal with. In the end, this highly processed cereal is indefensible from a health standpoint.

Lucky Charms from General Mills:

It would not be a bad breakfast party without Lucky Charms, a strong contender for worst cold breakfast cereal by our research. Looking at the box, we start off on a high note in the ingredients list with whole grain oats , but it is all downhill from there, with a wave of possible GMOs including Sugar, Modified Corn Starch, regular old Corn Starch, Corn Syrup, Dextrose, Vitamin E , Vitamin C, Vitamin B12, and Artificial Colors. Lucky Charms is a highly processed product with 10 grams of sugar per serving, a full-range of controversial artificial food colorings, and strongly reliant on corn based products that carry a high GMO risk.

Fiber One, Raisin Bran Clusters from General Mills: 

This option may surprise a few out there. While Fiber One may have some vaguely better breakfast options out there, these Raisin Bran Clusters standout for all of the wrong reasons. Possible GMOs include Corn Bran, Sugar, Corn Starch, Glycerin, Corn Syrup, Canola Oil, Molasses, Honey, Corn Meal, Malt Syrup, Natural and Artificial Flavors, Vitamin E. Vitamin C, and Vitamin B12. Also of note, controversial ingredient BHT is present, which has shown to be carcinogenic in some studies, and this cereal has more sugar per serving than Lucky Charms. One final thing to address is a fiber flaw. Earlier it was mentioned that a cereal being a good source of fiber is a good thing, well this cereal takes it way over the top, because 43% of your daily dietary fiber all in one serving is just unnecessary.  It would be much healthier and comfortable for you to spread that amount of fiber across the first half of your day’s intake.

Breakfast Snack Bar - Bars are convenient and can sometimes look wholesome, but most pack quite a sugar punch and can be misleading with their dietary impacts due to their size. The following breakfast snack bars are noteworthy for their surprisingly high number of ingredients, the general lack of quality in those ingredients, and their intensive use of probable GMOs.

Kellogg’s Special K, Protein Snack Bar, Chocolate Peanut

This is one of the worst snack or meal bars that we came across in our GMO research this month. Looking at the nutrition facts of this protein snack bar, we see TBHQ, numerous sources of sugar, fully hydrogenated oils, controversial palm oil, and a trans fat asterisk hidden at the bottom of the ingredients list. The number of ingredients in this highly processed item is astounding, and the list of possible GMOs within that is a testament to this. Possible GMOs include Sugar, Whey, Soy Lecithin, Artificial Flavor, Corn Syrup, Fructose, Soy Protein Isolate, Cottonseed Oil, Rapeseed Oil, Toasted Soy Pieces, Soybean Oil, Soy Protein Concentrate, Glycerin, Molasses, Sodium Ascorbate, Soy Lecithin, Natural and Artificial Flavors, Vitamin E, and finally Vitamin B12.  This bars nutritional panel is filled with red flags for the health conscious consumer.

Milk N Cereal Bars, Cinnamon Toast Crunch from General Mills

Probable GMOs on our nutrition facts label include Sugar, Malt Extract, Caramel Color, Maltodextrin, Dextrose, Canola Oil, Mono and Di Glycerides, Palm Kernel & Partially Hydrogenated Soybean Oils, Soy Lecithin, Natural and Artificial Flavors, Citric Acid, Corn Syrup, Soy Flour, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Fructose, Isolated Soy Protein, Glycerin, Sorbitol, Vitamin C, Caramel and Annatto Extract Color, Vitamin B12, and Mixed Tocopherols. It is disheartening how many possible GMOs there are in this breakfast bar, and while it presents itself as a good source of vitamins, the 14 Grams of sugar, the presence of BHT, TBHQ, the challenges of just reading some of these ingredients names, and the hydrogenated oils are more than enough to put this item on my do not eat list.

So there we have it, the cold cereal and snack bar products that stood out amongst a sea of other GMO heavy and unhealthy Kellogg’s and General Mills breakfast products.

If you think you have an even worse offender from Kellogg’s or General Mills, feel free to add it in the comments. But if you really want to make a difference… avoid these items, shop for non-GMO alternatives, and join us in a Fresh Start and let your voices be heard by the companies who do not want you to have the right to know what is in your food.

Remember breakfast is not dessert, and that it is possible to make choices that are healthy for yourself, your families, and the environment by rejecting GMO foods.

Originally Published by Rodale
By Leah Zerbe
January 2013
http://rodale.womenshealthmag.com/cereal-gmos
http://rodale.menshealth.com/cereal-gmos

A new year means a fresh start, and what better place to start fresh than your morning bowl of cereal—the meal that greets many Americans each and every morning.

To help increase consumer awareness and hold companies responsible for GMO labeling, a national coalition has launched "GMO Inside," a campaign urging cereal giants Kellogg's and General Mills to label cereals containing genetically engineered ingredients, also known as GMOs. Better yet, the group wants the companies to take GMOs out of their products altogether.

Although GMOs have never been tested for long-term safety in humans, they're in many nonorganic foods, particularly processed foods like cereal that often contain genetically engineered soy, corn, and sugar beet ingredients. Most genetically engineered crops are developed so farmers can apply heavier doses of pesticides to the plants, something that's problematic given that the chemical of choice, Roundup (glyphosate), is systemic and winds up inside of the plants that we eat.

Read More: The 10 Best Organic Cereals

Here's how the GMO Inside coalition says you can help during January 2013:

Visit the group's Take Action website and sign a petition. You'll also find company phone numbers and Facebook links so you can air your concerns about unlabeled GMOs in popular brand-name cereals.

Direct consumer-to-company contact is gaining popularity, particularly since Prop. 37, a ballot proposition that would have forced GMOs to be labeled in foods sold in California, was defeated last November. "We have been completely blown away by the amount of consumer support the GMO issue has created," says Alisa Gravitz, President of Green America. "Since Prop. 37 was defeated in California in November last year, consumer action has only increased. I am completely inspired by the parents who are standing up against major corporations for the right to know what they are feeding their kids. Kellogg’s and General Mills represent just the beginning of what this coalition is prepared to take on."

Read more GMO Inside News »

Originally Published by Supermarket News
By Robert Vosburgh
January 18, 2013
http://supermarketnews.com/blog/2013-gmo-fight

Last year ended on a down note for advocates seeking regulations for the labeling of food products that contain genetically modified ingredients. The atmosphere soured on Election Day, when voters in California defeated Prop 37, which would have mandated GMO labeling. The hard-fought battle pitted consumer and environmental advocates against some of the biggest food companies in the business.

Some industry observers (including yours truly) thought the failure in California would bring about a period of re-assessment, a back-to-the-drawing-board period. The thinking went that supporters needed some time to figure out a different strategy, since going the public question route proved very costly in both money and results.

No way. The fight has moved almost immediately to Washington state, where 350,000 signatures were delivered last week to the Secretary of State's office petitioning for a ballot measure that would require the labeling of GMOs. The “People's Right To Know Genetically Engineered Food Act" is almost identical to Prop 37 in that it requires any food or beverage that contains GMOs or ingredients derived from GMOs to be clearly labeled at the retail level.

There’s also agitation in New Mexico, where a state lawmaker has “pre-filed” a bill that would amend existing labeling laws to include GMO-derived products. This is a slightly different tactic from the California and Washington proposals, since it’s not trying to create an entirely new law. And in Vermont, efforts are underway to re-introduce a labeling bill that passed committee, but failed to come up for a full vote last year. Will these legislative initiatives have a better chance of success than public questions? Time will tell.

There’s also action outside of the political arena, with consumer groups directly confronting manufacturers through public pressure. GMO Inside, a coalition of businesses and organizations, is asking shoppers to sign an online petition that will be sent to two to the nation’s largest cereal and CPG companies, Kellogg's and General Mills.

GMO Inside, a coalition of businesses and organizations, is asking shoppers to sign an online petition that will be sent to two to the nation’s largest cereal and CPG companies, Kellogg's and General Mills.

The group is also urging consumers to call the companies directly, or to post GMO labeling requests on the manufacturers’ Facebook pages.

“Since Prop 37 was defeated in California in November last year, consumer action has only increased,” says Alisa Gravitz, president of Green America, of the of members of GMO Inside. “Kellogg's and General Mills represent just the beginning of what this coalition is prepared to take on.”

These New Year’s efforts represent the groundwork for what will surely become a spring awakening. The defeat in California hasn’t discouraged proponents from getting right back up and charging back into the battle. Two states are considering labeling laws and the chorus of voices calling for GMO labeling continues to grow.

This is no longer about who has the deepest pockets. There’s a swell of popular sentiment that’s beginning to rise. At some point, perhaps as early as this year, no amount of money in the world is going to be able to silence the issue — or its supporters.

Read more GMO Inside News »

You walk into the grocery store, wanting to buy some Granny Smith apples for a pie you're planning to bake. You find there are two types -- organic apples from across the country, or apples from a local farm that uses chemical pesticides and herbicides. Which do you choose?

It's a conundrum we've all faced at one time or another; in this issue, our editors consult with the experts, and offer Green America's take on this issue. (Bonus: a clip-out "Organic or Conventional" wallet card to remind you as you shop which items are most important to purchase organic.)

Originally Published by Examiner.com
By Kimberly Lord Stewart
January 17, 2013
http://www.examiner.com/article/coalition-asks-cereal-companies-to-get-the-gmos-off-the-breakfast-table

A staple of the American breakfast table has been boxed in by controversy in 2012 and 2013. Cereal sales have been slipping in the past few years, unit sales dropped by 4% in 2012, largely due to higher prices from global-grain shortages due to extreme weather. Now cereal makers have something new to worry about, a campaign to label genetically modified (GM) cereals. GMO Inside, a coalition dedicated to helping consumers to know whether or not foods are genetically engineered, today (Jan. 17) announced that it wants Kellogg’s and General Mills to label or remove the ingredients in their products that are genetically engineered. For cereals, this could apply to as much as 80% of ingredients, including corn, soy, and processed sugars made from corn.

Throughout January, GMO Inside is calling on consumers to sign petitions, phone the companies to request non-GMO products, and take action on the Facebook profiles of each company and their many brands. GMO Inside is also urging Kellogg’s and General Mills to pledge not to fund any opposition to I-522, the Washington State ballot initiative for GMO labeling, which will be up for a vote in November 2013—or any other initiatives and legislation emerging in states around the country.

To date, more than 5,000 consumers have taken action with GMO Inside signing a petition to General Mills to remove GMOs from its bestselling Cheerios line of products, and more than 17,000 Facebook fans helped to shut down the company’s Cheerios Facebook app in December 2012.

“We're calling on consumers to get a fresh start this year by beginning every day with a healthy breakfast, free of GMO ingredients," said Elizabeth O'Connell, GMO Inside Campaign Director. "Putting Kellogg's and General Mills under our January spotlight is part of GMO Inside's commitment to educate consumers about which products are likely to have GMO ingredients. We'll call attention to new products every month."

GMO Inside believes 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. Both Kellogg's and General Mills sell their iconic products in Europe without GMO ingredients. In Oct. 2012, General Mill and Nestle decided to lower the sugar content in cereals sold outside the United States. The news was met with skepticism from health-watch dog groups in the EU. But it isn't know if US consumers can expect the same efforts, especially given that GM grains are to intrinsic to the American agricultural system.

Thank you for your interest in this story. Proceeds for all Examiner.com stories written by Kimberly Lord Stewart are donated to charity for an educational farm for children in Colorado ( Ed and Ruth Lehman Longmont YMCA). Link here for more information, subscribe for regular story updates, and follow on facebook. Thank you again. Every story and photo click will go far to help children's health and wellness.

Read more GMO Inside News »

Originally published by Food Matters

Source article

Some consumers do not know how to identify a natural vitamin from a synthetic one. Vitamins and mineral supplements may contain labels that are too complicated for you to understand. You may not even know what to look for in a vitamin or mineral supplement.

Some manufacturers of commercial vitamin and mineral supplements add synthetics to vitamin products, typically to increase the vitamin's potency, but many synthetics are made from derivatives of coal tar - a known carcinogen found in cigarette smoke. This is only one of the reasons why it is important to talk to your doctor before taking any new supplement.

5 Steps To Identify The Ingredients On A Vitamin Label

Step 1

Look for the words "100 percent natural" on the product's label. Some product labels may contain the words "natural," but manufacturers can claim "natural" on their nutritional products if at least 10 percent of the product comes from natural food sources. The Organic Consumers Organization recommends looking for products that contain "100 percent plant-based" or "100 percent animal-based" on the product's label.

Step 2

Find the "food source" list on the products label. If the product's label does not contain a list of natural food sources, then the product is synthetic. Look for food sources such as yeast, fish, vegetable and citrus.

Step 3

Identify whole foods in the ingredient list instead of the particular nutrient. Dr. Ben Kim, a chiropractor and acupuncturist with his own radio show, says to look for foods on the list of ingredients that contain a certain vitamin, such as "acerola cherry powder," which contains vitamin C. If you can identify "vitamin C" in the ingredient list, Kim says you can almost guarantee that the vitamin is synthetic.

Step 4

Look for salt forms on the product label, a synthetic added to supplements for increasing the stability of the vitamin or mineral. Some of the salt forms to look for include acetate, bitartrate, chloride, gluconate, hydrochloride, nitrate and succinate.

Step 5

Learn how to read the product's label by looking for keywords that indicate the supplement is synthetic. Words that end in "ide" or "ate" indicate that the product contains salt forms, which are synthetics. 

For instance, if you see chloride, hydrochloride, acetate or nitrate on the list of ingredients, the manufacturer used synthetics for the product.

Additionally, the letters "dl" that appear before the name of an ingredient indicates the supplement is synthetic. As an example, look for "fish oils" when buying a vitamin A supplement. If the product's label states "palmitate," it is a synthetic vitamin A supplement.

Common Synthetic Vitamins to Avoid

• Vitamin A: Acetate and Palmitate
• Vitamin B1 (Thiamine): Thiamine Mononitrate, Thiamine Hydrochloride
• Vitamin B2 (Riboflavin): Riboflavin
• Pantothenic Acid: Calcium D-Pantothenate
• Vitamin B6 (Pyridoxine): Pyridoxine Hydrochloride
• Vitamin B12: Cobalamin
• PABA (Para-aminobenzoic Acid): Aminobenzoic Acid
• Folic Acid: Pteroylglutamic Acid
• Choline: Choline Chloride, Choline Bitartrate
• Biotin: d-Biotin
• Vitamin C (Ascorbic Acid): Ascorbic Acid
• Vitamin D: Irradiated Ergosteral, Calciferol
• Vitamin E: dl-alpha tocopherol, dl-alpha tocopherol acetate or succinate

NOTE: The “dl” form of any vitamin is synthetic.

Tips and Warnings

Talk to the pharmacist before purchasing a vitamin or mineral supplement. A pharmacist can identify a natural or synthetic vitamin supplement, and help you learn to identify them yourself. Let your pharmacist know if you are allergic to any foods or medications.

Never take a new vitamin supplement without talking to your doctor first.

Source Link: http://www.livestrong.com/article/383628-how-to-tell-if-a-vitamin-is-natural

The above list taken from: http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/natural-health/synthetic-vs-natural-vitamins/

This article was assembled from the two links above and published on Food Matters

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently released revisions to its green marketing guidelines which prohibit marketers from making sweeping green claims. Find out what the new guidelines mean for your business.

Commonly known as the Green Guides, the FTC guidelines regulate how marketers may promote the environmental benefits of their products and services.

The revised Green Guides now expressly prohibit marketers from making “general environmental benefit claims,” such as “green,” “eco-friendly” and “environmentally sound,” implying a product or service is good for the environment without making clear exactly why or how.

The FTC developed the Green Guides in response to growing demand from both mainstream consumers and the business sector for a more transparent approach to green messaging.

“The general public is getting tired and suspicious of meaningless green claims. But that doesn’t mean they’re not interested in sustainability. And many of those who do want sustainable products are becoming more sophisticated in their understanding of what that means. Offering accurate, substantiated data can help build a trusting relationship with these consumers, who might otherwise remain wary and cynical,” says Anne Michelsen of Green Ink Copywriting.

Michelsen recommends that companies that have built green messaging into their identities make sure to back up their claims with verifiable information. Read her review of the new Green Guides and how they will impact green marketing.

Concerned about the FTC Guidelines? Don’t just tell your customers you’re a green business – get certified. Learn how to get your Green Business Certification »

As a new Godmother, I have a responsibility to spoil my Godson rotten with lots of toys. I also feel responsible for protecting him from the toxins found in many children’s products. We’ve heard about lead in toys coming from China, but we hear less about PVC plastics, phthalates, and bisphenol-A, which are found in a huge number of toxic toys made right here in the USA.

Dave Harrison's daughter teethes on a wooden ring, which he carved for her. Photo credit: Dave Harrison.

The intrepid editors at Green America have written extensively about toxic toys, what the dangers are, and how to avoid them. I've pulled from past articles to give you a quick and easy run-down.

Toxic Toys: What To Look For

PVC and Phthalates

What they are: Polyvinyl chloride plastic, known as PVC or vinyl, is identifiable by a #3 or “V” symbol. Of particular concern for children’s health are vinyl toys such as teethers, “rubber duckies,” beach balls, and bath books. These are often made of a flexible vinyl that has been softened using “plasticizer” chemicals called phthalates.

Why they're dangerous: Studies have identified phthalates as a hormone disruptor. Phthalates may also cause liver and kidney lesions, a higher risk of certain cancers, and may exacerbate asthma and allergies in children.

How you can avoid them: Avoid PVC plastic: Unfortunately, most plastic toys don’t carry clear information about the type of plastic they’re made of, though some PVC toys may carry a #3 or the word “vinyl.” Instead of toys that contain vinyl/PVC, choose toys made of alternative materials, including FSC-certified wood or natural fabric.

Although plastics #1,2,4, and 5 don't contain these toxins, their safety is still questionable, and the editors at Green America wouldn't recommend them for kids still putting things in their mouths.

Bisphenol-A

What it is: Bisphenol-A (#7) is legally used to make transparent, hard, unbreakable plastic products, such as baby bottles and “sippy” cups, and CD jewel cases.

Photo credit: DrSam via Flickr

Why it's dangerous: Very small amounts of this chemical have been shown to cause serious reproductive damage in mice, especially when the exposure occurs in utero. Exposure may cause prostate cancer, breast cancer, female infertility, and obesity.

How you can avoid it: The Natural Resources Defense Council advises parents to avoid polycarbonate (#7) plastic. When in doubt about items you already own, call the manufacturer and ask. If you notice that a clear plastic bottle or cup has become worn, or that the clear plastic of a toy has become cloudy, that may be evidence of off-gassing bisphenol-A. Throw it out. Instead, choose baby bottles and spill-proof cups made of glass or metal.

Lead

What it is: Just because a toy is plastic-free, doesn't make it safe. You'll still want to watch out for lead paint. In the US, it is illegal for the paint to contain more than 0.06 percent concentration lead -- but some toys have been found to violate those regulations.

This lapel pin is green-themed, but don't be fooled. It contained excess levels of lead. Photo by US CPSC.

Why it's dangerous: When ingested, lead can cause nerve damage, learning and behavioral problems, reproductive damage, and irreversible brain damage. It can also increase the risk of cancer.

How you can avoid it: Avoid painted toys made before 1978, when lead paint was banned in toys, residential structures, and hospitals. Try to buy toys made in the US, Canada or the EU, where lead regulations are stronger. The Coalition to End Childhood Lead Poisoning advises parents to avoid fake painted pearls, including Mardi Gras beads, and cheap children’s jewelry of the type sold in vending machines or given away as party favors. A 2006 study by Ashland University researchers found that 70 percent of the 20 cheap toy jewelry samples they tested contained illegal levels of lead.

The Good Guys

As the season for buying lots of toys for my Godson gets underway, I’ve been perusing the National Green Pages to find him a safe teething toy. I compiled a list of great toy maker who have been certified by Green America at the gold level, and I'm sharing it with you! But first, here are two examples of what makes all of our member businesses so great when it comes to toys.

North Star Toys: Since 1979, Tim and Connie have been designing and making all of the toys they sell at North Star Toys. Every toy is nontoxic and safe for children and the environment. They use a food-grade mineral oil for the finish on each toy, and all paints are certified nontoxic. You can read our full article on North Star Toys here.

Hazelnut Kids: Hazelnut Kids creates sustainable toys free of toxins. "Besides the fact that we only carry “green” toys, we strive to make every step in the retail process as sustainable as possible," says Tracy Coe, owner of the company. You can read our full interview with Tracy here.

Green Toy Prize Drawing!

Comment below for a chance to win one of two prizes!

1. DIY Chewing Gum Kit from Glee Gum. The ingredients include sustainably harvested chicle, and GMO-free ingredients like Fair Trade certified sugar. Glee Gum is certified by Green America at the gold level.

2. Color-it-yourself schoolhouse made by the Imagination Box Co. and sold by Wild Dill, an online retailer that sells organic and Fair Trade toys, clothing, and bedding for children.

Congratulations to Mariana, the winner of last week's Green Your Holidays prize drawing. She won a Fair Trade gift basket from Higher Grounds Trading Co., featuring a bottle of Fair Trade olive oil, a bag of Fair Trade coffee, and a Theo Chocolate Fair Trade cherry and almond chocolate bar.

Finally, here is that list I promised you:

Terra Experience -- hand-woven, ethnic doll clothes that fit American Girl Dolls.

Naturally Playful -- fair trade and organic toys for tots and kids

Twig Living -- toys for ages 0 - 15, including games and arts & crafts.

Nature's Crib -- wooden baby rattles and teething rings

Eco Toy Town -- non-toxic teethers, toys, board games, and arts & crafts

Global Goods Partners -- fair trade knitted toys, booties and purses

Global Green Pals -- environmental-themed dolls like "Carbon-Offset Chet" and "Clean Air Kate"

Just Goods -- wooden toys and blocks

Maple Landmark Woodcraft -- wooden toys, games and gifts made in the USA

Organic Baby Gift Boutique -- costumes, art supplies, and organic toys

Organic Keiki -- organic and non-toxic toys

Peapods -- toys for babies and kids

Sarah's Silks -- silk toys for babies and kids

Taraluna -- fair trade and organic toys for kids. Includes organic teething toys for little ones, and games for older kids.

Thousands of Negative Posts Result in General Mills Removing App Encouraging People to Share What Cheerios Means to Them.

December 6, 2012//Washington DC// The GMO Inside campaign announced today that thousands of concerned consumers have flooded Cheerios’ Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/Cheerios)  distressed about  genetically engineered ingredients in Cheerios and outraged at General Mills contributing over $1.1 million to “No on 37” in California, the narrowly defeated ballot initiative that would have required the labeling of foods with genetically engineered ingredients. Since November 29, the GMO Inside Campaign has been encouraging visitors to its Facebook page (www.facebook.com/GmoInside) to post comment on Cheerios’ Facebook page regarding GMOs. The outpouring of comments demonstrates that the drive to label GMOs that led millions of people to support Prop. 37 in California is growing throughout the U.S.

Visitors to Cheerios’ Facebook page also used a Cheerios app that allowed users to provide comment on what Cheerios means to them (and which then posted the comments in Cheerios’ trademark font) to call out genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Cheerios. In response, General Mills removed the app from its Facebook page.

“The sheer volume of comments on Cheerios’ Facebook page raising concerns around genetically engineered ingredients is incredibly inspiring,” stated Alisa Gravitz, CEO and president of Green America. “It is also amazing to see the creativity that visitors to Cheerios’ Facebook page use to call out Cheerios on using their customers as a science experiment for GMO consumption. Cheerios is a cereal that is frequently fed to children, and many of the comments are from concerned parents who are worried about the fact that they have been feeding a cereal with genetically engineered ingredients to their children.”

Visitors to the Cheerios Facebook page used the now-discontinued app to post comments such as “Caution GMOs,” “Cheerigmos,” and “We are not lab rats.”  While General Mills has removed the app and the posts generated by it from their Facebook page, examples are preserved at the Cheeseslave website (http://www.cheeseslave.com/cheerios-gmo-backlash-facebook-campaign-fail/) and the Happy Place website (http://www.happyplace.com/user-post/2233/cheerios-gmo-pr-facebook-fail).

General Mills has left thousands of comments critical of Cheerios and GMOs on its Facebook page.  Many comments are from parents who are concerned about the fact that they have been feeding Cheerios to their children (“So sorry that the food my kids loved as toddlers is one I can't support anymore. I can't believe that General Mills has the well-being of its customers in mind when it contributes to movement against labeling of GMOs.”) However, General Mills has not posted to the Cheerios’ Facebook page in over a week (from 11/29 - 12/5), deviating from its norm of posting every two days.

"It appears that General Mills is trying to make sure its fans do not come to the Cheerios Facebook page and see an outpouring of concern about the product," said Todd Larsen, Green America Corporate Responsibility Programs Director.  "At GMO Inside’s Facebook page, people can see which ingredients in Cheerios and other products are likely to be genetically modified. Cheerios needs to label or remove the GMO ingredients. Consumers have a right to know."

ABOUT GMO INSIDE

GMO Inside is a campaign dedicated to helping all Americans know which foods have GMOs inside, and the non-GMO 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 http://www.gmoinside.org  , and take part in the GMO Inside community on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/GmoInside) and Twitter (https://twitter.com/GMOInside).

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. www.GreenAmerica.org

MEDIA CONTACT: Leslie Maloy, lmaloy@hastingsgroup.com or (703) 276-3256. Alisa Gravitz, alisagravitz@greenamerica.org or 202-872-5311.

It’s that magical time of the year again—but is the tradition of giving gifts at odds with your feelings about consumerism? Do you worry about the environmental impact of buying a bunch of new things that might not really be used?  Do you want a fat wallet, happy friends, and zero carbon-guilt? Of course you do!

5 tips for sustainable shopping and eco-friendly gift-giving

1. Giving & Receiving with Freecycle

Family and gifts can combine to make your home feel a little cluttered over the holidays. Right now is the time to take a preemptive strike at mess by paring down the stuff you already own.

Joining a Freecycle network is a great way to send your unwanted belongings on to a loving home. After signing up for your local Freecycle listserv, you’ll be able to send out notices about the items you want to give to other members, allowing them the opportunity to take that stuff off your hands.

Once you’ve given to the community a little, feel free to claim other items up for grabs. “Shopping” for holiday gifts on Freecycle can have an incredibly low carbon footprint, save you money, and help you give back to your community.

2. Thrift Store Shopping!

Buying something secondhand is much more environmentally friendly than buying it new. The fact that it’s easier on your wallet is just an added bonus. In the last issue of the Green American magazine, member Nancy Madsen had this to say about thrift store shopping:

“My large family didn’t want to stop exchanging gifts, but we didn’t want Christmas to break the bank, either—and we realized we were really losing the true Christmas spirit with all the stress of shopping. Probably 15 or 20 years ago, we decided to limit the amount spent to $5 per person and to encourage creativity. Many of us started resale shopping at places like Goodwill—or Value Village thrift stores, which support local nonprofits by paying them to collect used items.

"My family now spends one day shopping together in November, and we have lots of fun doing it. It has become a tradition that we all look forward to, and it has caused us to become resale shopping junkies. Now we buy most of our clothes at the resale shops as well. My sister and I have had numerous compliments on our outfits, and we often say Value Village is our clothing designer!"

3. Homemade Food & Body Care

Tiz the season for sneezin'—check out these home-made decongestant shower disks. Click on the image for a how-to.

Are you shopping for someone who seems to have everything they need, is moving to a smaller house, or otherwise cutting down on their belongings? Homemade food can be a great gift for these people.

Another option is homemade personal body care. Body care is often chock full of carcinogens and other toxins -- check out our article on poisons in conventional cosmetics and a few tips for protecting yourself.

Your homemade body care gifts will be safe for your loved ones and have a wonderful, personal touch. Plus, it will be used up, which is great for people who don't want "more stuff."

4. Homemade Gifts from Recycled Materials

You can transform recycled materials into unique gifts with super-low carbon footprints.

• A hollowed out book can be a thoughtful gift for a younger kid wanting a place to hide secret treasures.
• Have some old jewelry and wine-corks? Check out this tutorial for making gorgeous tree ornaments (I especially love the pictures).
• Cut out colorful little squares of used wrapping paper and holiday cards and write a few dozen things you appreciate about your loved one. Place the notes in a mason jar and decorate with recycled ribbon or a piece of colorful cloth. More on that here.

5. Buying New? Buy Green! (Also Win Some Gorgeous Soaps.) If you’re like me and think you’ll end up buying one or two gifts new this year, consider buying from certified green businesses. You’ll be supporting the green economy, which includes Fair Trade, fair wages, and green practices from recycling to sustainable sourcing. Check out businesses in our National Green Pages® holiday guide.

If you want to go the extra mile, buy from businesses certified by Green America at the gold level. This certification means that, according to our screening process, they are "operating on the highest level of social and environmental responsibility in the way they source, manufacture, and market their products and run their offices and factories." You can read more about it here.

Simmons Natural Body Care is one business we’ve certified at the highest level—gold. Check out these gorgeous organic rainbow soaps. They’ve donated a basket of these to us to give away to one of you.

All you have to do to enter to win is tweet about this article using the following link: http://bit.ly/Y71Y3l . If you don’t have a twitter account, just tell us about your own DIY gift traditions in the comments below, and we’ll enter you to win.

There are so many great ideas out there for greening your holidays. The most environmentally friendly ways are Freecycling, buying second hand or making gifts from recycled materials. If you're going to buy something new, just remember that there are some wonderful green business owners who have sustainability ingrained into every level of their business.

Your money has an impact on the world after you spend it—the holiday season is a great time to make sure the impact is a positive one.

Congratulations to last week's winner, Heather! Please email editors (at) greenamerica (dot) org to claim your Artisan Tea Blending Kit from Numi Tea.

Gain key insights for green marketing in this webinar from expert Jacquie Ottman, who shares strategies for green businesses from her award-winning book, The New Rules of Green Marketing.

Jacquie Ottman, a New York city-based expert on green marketing and advisor to Fortune 500 and entrepreneurial companies and several U.S. government eco-labels, is a sought-after speaker around the globe.

In this interactive webinar, Jacquie shares stories and strategies from her award-winning book, The New Rules of Green Marketing: Strategies, Tools and Inspiration for Sustainable Branding (Berrett-Koehler, 2011). The book emphasizes the need to take a lifecycle approach to developing and marketing greener products and packages in order to best address consumer needs, manage for sustainability and reduce the risks of greenwash.

Her book has been called “the new green marketing Bible" and “the end-all and be-all of green marketing.”  It was named by Cambridge University (UK) as a Top 40 Sustainability Book.

Buy the book today with this special offer for green businesses: Get 35% off. Click here to buy the book at a special 35% discount.

Find out more about Jacquie’s book and work at http://www.greenmarketing.com.

{module New Rules of Green Marketing Webinar}

WASHINGTON, DC -- Whole Foods Market (NYSE: WFM) locations around the country will be removing one of  Hershey’s high end products-- Scharffen Berger chocolate-- from  shelves across the country by the end of the year due to Hershey’s failure to assure that the cocoa is sourced without the use of forced child labor.

Whole Foods’ decision to remove Scharffen Berger comes in response to more than 15,000 customers demanding that the natural foods grocer hold Hershey accountable for exploiting children for profit.  Whole Foods’ decision follows more than 40 natural food retailers and coops publicly expressing concern about carrying Scharffen Berger and Dagoba products as a consequence of the giant chocolate maker’s refusal to address child labor in its supply chain. 

In a letter to the Raise the Bar Hershey coalition, Whole Foods stated:  “We do not take the concern over child labor or slave labor lightly, and we are currently in ongoing conversations with Hershey’s about its existing social accountability programs …  Whole Foods Market is removing Scharffen Berger chocolate from our shelves pending receiving further information from Hershey’s.”

“We thank Whole Foods for taking the important step of dropping Hershey’s Scharffen Berger chocolates,” said Alisa Gravitz, President and CEO of Green America. “The decision to cut Scharffen Berger shows that Whole Foods knows Hershey’s isn’t committed to eliminating child labor from their products.” 
 
However, the Raise the Bar Hershey campaign is disappointed that Whole Foods will continue to offer Dagoba products.

“Now, Whole Foods needs to drop Dagoba bars to strengthen the message that none of their products will be on Whole Foods’ shelves as long as Hershey is earning profits at the expense of child laborers,” says Kirsten Moller, co-founder of Global Exchange. Even if Dagoba is Rainforest Alliance certified, the coalition argues that Hershey’s overall lack of commitment to ethical sourcing means they should be shut out of high end, certified chocolate sales until they change their approach to cocoa overall. 

According to a U.S. government-funded study, over 1.8 million children work in West Africa’s cocoa industry. Many of these children are exposed to dangerous working conditions and some are even trafficked and sold off to perform grueling labor. Hershey, and other major chocolate companies, source the majority of their cocoa from West Africa. Several major chocolate makers, including Mars and Ferrero, have agreed to make a major commitment to sourcing ethical chocolate but Hershey’s – the maker of Dagoba and Scharffen Berger - refuses to budge.  

A coalition of groups including the Teamsters, Organic Consumer’s Association, Green America, International Labor Rights Forum, Global Exchange and other supporters are urging Whole Foods to take a stand on principal to refuse to sell any of Hershey’s  individual products until the chocolate giant makes a major commitment to sourcing ethical cocoa.

 “Socially conscious consumers shouldn’t be surprised that Whole Foods is willing to sell products from suppliers that are tainted by child labor,” said Judy Gearhart, Executive Director of the International Labor Rights Forum. “More than once, Whole Foods has turned a blind eye to the rogue conduct of its suppliers. For example, right now Whole Foods is refusing to hold its primary supplier UNFI, accountable for workers’ rights violations at its distribution center in Seattle.”

######

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 and individuals to solve today's social and environmental problems. www.GreenAmerica.org

GLOBAL EXCHANGE is a membership-based international human rights organization dedicated to promoting social, economic and environmental justice around the world. www.GlobalExchange.org

INTERNATIONAL LABOR RIGHTS FORUM is an advocacy organization dedicated to achieving just and humane treatment for workers worldwide. www.LaborRights.org 

A guide to standards and certifications available to businesses and products.

Green America’s Green Business Certification
Green America is dedicated to harnessing the economic power of consumers, investors and businesses to promote social justice and environmental sustainability. Businesses displaying the Green America Seal have successfully completed our green business certification process.

More Standards and Certifications

Bird Friendly
A certification created by the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center (SMBC). Bird Friendly standards are the strictest of the third-party environmental standards.

Certified Biodegradable
A certification assessment formatted to confirm that chemicals are not entering the environment at an alarming rate at which it becomes harmful. Products are also tested to verify if they can degrade safely.

Certified Humane Raised and Handled
A certification and labeling program that is “the only animal welfare label requiring the humane treatment of farm animals from birth through slaughter”. One of several that address animal welfare in meat and dairy production.

Certified Organic
USDA’s National organic Program regulates the standards for any farm, wild crop harvesting, or handling operations that wants to sell an agricultural product as organically produced.

Certified Vegan
A certification process in which an individual product may represent the logo if it does not contain animal products or byproducts and has not been tested on animals.

Cruelty Free
An international standards and certification program to end animal testing for cosmetic, personal care and household cleaning products. Endorses companies that meet the criteria of the Humane Standards.

Dolphin Safe
A certification that is part of the Tuna Tracking & Verification Program (US Department of Commerce) in which one of the requirements are tuna canners must submit a report of all tuna received at their facility in each month.

Fairtrade International
25 organizations working to secure a better deal for producers through establishment of international fair trade standards and support for fair trade producers.

Fair Trade USA
Certifier of Fair Trade products in the US.

Fair Trade Federation
The trade association for North American companies fully committed to supporting artisans in developing countries through the practice of fair trade. Focus on hand crafted items and textiles/ apparel.

Food Alliance
Operates a voluntary certification program based on standards that define sustainable agricultural practices and also includes auditing services.

Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)
The leading certifier for wood, paper and packing products globally. FSC coordinates the development of forest management standards throughout the different regions of the U.S. and the consumption of goods from well managed forests. Includes third party auditing against their standards.

Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS)
Globally recognized as the leading processing standard for textiles made from organic fibers. It defines high level environmental criteria on the entire supply chain for organic textiles and requires compliance with social criteria.

GreenGuard
GreenGuard Certification enforces established standards on products for low emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs).

GreenSeal
Develops sustainability standards for products, services and companies and offers third-party certification. Also uses science-based programs to promote a more sustainable world.

IMO Fair for Life
A third party fair trade certification program in agricultural, manufacturing, and trading operations.

International Labour Organization
The international organization responsible for developing and overseeing international labor standards. It is the only ‘tripartite’ United Nations agency that brings together representatives of governments, employers and workers to jointly shape policies and programs promoting Decent Work For All.

ISO 14000
Developed by the International Organization for Standardization, the world’s largest developer and publisher of international standards, this is a series of international standards on environmental management. It provides a framework for a holistic, strategic approach to an organization’s environmental policy, plans and actions.

Leaping Bunny
This program administers a cruelty-free standard and provides assurance that no new animal testing is used in any phase of product development by the company and its associates. The standard and certification applies to bodycare and household cleaning products.

Marine Stewardship Council
The MSC has developed standards for sustainable fishing and seafood traceability. It is the world’s leading certification program for sustainable wild-capture seafood.

NutriClean
The Scientific Certification Systems’ (SCS) Pesticide Residue Free Certification assures that the produce contains no pesticide residues in final product. Does not comment on the use of pesticides and herbicides in growing or processing.

Oeko-Tex
Independent testing and certification system for textiles from all stages of production; fiber, yarn, fabric, apparel and  accessories. Includes certification of environmentally friendly production facilities according to their standards and products are tested for harmful substances.

Rainforest Alliance
Works to conserve biodiversity and ensure sustainable livelihoods by transforming land-use practices, business practices, and consumer behavior. Farms are certified using the criteria of the Sustainable Agriculture Network.

SA8000
An auditable certification standard based on international workplace norms of the ILO conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Salmon Safe
The certification of farms that follow healthy practices where the population of Pacific Salmon may thrive.

World Fair Trade Organization
A global network that advocates for the interests of producers, especially small farmers and artisans, and enables them to improve their livelihoods and communities through fair trade.

Opportunities to earn funding for your green business.

Green America’s People and Planet Award

These awards are for innovative green businesses that work on behalf of people and planet. Each quarter has a different theme and invites nominations from the public.

Thanks to a generous Green America donor, the People & Planet Award provides three $5,000 prizes each quarter to deserving small businesses to advance their green principles.

Learn about past winners in clean energy and serving local communities.

Green Festival Ford Community Green Grant

Ford sponsors these awards at every Green Festival that support local, actionable, innovative ideas to build sustainability in each Green Festival city's community. It's an opportunity to earn $5,000 to impact your community.

The Ford Community Green Grant encourages local non-profit organizations and community leaders to submit their sustainable, forward-thinking ideas to improve the environment or quality of life in their local community. Ford and Green Festivals select a group of finalists to present at the Ford Pavilion at each Green Festival. Attendees vote for their favorite project proposal, and the winner is announced on the final afternoon of the festival. We'll update when application dates are available for this year's festivals. See last year's Green Grant application.

More Award Opportunities

Intuit’s Love a Local Business - The competition for the $5,000 grants for small busiess lets fans, including customers, vendors, employees, and the community, determine who deserves some love.

Amber Grants – For assisting women who are trying to start small businesses, home-based or online. The grants are small, usually $500 to $1000.

Local Opportunities: Typically there are more grant programs for small businesses at the local level, especially with the increased focus on local sourcing. Review websites for state government, local government, economic development organizations, private corporations and foundations in your area or give them a call. Also listen to the webinar below from Association of Enterprise Opportunity – Green is also the Color of Money – to learn about other opportunities. Local SCORE offices may be familiar with programs in your area and the types of businesses for which these programs are best suited. (SCORE is a nonprofit association dedicated to helping small businesses get off the ground, grow, and achieve their goals through education and mentorship.)

Download this webinar from AEO:

 Download the session audio »

Download the presentation:
Part I »
 Part II »

Check out more webinars from AEO »

How TS Designs supports their community with a local supply chain.

By TS Designs

TS Designs (TSD) is a screenprinter located in Burlington, NC. We were founded in 1977 as a small screenprinting shop. By the late 80s and early 90s, TSD had over 100 employees and was printing apparel for companies like Tommy, Nike, Polo, Gap, etc. However, after the passage of NAFTA, that business began moving to Mexico (and later, overseas). Owners Tom Sineath and Eric Henry decided to change TS Designs’ business model to Triple Bottom Line – a model that considers economic prosperity, social justice, and environmental stewardship as three equal considerations. Since then, our product offerings – and customers – have changed dramatically in a more sustainable direction.

Building Community Development into the Program

Cotton of the Carolinas began as the answer to a growing problem. Our flagship product was a certified organic cotton t-shirt made in America, but we found that more and more of that cotton was being shipped in from overseas. North Carolina is the United States’ third largest grower of conventional cotton, and over half of that cotton is shipped offshore to be turned into products. So while a valuable commodity grown in our home state was sent outside the country, we were importing a similar product.

We decided that didn’t make much sense. So we set out to build an apparel supply chain that built a product, from dirt-to-shirt, right here in North Carolina. We didn’t create a new company to handle the Cotton of the Carolinas project.  Rather, we researched supplier options and started making calls. Since we already had a close working relationship with our knit, finish and cut/sew providers, all we had to do was find the farmer/ginner and spinner. Of course, handling our own production from start to finish had a pretty big learning curve, but we’re constantly adjusting how we manage the whole supply chain.

Since existing infrastructure already existed to do pretty much everything we wanted, the only adjustment any of the vendors had to make was to ensure that lot numbers were present to track the cotton as it moved through the process. That was only really a concern at the spinner, as most of the time spinners combine cotton from several locales to create a more consistent product from year to year. Our current spinner, Hill Spinning, has done a great job cleaning equipment between lay downs of our fiber so we know that only our farmer’s cotton is present in our yarn.

Our labor standard at the moment is just that the vendors be based in North Carolina and employ residents. As we continue to grow the program, we’d like to get more involved in how our suppliers do business, but for the moment (and given what small cookies we are to some of our vendors), we’re happy to know that the workers are treated according to U.S. labor standards (which are tremendously better than overseas).

Successes and Challenges

Cotton of the Carolinas is now in its fourth year.  The product focuses on three main objectives:

1. Support jobs here in our home state. Currently the suppliers of Cotton of the Carolinas employ over 700 North Carolineans.
2. Create a completely transparent supply chain. Each shirt contains a tracking code in the label that corresponds to a map on cottonofthecarolinas.com. That map shows pictures, addresses, and contact information for every supply that is involved in making the wearer’s shirt.
3. Reduce the transportation footprint of each shirt – because our supply chain is so local, each shirt travels fewer than 750 miles from field to printed product. A typical t-shirt can travel over 17,000 miles to accomplish the same.

We’ve seen demand increase every year of the program, and look forward to offering more style options.

As for challenges, we’ve certainly had our share. We commit to a certain amount of cotton in the fall of every year, and that cotton has to go through the entire supply chain until shirts exist to be printed. As a result, forecasting is essential, and keeping track of the cotton at each stage of the process can be difficult, especially since we spin yarn in small amounts at a time to avoid holding too much inventory.

Timelines for creating a custom shirt can be a challenge as well. Most screenprinters buy products from a distributor that holds shirts on a shelf. Conversely, moving from yarn to fabric can take 2 months, and from fabric to cut/sewn shirt another month after that. Making sure we’re on top of immediate needs is important, and we occasionally find ourselves in tight inventory situations.

Fortunately, we’re improving our systems for handling and tracking production. Every harvest season brings a new learning experience, and if there’s one thing we’re good at, it’s adapting and evolving to better manage complexity in how we operate.

Three examples include :

1. Scaling down our business after the large volume clients left after NAFTA really forced us into being more adaptable and light on our feet. One of our biggest assets in terms of our adaptability is our production floor staff.  Pretty much everyone out there can fulfill 3 or more roles. Perhaps the best example is Doug Murphy – he can load, unload, and inspect on a press, single-handedly manages our ink lab (both mixing and development), helps develop new dye colors (which is different from ink development), can work at the dye house as a backup, inspect after dye, and has a chemistry background so he helps me with technology development projects related to our REHANCE printing technology. Back in the heyday of TSD, each of those jobs would be done by an individual person. And that’s just one guy. We have an enormous amount of human capital in production, and that resource translates well into handling complexity in orders.
2. We’ve also developed our own internal production system to handle our orders. Since it’s tailored to our business, we can manage complex details of our custom orders with far greater efficiency and, more important, accuracy, than we could a few years ago.When you combine our superior logistical systems and excellent people, we’re able to rapidly manage development projects to move us forward.
3. Another example is the re-formulation of our REHANCE chemistry.  A few years ago, the chemical company responsible for the development and supply of our REHANCE ink was purchased by a much larger competitor. After a year or two, they started making it clear they weren’t interested in supplying such a specialized product to one (comparatively) small customer, so we had to scramble for alternatives. We were able to not only completely re-formulate REHANCE so that we could source all the component materials and mix the ink ourselves, we also lowered the cost, improved the environmental footprint, and improved its effectiveness. Entirely in-house.

Again, developments like this are possible for us because we have people with the capacity to learn about new processes and to apply them to our business, and because of our ability to manage these involved projects without them getting lost on the back-burner. Right now we’re at varying stages of four different research projects related to REHANCE and garment-dyeing with the goal of further improving our dye color consistency, lowering our costs, and offering new, even more environmentally-friendly options.

Principal Learnings and Tips

When a typical screenprinter purchases a t-shirt, it’s from a distributor that stocks the product on the shelf. That printer doesn’t have to get involved in purchasing ginned cotton, contracting to have it spun, knit, finished, cut, and sewn, nor with the costing of loss-in-process, financing, turn times, and inventory. Unfortunately, the product we really wanted – one that was grown and made in North Carolina with a transparent supply chain – didn’t exist, so we decided to re-invent the wheel.

The greatest lesson we learned is that if you’re developing a new product or service that requires that you learn processes outside your normal core competencies, make sure you have a quick-learning, well-organized project manager who will manage the details of getting up and running. Without a central conduit through which all project information flows, it’s easy to run into delays, mistakes or worse.

The current project manager (Eric Michel) started as an intern in 2005 and began fixing problems where he saw them. Eventually Eric Henry found he could drop ideas with this individual and he would make them happen. Eventually he started coming up with the ideas himself (like developing our production system).

The biggest takeaway from the experience is that Eric Michel didn’t know anything about screenrpinting or textiles when he started.  He didn’t even know what TS Designs did – he was just looking for a summer job. More importantly, he was the type of person who wants to learn everything he can about what he’s working on, and that translated into a good match for what he is doing – managing an array of projects.

So if you’re looking for a person to move you forward with new projects, you don’t necessarily need someone with experience in what you do. In fact, sometimes it’s best to find someone who specifically doesn’t know anything about what you do. If you can find someone who’s sharp, they can bring new eyes to old problems (or identify problems you’ve never even recognized) and might develop solutions you never would’ve thought of. The capacity and inclination to learn is more important than established knowledge.