The Organic & Non-GMO Report

2 • T H E O R G A N I C & N O N - G M O R E P O R T

T H E O R G A N I C & N O N - G M O R E P O R T • 3


Editor’s NoteGMO bans are victories fordemocracy

It’s been a busy season for GMO bans in theUS and around the world.

Jackson and Josephine counties in Ore-gon both passed bans on plantings of genet-ically modified crops in their counties.Jackson’s initiative passed by a 2-1 margin.

This despite more than $1 million spent by opponents—includingMonsanto and other biotech companies—to defeat it.

Last fall, the Oregon legislature passed a law that would pre-empt any county GMO-free ordinances. Jackson’s initiative wasexempted because it had been launched prior to the law’s passage.But Josephine County may face a court fight to make their banlegal since theirs was launched after the law was passed.

In 2005, the Iowa legislature passed a similar law to block city orcounty GMO-free ordinances, such as those passed in Oregon. Iremember going to the Iowa statehouse to lobby against the bill,which stated that “seed” should be regulated at the state level andwould preempt any local city or county “seed” law. Of course, the800-pound gorilla in the room that no one wanted to talk about—except the bill’s opponents—was GMO seed.

These so-called “seed preemption” bills, which passed in about15 other states, are the biotech industry’s attempt to squash localcontrol over GMOs.

Similar to Vermont’s recent passing of a GMO labeling law, theGMO bans in Oregon are great examples of democracy workingwith the interests of local communities winning over the interestsof multi-national corporations.

With the success of the Oregon GMO bans, we could see moresuch GMO-free initiatives being launched nationwide.

In fact, Humboldt County California has gathered the requirednumber of signatures to put a similar GMO-free initiative on theballot for November’s election.

Globally, Italy and France recently banned GM crops, andChina and Russia, not bastions of democracy, are moving to placebans on GM foods.

THE ORGANIC & NON-GMO REPORTpublished 10 times per yearby Evergreen Publishing, Inc.ISSN: 1940-1094

© 2013 Evergreen Publishing, Inc.

StaffEDITOR/PUBLISHER: Ken RoseboroASSOCIATE EDITOR: Arianne PfoutzSALES AND MARKETING:

Carol WeisswasserGRAPHIC DESIGN: Carolyn BoyceOFFICE MANAGER: Kim LaVoiePRINTING: J&A Printing

Subscription Information$120/year—businesses$65/year—farmers, non-profit groups $45/year—electronic version only

Advertising Information

Call 1-800-854-0586 or 1-641-209-3426Email: [email protected]

The Organic & Non-GMO Report

PO Box 436Fairfield, IA 52556 USA1-800-854-0586 • 1-641-209-3426Fax: 1-641-209-3428Email: [email protected]: www.non-gmoreport.com

Printed on recycled paper

Table of ContentsNon-GMO Canola . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Non-GMO canola offers niche to Southeastern family farmersPCC receives Non-GMO Project Verification for its canola oil and mealNon-GMO Ingredients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Non-GMO vitamin C: new choices availableRoquette America and World Food Processing announce pea protein partnership

Ingredion releases new fact sheet on non-GMO ingredientsSuntava’s purple corn ingredients now Non-GMO Project VerifiedSunflower oil becomes preferred choice for snack makersADM to expand production of non-GMO lecithinNon-GMO Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Successfully navigating non-GMO verification program complianceNon-GMO News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14High Mowing Organic Seed to launch first full line of Non-GMO Project Verified organic vegetable seeds

Supermarket chain hopes to draw mainstream consumers with non-GMO products

Chipotle to be GMO-free by end of 2014Non-GMO soybeans have a bigger place in 2014Humboldt County submits ordinance to ban GMOsWhole Foods honors organic and non-GMO suppliersBrazilian non-GMO supplies will meet European market needsGMO Labeling News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17“Overwhelming grassroots pressure” made GMO labeling happen in Vermont

California GMO labeling bill passes Senate committeesNew York GM labeling bill passes committeeOregon GMO labeling ballot initiative moves aheadNon-GMO Plant Breeding . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Genetic engineer becomes organic cotton breederOrganic News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Sparks fly at National Organic Standards Board meetingUS organic sales top $35 billion Eating organic food dramatically lowers pesticide intakeReversing climate change achievable by farming organicallySurvey finds 84% of Americans buy organic foodsGMO News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Oregon counties ban plantings of GM cropsGM crops in global declineEPA set to approve increased use of toxic 2,4-D on Dow’s “Agent Orange” GM crops

GMO golden rice falls at first hurdleInternational News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Chinese army bans GMO grains and oils from supply stationsFrance and Italy ban GM corn cultivationRussian lawmakers want to impose criminal liability for GMO-related problemsThe “Corn Zone” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Calendar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27


Ken Roseboro

Editor


NON-GMO CANOLA

Non-GMO canola offers niche forSoutheastern family farmersB Y A R I ANNE P FOUTZ

Awell-conceived, solidly executed businessventure is flourishing in the southeasternUS—bringing profits to 300 farmers

throughout Georgia, Alabama, Kentucky,South Carolina, Florida, and four other states.Its premier product—Solio Family brand non-GMO canola oil—is the first regionally pro-duced non-GMO and all-natural canola oilavailable at Whole Foods Markets.

But the booming agricultur-al activity generated byAgStrong LLC, of Bowersville,GA, is much more than an eco-nomic development opportuni-ty. For this third-generationentrepreneurial farming family,growing, processing, packagingand selling non-GMO canolaand sunflower oils is a vehiclefor a much larger vision: creat-ing robust, small family farmsso many more people can liveout the “agrarian dream.”

The Davis cousins, Robertand Mallory, who formedAgStrong didn’t start out withcanola in mind. Born andraised in Brazil by missionarieswho fostered farming projectsfor rural peasants,President/CEO Robert B.Davis earned an agriculturalengineering degree from Uni-versity of Georgia. After a stintas a professional engineerdesigning and building agricul-tural plants, he returned toGeorgia to start his family.

In 2001, after unsuccessfultrials with sweet sorghum, theyinvestigated canola. Canola hadbeen grown commercially inGeorgia, Alabama, South Car-olina and northern Floridafrom the late 1980s through2000, with a peak production ofabout 25,000 acres. But com-mercial production stoppedduring the early 2000s with theloss of markets.

Why non-GMO canola?Canola (Brassica family), not tra-ditionally a southern crop, is anattractive commodity. It has thelowest saturated fat of any majorvegetable oil, with a favorablemix of mono- and polyunsatu-rated fats. It’s also an excellentprotein meal for animals.

“We found that canola as awinter crop has extremely goodyields in the Southeast,” Robertsaid. “The climate is mildenough. Previous farmers did-n’t have a market for it, nor didthey have the right seed—thisseed we use, specifically a win-ter type, is well adapted to theregion.”

Winter oilseed crops likecanola complement existingwinter crops in the southeastand can be double-cropped,improving production of thefollowing summer’s crops.

The company committed tonon-GMO canola from thebeginning. “Non-GMO canoladoesn’t sacrifice yield and pro-vides the necessity for croprotation,” said Robert. “Whenwe started, we didn’t see itbecoming a high-demand item.But as acreage began to grow itmade sense agronomically tofocus on non-GMO, to coin-cide with a growing interna-tional market.”

Around 35,000 acres arenow grown in the Southeast bymore than 300 farmers.

Most of those farmers grownon-GMO canola, and a smallnumber grow organic. ButDavis said AgStrong aims toincrease the number of organic

canola growers, and they areencouraging new farmers thatjoin the project to grow organic.

Farmer incubator proj-ectTo launch the first pilot projectin 2006, Davis recruited farm-ers interested in growing inno-vative crops and contractedoilseed production acres. Toensure a strong local andregional market for a valueadded crop, the cousins negoti-ated seed oil and meal sales.“We wanted a low-risk, low-capital way for family farmersto produce non-GMO grainsin northeast Georgia—inde-pendently, at a local processingplant. And we wanted them toshare the dividends by co-own-ing the plant,” Robert said.

The strategy: Build regionalfacilities for processing winterand summer oilseeds as soon asacreage warranted it. When alarger plant was needed, farm-ers and friends joined in invest-ing in the Hart AgStrongexpeller-pressed refining facili-ty built in Bowersville in 2009.

The family built their firstcertified organic facility them-selves, from design to weldingto engineering. It containsstorage for 500,000 bushels,

Fields of non-GMO canola are becoming a morecommon sight in the South.

Non-GMO Project Ver-ified Solio canola oil

CONTINUED ON PAGE 8 �



Pacific Coast Canola (PCC) recentlyreceived Non-GMO Project Verificationfor its canola oil and meal products

The newly built PacificCoast Canola (PCC) facilityin Warden, Washington isdesigned to crush more than1,000 metric tons (MT) ofCanola seed per day or about350,000 MT annually, pro-ducing over 300,000,000pounds of canola oil and220,000 tons of canola mealper year. The facility enteredinto commercial productiontowards the end of 2013.

PCC is the largest com-

mercial-scale expeller-presscanola facility in the US toproduce non-GMO canola oiland non-GMO canola meal.PCC has also received OUKosher certification andFSSC 22000 (GFSI) certifica-tion.

“Canola oil is a healthy andversatile cooking oil for ourincreasingly health consciouspopulation,” said Matt Upmey-er, chief operating officer ofPacific Coast Canola. “PCC is

well positioned to supply foodcompanies and livestock pro-ducers with high quality Non-GMO Project Verified canolaoil and Non-GMO ProjectVerified canola meal. This isalso a great opportunity forlocal growers to receive premi-ums when they plant this spe-cialty non-GMO canola seed.”

“Our expeller-pressedproducts include non-GMOcanola oil, non-GMO higholeic (Omega-9) canola oiland non-GMO canola meal,”said Bruce McTavish, VP ofSales at Pacific Coast Canola.“Non-GMO canola meal isan excellent dual protein and

energy feed product for live-stock producers.” �

s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s

with a crushing and refiningcapacity of 50 tons/day. In2010, Davis moved the compa-ny headquarters to Bowersvilleand set up a homestead farm.Now many families are affectedby AgStrong’s presence.

“The small scale was inten-tional,” said Davis. “To remainfaithful to our vision of region-al supply and value-added pro-cessing.”

“The most profitable crop

we grow in our rotation wasn’teven in the picture untilAgStrong came along,” noted alocal farmer.

Diversified production

“Family farmers have beendoing well for a couple ofyears now,” Robert said. “Inthe Southeast, we have strongseparate pockets of agricul-ture. From a sustainable stand-point, it’s very diversified.”

A new 23,000 square footprocessing facility in Trenton,KY is now under construction.

The Solio Family brandwas born when a representa-tive from Whole Foodsexpressed interest in thecanola; the natural foods chainwas looking for an oil to usein-house in its deli.

“Basically it’s a partnershipof local family farmers produc-ing non-GMO canola from

100% non-GMO seed, usingexpeller pressed processing,”Robert said.

Non-GMO Project Verifi-cation was achieved last year.Whole Foods presentedAgStrong with an OutstandingInnovation award in 2012.

“We want to preserve theAmerican tradition of livingfrom the land and providingpeople with fresh, healthyfood,” Robert said. �

NON-GMO CANOLA • F R O M P A G E 6

PCC receives Non-GMO Project Verificationfor its canola oil and meal Largest commercial-scale producer of non-GMO canola oil and meal in the US

Pacific Coast Canola’s new non-GMO canola processing facility in Warden, Washington

meet the fast growing NorthAmerican consumer and cus-tomer demand for pea protein.

“Our partnership withWorld Food Processingallows Roquette America togive the US market a localsupply of pea protein iso-lates,” said Dominique Taret,CEO of Roquette America.

World Food Processinghas excellent capabilities andtechnologies that result iningredients that are pure,secure, and fully traceable.“Food traceability is a grow-ing concern of consumers.Our non-GMO and organicclosed-loop, vertically inte-grated model allows us com-plete control from seed to

plate,” said Jerry Lorenzen,CEO of World Food Pro-cessing. “Our partnershipwith Roquette increases theavailability of pea protein forworld-leading food compa-nies and offers, to con-sumers, access to a high-quality plant-based proteinbacked by innovation andcomplete transparency.”

Roquette’s pea proteinbrand name is Nutralys®.Pea protein ingredients offerformulation and nutritionbenefits in several applica-tions, including baked goods,snacks, cereals, dairy foods,desserts, confections, savoryfoods, health and nutritionalproducts, and pet foods. �


NON-GMO INGREDIENTS

This graphic shows how challenging it’s been forBen & Jerry’s to switch to non-GMO ingredients.

Non-GMO vitamin C: new choicesavailable

Almost all vitamin C today is manufacturedfrom corn, most of it GMO, so sourcingnon-GMO material is difficult. Ethical

Naturals, Inc. (ENI), a California based ingre-dient supplier, has now made sourcing non-GMO vitamin C easier.

ENI introduced a range ofUSP grade vitamin C ingredi-ents, including both ascorbicacid and calcium ascorbate, aswell as Polyphenol-C™, astate-of-the-art vitamin Cblend with polyphenols. ENI’svitamin C is certified non-GMO by SGS, the multina-tional, Swiss-based certifica-tion company.

The new Polyphenol-Cproducts contain non-GMOvitamin C, blended with stan-dardized levels of fruitpolyphenols from grapes andPacific Northwest berries.The result is a richer, fuller,more natural flavor and colormaking Polyphenol-C™ idealfor all supplement uses includ-ing smoothies, powdereddrink blends and functionalfoods.

In an interview with Food-Navigator-USA, Cal Bewicke,

president of Ethical Naturals,said that most prominent sup-plement companies are start-ing to incorporate non-GMOmaterials into their products.But he also said: “It’s a big andcomplex task that involveschanging formulas or sourcesof supply, labeling issues, typesof certification, and so on.”

For more information,visit: ethicalnaturals.com. �

RoquetteAmerica andWorld FoodProcessingannounce peaprotein part-nership

Roquette America andWorld Food Processinghave signed an exclusivesupply agreement to

New non-GMO vitamin C is made from berries.

1 0 • T H E O R G A N I C & N O N - G M O R E P O R T

NON-GMO INGREDIENTS • F R O M P A G E 9

Ingredionreleases newfact sheet onnon-GMOingredients

Ingredion Incorporated, aprovider of ingredient solu-tions to diversified industries,has published a new fact

sheet entitled “Non-GMOIngredients - Move to the fore-front of the non-GMO trendwith Ingredion.”

The publication describesIngredion’s portfolios on non-GMO ingredients for the foodand beverage industry, includ-ing:• Sweeteners – Reb A stevia,glucose, dextrose, maltodex-trin, HFCS and polyols

• Texturizers – Cook-up andinstant starches from maize,tapioca, potato, rice and sago

• Nutritional ingredients – arange of fibers, minerals andwhole grainThe backbone of the com-

pany’s non-GMO program isits TRUETRACE® processand enrollment in the Non-GMO Project verification sys-tem. Since 2004, Ingredion’sTRUETRACE program hasprotected non-GMO purity viaglobal, third-party-audited bestpractices for segregation anddocumentation of non-GMOmaize. In addition to maize-

based products, the broad arrayof ingredients includes prod-ucts for which GM versions donot exist, e.g., tapioca, orimports from affiliates in coun-tries that ban production ofGM crops.

To learn more about Ingre-dion’s portfolio of non-GMOingredients, contact Ingredionat 866-961-6285 or visithttp://bit.ly/1mRSvse. �

Suntava’s pur-ple corn ingre-dients nowNon-GMO Proj-ect Verified

Suntava, a Minnesota-basedcompany that producesanthocyanin-packed purple-corn ingredients, recently

announced that its products arenow Non-GMO Project Veri-fied.

CEO Bill Petrich told Food-Navigator-USA: “We’re proudto be recognized and pleased tobe at the forefront of advancingthe cause of providing the con-sumer with foods that are natu-rally fortified, and safe.”

Suntava’s wide range of ingre-dients derived from purple corninclude natural purple colors;purple corn flour, purple cornmeal (for tortilla chips, bars,sourdough, cereals); purple corngrits and purple corn micro pel-

lets (for popped snacks).Suntava has also developed a

purple corn syrup as a sweetenerfor bars, beer, jams, confec-tionery, and baked goods.

Suntava contracts with farm-ers in Iowa, Minnesota andWisconsin to grow its uniquenon-GMO purple corn.

In addition to interest fromsnack food manufacturers, Sun-tava is also speaking to micro-brewers, confectioners, andfirms manufacturing everythingfrom sourdough to cereals.(SOURCE: FoodNavigator-USA) �

Sunflower oilbecomes pre-ferred choicefor snackmakers

As packaged food and snackmanufacturers move awayfrom genetically modifiedoils, sunflower oil is gain-

ing popularity and forecastersexpect the market to grow.

Due to its “clean” label andhigh oleic value, sunflower hasbecome very attractive to con-sumers; in fact, companies likeLay’s have switched to it overthe past 5-10 years for fryingsnack foods.

“You’ll see the saturationwith the sunflower oil marketcoming,” said Tony Intal ofOilseeds International. “Maybenot in the next couple of yearsbut I think, I would hope, inthe next five.”

Actual sunflower oil produc-tion dipped slightly last year,down to 12.8 billion metric tonsfrom 12.9 billion in 2012.

Euromonitor Internationaldata indicate that growthprobably won’t be exponentialin vegetable oils, but sun-flower oil use is growing as theindustry moves away fromunhealthy trans-fats. Canola,even the non-GMO variety, is

an ingredient US consumersare wary of.

“Even though there is non-GMO canola oil, they still wantnothing that can have that‘canola effect’ or ‘soybeaneffect’,’ said Intal.

Some biotech companies arefinding success with non-GMOcanola, however; Dow Agro-Science says its sales of omega-9 canola oils have grown 250%since 2011.(SOURCE: FoodNavigator.com) �

ADM toexpand pro-duction ofnon-GMOlecithin

Archer Daniels MidlandCompany plans to signifi-cantly expand its produc-tion capacity of non-

GMO lecithin by expandingcapacity at its soybean process-ing facility in Latur, India.

It will also add new rapeseedprocessing capabilities to itsexisting facility in Hamburg,Germany.

Lecithin is an emulsifierused in a wide variety of foodprocessing applications, includ-ing bakery, confectionery,chocolate, and as a releaseagent in several food systems.

ADM currently offers non-GMO lecithin, but this expan-sion will complement ADM’scurrent North American pro-duction and allow ADM toproduce non-GMO lecithinlocally for customers in Europeand Asia.

“Our customers are seeingincreasing consumer demandfor non-GMO ingredients,”said Dan Larson, vice presi-dent, Lecithin for ADM Foods& Wellness. “This investmentshows ADM’s commitment tomeeting our customer’s evolv-ing ingredient demands in avery dynamic marketplace.”(SOURCE: FoodBev.com) �

T H E O R G A N I C & N O N - G M O R E P O R T • 1 1

NON-GMO VERIFICATION


Successfully navigating non-GMOverification program compliance B Y S ANDRA K E P L E R

The growing demand for non-GMO choicescoupled with global GMO regulatoryrequirements and regional non-GMO mar-

ket initiatives have the global food industryparticipating in third party verified non-GMOprograms at an unprecedented rate.

All global non-GMO verifi-cation programs have somecommonality in compliancerequirements such as traceabili-ty and segregation. Each verifi-cation program can also havesignificant differences, too, suchas different GMO contentthresholds, authorized or unau-thorized GMO events requiringunique GMO testing strategies,ingredient matrix exclusionssuch as requiring testing of highGMO risk animal feed or fer-mentation media.

Unless manufacturers areprepared for the require-ments, participating in andmaintaining compliance witha non-GMO verification

scheme can be frustrating. There are some steps a man-

ufacturer can take to avoid someof the common challenges toachieving compliance with non-GMO verification programs:

10 steps that helpbring about a success-ful non-GMO verifica-tion experience

• Consult with the non-GMOscheme technical administra-tor (the verifying body) beforeselecting products for partici-pation. This consultation willbe valuable in helping set thestage for success. GMO riskingredients can be identifiedand pathways to removing


NON-GMO VERIFICATION • F R O M P A G E 1 1

such risk and lowering costscan be implemented. Forexample, switching from soyoil to sunflower oil maychange the GMO risk result-ing in lower costs. Compli-ance challenges can also beidentified.

• Set reasonable expectationsfor achieving verification, cal-ibrated to the complexity ofthe product line. Low GMOrisk baby food, for example,may take two months or lessfor product verification. Sup-plements may take upwardsof 18 months.

• With complicated and/orlarge numbers of products ina product line, consider astaged enrollment. Start witha few products using thegreatest number of sharedingredients. This will easethe learning curve and lessenthe work of the qualitydepartment.

• Staged enrollment leads toachieving a staggered time-line in product verification.Sometimes products withinthe same product line achieveverification at different times.Consumers may ask why allproducts are not verified atonce. Develop a positive pub-lic education message thataddresses any differencesbetween consumer expecta-tions and the incrementalsteps being taken to incorpo-rate non-GMO verification.

• Invest in education andincreased staffing to accom-modate the workload.Achieving a non-GMO des-ignation for a product is not astatic occurrence. GMOapproval and commercializa-tion statuses change. Stan-dards evolve to accommodateshifting regulatory and mar-ket environments, and GMOtesting requirements areupdated to accommodatenew GMO events. Theprocess for vetting new ven-

dors becomes more rigorous.Production staging to miti-gate risk of GMO contami-nation in manufacturingenvironments with parallelproduction and additionalinspection requirements maybe necessary.

• If GMO testing is required,seek support from a non-GMO scheme-approved,accredited GMO testing lab-oratory. Different ingredientmatrices require differentstrategies for taking repre-sentative samples for analysis.Testing packages differdepending on crops andGMO events. Certainprocessed ingredient matricesare not suitable for GMOtesting since PCR testing, aDNA based testing methodrequired by most non-GMOverification programs,requires intact DNA. Forexample, the DNA in refinedoils is degraded and can’t betested for GMO content.Instead, testing may need tobe performed at the crude oilstage or even earlier at thelevel of the pre-crush oilseed. In addition, samplesizes differ for differentingredient matrices.

• Start gathering data fromingredient vendors beforeparticipation. Use a standard-ized data collection formdesigned to gather all rele-vant information. Relevantdata will include disclosure ofadditives, carriers, enzymes,microorganisms, fermenta-tion media, raw materialsources and non-GMO man-ufacturing processes.

• As a part of a new-vendorvetting process, require thevendor to participate in thenon-GMO verification pro-gram. Alternatively, ask thetechnical administrator topre-evaluate vendor docu-mentation for compliancewith the non-GMO standard.


• Formulate new products withcompliance in mind. Manu-facturers that do this canhave their finished productsverified in short order. Con-sult with the technicaladministrator to pre-evaluatenew formulations for compli-ance, which will shorten thepath to verification.

• With complicated productformulations such as supple-ments, consider joining aworking group of industrycolleagues to develop non-GMO compliant ingredientsources. For example, theDietary Supplement Work-ing Group is a group of man-ufacturers and their suppliers,working together to developcompliant vitamin sources tobe shared by anyone request-ing the information.Taking a systematic approach

to non-GMO verification isn’trequired. Many manufacturersjust enroll, gathering data andlearning compliance require-ments as they go. For manufac-turers with little or no GMOrisk in their products, reason-able efficiency in success can bethe experience. For many man-ufacturers facing complicatedingredients and high GMO riskrequirements, the process canbe time-consuming, and sur-prises are not uncommon. Forexample, one manufacturer dis-covered the ingredient vendorhad replaced sugar cane (a lowGMO risk) with GMO beetsugar (a high GMO risk). Inanother, the vendor had not dis-closed the presence of highGMO risk maltodextrin as acarrier.

Consumer non-GMO initia-tives, GMO labeling regula-tions, and growth in global non-GMO verification programs arerequiring never-before-requiredtransparency into the GMOstatus of the supply chain. Inmany ways this is a new para-digm for a New Food Industry,

each stage of the supply chainresponsible for documentingnon-GMO compliance for allthe precursor stages. The ulti-mate efficiency is to have everystage enrolled in reciprocal,equivalent third party non-GMO verification programs,installing GMO testing whererequired as early in the supplychain as possible. Then,through GMO risk-mitigatingtraceability and segregationpractices throughout the supplychain, it is possible to maintainthe non-GMO status of anyingredient or product. A longterm view of successful entryinto the non-GMO market isachievable through steps ofincremental transformation thatincludes not only a product’singredients but also a manufac-turer’s understanding and suc-cessful management of theindustry’s complex and chang-ing standards. A manufacturerwho has taken these action stepstoward compliance of the entirefood chain will be most intelli-gently prepared for enteringglobal markets under any non-GMO verification program,therefore taking full advantageof the growing internationaldemand for non-GMOoptions.

Sandra Kepler is the ChiefExecutive Officer of FoodChainGlobal Advisors, the foundingtechnical consultant and techni-cal administrator of the Non-GMO Project’s product verifica-tion program. She has morethan 15 years of experience inNon-GMO consulting, verifica-tion and certification programs.FoodChain is part of the GlobalID Group family of companieswith a shared mission of provid-ing services to support safe, ethi-cal, and sustainable global foodproduction.

This article firstappeared in Nutraceuti-cals World and is reprint-ed with permission. �


NON-GMO NEWS

High Mowing Organic Seed to launchfirst full line of Non-GMO Project Verified organic vegetable seeds

High Mowing Organic Seed Company(HMOS) recently announced the launch ofthe first full line of organic, Non-GMO

Project Verified vegetable seeds for farmers andgardeners. With over 90% of its varieties veri-fied to date, HMOS’s entire line of over 650varieties will be verified by late summer 2014.HMOS seeds are already Certified Organic.

As new GM crops arereleased to the general publicthe risk of these crops cross-pollinating organic cropsincreases. HMOS has commit-ted to Non-GMO Project’sindependent verification tohelp reduce these risks.

“A non-GMO food supplyis reliant upon non-GMOseeds, and HMOS has shownits commitment to preservingand building non-GMO choic-

es by starting at the source,”said Megan Westgate, execu-tive director of the Non-GMOProject.

HMOS has been offeringtheir expertise on seed issues tothe Non-GMO Project since2008.

“Non-GMO Project Verifi-cation enables us to take adetailed and systematicapproach to preventing GMOcontamination in all our seedproduction and handling,” saidTom Stearns, founder ofHMOS. “HMOS will continueto invest in collaborations likethe Non-GMO Project,because organic, non-GMOseeds have to be the foundationof the healthy food system ofthe future.” �

Supermarketchain hopes todraw main-stream con-sumers withnon-GMOproducts

Fairway Market, based inNew York State, hopes toattract value-consciousshoppers who want to

Tom Stearns, founderof High Mowing Seeds


avoid genetically modifiedfoods by expanding its selec-tion of non-GMO foods thatare not organic.

“Consumers are attractedto the transparency of theUSDA organic regulations,but may not be able to affordthe premium that label com-mands. Non-organic, non-GMO products certainly fillthat niche,” said Fairway’sorganic and natural food ana-lyst Ryan Dwyer in an inter-view with Supermarket News.

Fairway sells a “largeoffering” of non-GMOprocessed foods, but is nowfocusing on sourcing morenon-GMO perishables. As afirst step, it began sellingNon-GMO Project VerifiedMurray’s Chicken, whichretails for $3 per pound for awhole chicken and $9 apound for cutlets, makingthem less expensive thanorganic.(SOURCE: Supermarket News) �

Chipotle to beGMO-free byend of 2014

Chipotle Mexican Grillreported impressive quar-terly sales revenues andplans to open nearly 200

restaurants in 2014—alongwith a commitment to acompletely GMO-free menuby the end of the year.

“It’s a winning strategyothers can emulate,” wroteRick Duprey of Motley Fool.

The mission to providefresh, delicious foods andwhenever possible, sustain-ably grown ones, has createda loyal and growing stream ofcustomers.

Chairman Steve Ells saidthat “virtually all GMOingredients” have been elimi-nated; the corn and flour tor-tillas, possibly GMO, will

soon be replaced. An expected price increase

is coming, due to a surge inbeef, cheese and avocadoprices. Removing GMOs iscostly as well—non-GMOsunflower and rice bran oilsare pricier than soybean oil.

But management believesits customers are willing topay for “food with integrity.” (SOURCES: Monica Watrous;Motley Fool) �

Non-GMO soy-beans have abigger place in2014

Many US soybean farmersare looking for non-GMO varieties andunconventional alterna-

tives to boost yields andimprove profitability.

Weeds resistance toglyphosate herbicide, which isused widely with GMRoundup Ready crops, is lead-ing many farmers to considernon-GMO alternatives.

Arkansas grower GarySitzer says, “I started lookingseriously at conventional soy-beans several years back.There are several non-GMOvarieties that compete wellwith GMO varieties.”

Sitzer sees a growingdemand for non-GMO soy-beans.

Most university studiesindicate little, if any, differencein yield of GMO and non-GMO soybean varieties.

Missouri farmer Kip Cullersmade worldwide news with histhen-record 161 bushels ofsoybeans per acre. Last year,researchers in Texas produced177 bushels of soybeans peracre, using non-GMO varietiesand a proprietary blend ofmicronutrients and naturallyoccurring phytohormones, (SOURCE: Minnesota FarmGuide) �


NON-GMO NEWS • F R O M P A G E 1 5

HumboldtCounty sub-mits ordinanceto ban GMOs

Over twice the number ofrequired signatures weregathered to get a ban ongrowing GMOs in Hum-

boldt County, California ontothe November ballot.

The Humboldt CountyGenetic Contamination Pre-vention Ordinance would ban“propagating, cultivating, rais-ing or growing” geneticallymodified organisms. Over8,500 citizens signed on, someof them producers who hope aGMO-free county will helpsales.

County Supervisor MarkLovelace said finding non-GMO corn varieties mightpresent a challenge.

“But non-GMO corn wasgrown here long before GMOsexisted, so if the measure didcome to be, old practices wouldhave to be recreated.”(SOURCE: The Times-Standard) �

Whole Foodshonors organ-ic and non-GMO suppliers

Whole Foods Marketrecently announced itsSupplier Awards, thecompany’s highest hon-

ors for producer partners thatembody its mission and corevalues.

Several suppliers of organicand non-GMO products werewinners:• Pitman Family Farms washonored for its deep com-mitment to animal welfare,leadership in non-GMO-fedmeat production and dedica-tion to quality. It was thefirst supplier to earnapproval to label its meat“Non-GMO Fed.”

• Suja Juice for partnering withWhole Foods Market to co-create Suja Elements™, anexclusive line of mission-driv-en, cold-pressed smoothies atvalue prices. Suja donates 20cents from every bottle soldto nonprofits, including Citi-zens for GMO Labeling.

• Brown Cow earned BestNew Product for its Non-GMO Project VerifiedGreek yogurt.

• Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soapsearned an award for Organicand Non-GMO SupplyChain Commitment forstrong commitment toorganic and non-GMOingredient sourcing and sup-port for GMO labeling trans-parency. �

Brazilian non-GMO supplieswill meetEuropean mar-ket needs

There are sufficient suppliesof non-GMO soy andprocessed ingredients. Thiswas the main message of a

recent Non-GMO Soy Con-ference held in Münster, Ger-many in April.

“The production of conven-tional soy increased in theBrazilian State of Mato Grosso,and the trend is of substantialincrease for the coming years,”said Augusto Freire, managingdirector of the ProTerra Foun-dation, the main organizer ofthe conference. “Add this avail-ability to that of India, Canada,France, Austria and EasternEurope, our view is that therole of certification has neverbeen stronger.”

Members of the poultryindustry in the UK and Ger-many as well as feed manufac-turers have falsely claimedthere is not enough non-GMOfeed available. �


GMO LABELING NEWS

Vermont state senator David Zuckerman andGovernor Pete Shumlin at the recent signing andcelebration of Vermont’s GMO labeling law.

“Overwhelming grassroots pressure” made GMO labelinghappen in Vermont Vermonters resent out of state pressure by bigcorporations

B Y K EN RO S E BORO

Rallying Vermont food-conscious grassrootswas the key to passing the state’s law to labelgenetically modified foods, and big money

attempts to persuade Vermont’s citizens tooppose labeling would have backfired. That isthe perspective of David Zuckerman and FalkoSchilling, two of the many leaders of Vermont’sinitiative to pass mandatory labeling.

Zuckerman is a Vermontstate senator and organicfarmer from ChittendonCounty who introduced thelabeling bill, H.112, into thestate’s senate. Schilling is con-sumer protection advocate forVermont Public InterestResearch Group (VPIRG),which was part of a coalition ofgroups called Vermont Rightto Know that organized grass-roots support for the bill.

I recently interviewed Zuck-erman and Schilling to gettheir perspectives on the his-toric legislation.

How long have you been work-ing on GMO issues?Zuckerman: For the last 15years. We passed a GMOseed labeling law in 2004. In2006, a Farmers ProtectionAct was passed that wouldmake biotech companiesliable for damages resultingfrom GMO contamination.But the governor at the timevetoed the bill.

When was a GMO labelingbill introduced?Schilling: We first proposed alabeling bill in 2012, which

raised awareness of this issueand helped build public sup-port. That led to 50 housemembers co-sponsoring thebill when it was re-introducedin 2013.

What were some of the key fac-tors to get the bill passed thisyear?Zuckerman: This bill doesn’tdirectly challenge what farmers



GMO LABELING NEWS • F R O M P A G E 1 7

can do, so the farming com-munity was not as organizedagainst it. The grassrootsworked together and did agreat job reaching out toVermonters. We had a great(Right to Know Vermont)coalition with VPIRG, RuralVermont, NOFA-VT(Northeast Organic FarmersAssociation of Vermont), andVermont Businesses forSocial Responsibility.

Schilling: Last summerVPIRG organized a door-to-door canvass to get state sena-tors to support the bill. Volun-teers knocked on 80,000 doorsand collected 30,000 signa-tures. This had a huge impactand gave us a lot of momentumgoing into this (legislative) ses-sion.

In February, 300 peoplefilled the house chamber fora public hearing on the bill.It was a resounding show ofsupport.

We held educationalevents and workshops acrossthe state.

Overwhelming grassrootspressure made sure this billgot passed.

We were able to tweak thelanguage of the bill and takedifferent interests into con-sideration and address a lotof concerns.

Was there support from busi-nesses? Zuckerman: Ben & Jerry’swas very helpful. ChrisMiller of Ben & Jerry’sworked with food producersto tell them it wasn’t hard tonot use GM ingredients. Healso met with newspaper edi-torial boards.

It was important to getgood business people tospeak to editorial boardsearly to dispel the mythsabout GMOs that the oppo-sition tries to promulgate. Schilling: Ben & Jerry’stalked to food producersabout their experience goingnon-GMO and about sourc-ing non-GMO ingredients.

What about the Vermont cit-izens?Zuckerman: Individual Ver-monters’ support was sooverwhelming. People hereresent big out of state pres-sure. They really pay atten-tion to their food and wantto know what’s in their food.I think the same thing is hap-pening with people acrossthe country. Schilling: People here werevery upset with what hap-pened (to GMO labeling ini-tiatives) in California andWashington with corporate

money defeating them. If bigcompanies tried to spendhuge amounts of money todefeat GMO labeling Ver-monters would have resentedtheir tactics.

Did the opposition try to stopthe bill? Schilling: There was consis-tent statehouse presence (bythe opposition) against this bill.The Biotechnology IndustryOrganization had someone inthe room at all times.

But we didn’t see the mas-sive media campaigns that wesaw in California and Washing-ton due to the nature of thestate and the legislative process.

Were there any efforts to attacha trigger clause to the bill thatwould require other states topass similar laws first, as wasattached to labeling bills inConnecticut and Maine?Zuckerman: No. The chair-men of both the senate agricul-ture committee and judiciarycommittee didn’t put in thetrigger as the bill passedthrough those committees.When it reached the chairmanof the appropriations commit-tee he told the other two com-mittee chairmen: “You didn’tput a trigger in the bill in yourcommittees, do you think I’mgoing to do it here?” This was

a signal of how strong supportwas for this bill.

Schilling: Vermonters saidthey didn’t want a bill that wascontingent on other states,and the legislature responded.

The Grocery ManufacturersAssociation plans to sue Ver-mont to overturn the labelinglaw. Do you think it canwithstand the legal challenge?

Zuckerman: We’re confidentthat it’s defendable. Our legalstaff drafted the bill in consul-tation with the Vermont LawSchool Clinic which submit-ted a briefing. Theyresearched cases looking atdisclosure of information andstate’s rights.

Schilling: We’re on stronglegal footing with this bill.The legislature did theirhomework to look at all legalaspects and worked to makethe bill as strong as possible.

GMA says the US shouldn’thave a patchwork of stateGMO labeling laws. What isyour response to that?

Zuckerman: My responseto that is why not label prod-ucts across the country basedon Vermont’s law, and label-ing wouldn’t be onerous.

But their intent is not tobe transparent.



What recommendations doyou have for organizers inother states trying to passGMO labeling bills?Zuckerman: Go back to thegrassroots; it’s good to havegrassroots organizationsbehind it. You won’t out-spend the other side. Build-ing a coalition of farming andconsumer groups is a veryimportant step. Put informa-tion out there to countermisinformation at every turn.Have a good social mediapresence.

Schilling: Make sure you doyour homework. Activate thegrassroots because there isoverwhelming public supportfor GMO labeling. Makesure you get those voices intothe lawmakers because that iswhat makes a difference.

Where do you see the fightover labeling headed in thenext few years? Zuckerman: It looks likeOregon (which has a ballotinitiative similar to those inCalifornia and Washingtonthe past two years) is next. Ithink momentum for labelingwill build, and hopefullystates will move forward.

People in the US, just likethose in 64 other countriesthat have mandatory GMOlabeling, want to know what’sin their food, and they have aright to know.

Schilling: We will see moreand more states pass laws,and that will push Congressto pass mandatory labelingnationwide. Consumers willonly be satisfied if we havemandatory GMO labeling asopposed to voluntary.

Vermont has established afund to support costs of alawsuit against its GM foodlabeling law. To support it goto Foodfightfundvt.org. �

CaliforniaGMO labelingbill heads tostate Senatefor vote

Abill to label geneticallymodified foods in Califor-nia, SB 1381, is headed fora vote in the state’s Senate

after passing three senate com-mittees: judiciary, appropria-tions, and health.

At press time, the bill, whichwas introduced by SenatorNoreen Evans, was slated for avote in the state Senate duringthe last week of May. If the billpasses the Senate it will go tothe full state Assembly for avote.

The San Jose Mercury Newssupports the bill, saying it is abig improvement over Propo-sition 37, the labeling initiativethat was narrowly defeated in2012.

“Since FDA has to daterefused to label GE foods, it isup to individual states to leadthe way and protect our state’sinterests, including publichealth, consumer right toknow, and our farmers andagricultural lands,” said Rebec-ca Spector, west coast directorfor Center for Food Safety,based in San Francisco. “SB1381 is a step toward protect-ing these state interests, and weare very pleased that the billcontinues to progress throughthe legislature.” �

New York GMlabeling billpasses com-mittee

Bill A.3525, to requirelabeling of geneticallymodified foods sold inNew York State, passed

the Assembly’s Committeeon Consumer Affairs andProtection on May 7.

“Today New York State isone step closer to makingmandatory GMO labeling areality,” said AssemblymemberLinda B. Rosenthal, who intro-duced the bill.

Assemblyman David Buch-wald had pledged support forthe bill after an amendmentwas made pushing for a federallabeling law.

Sen. Kenneth LaValle wasinitially surprised at oppositionto the bill, since more andmore people are reading labels.“In my years in the Legislature,I have learned that every billwill have its own time,” he said.“And we are very close for thisbill to have its own time.”

Supporters are hoping fora vote on the Assembly floorthis year.(SOURCES: Newsday; Politics onthe Hudson) �

Oregon GMOlabeling ballotinitiativemoves ahead

Oregon Right to Knowrecently received the go-ahead from the state’sSupreme Court to start

gathering the signatures neededto put their GMO labeling initia-tive on the ballot this November.

Ballot Initiative #44 wouldrequire labeling of genetically

modified foods in the state. Appearing before an enthu-

siastic group of campaign sup-porters at the campaign officein Portland, campaign leadersannounced that they expect torun a full-scale statewide cam-paign, and will use both paidsignature gatherers and hun-dreds of volunteers to collectthe 87,213 valid signaturesneeded by July 3 to place BallotInitiative #44 on the Novem-ber ballot.

David Rosenfeld, the execu-tive director of Oregon Stu-dent Public Interest ResearchGroup, said Oregon Right toKnow has no illusions aboutthe battle they will face to winin November.

“We know from past experi-ence that the big chemicalcompanies that manufactureGMOs, like Monsanto andDow, will spend millions to tryto confuse the issue and blockOregon residents from beingable to decide for themselveswhether or not to eat GMOs,”Rosenfeld said. �


NON-GMO PLANT BREEDING

GMO LABELING NEWS • F R O M P A G E 1 9

Jane Dever, organic cotton breeder at TexasA&M AgriLife Research

Genetic engineer becomes organic cotton breederJane Dever developed GMOs at Bayer Crop-Science but now breeds organic cotton varieties atTexas A&M University’s AgriLife Research

B Y K EN RO S E BORO

It’s rare that a plant breeder goes from devel-oping genetically modified crops at a majorbiotechnology company to breeding varieties

for organic and non-GMO farmers. JaneDever, associate professor at Texas A&M’sAgriLife Research and Extension Center, isunique in having done just that. As global cot-ton breeding manager for Bayer CropScience,Dever put GM traits into cotton plants. Nowshe focuses on keeping GM traits out of organ-ic cotton varieties.

Dever prefers the latterrole. “I am just very comfort-able here,” she says. “This is a

great opportunity to work forTexas cotton producers and themore than 90% of US organic


cotton producers located on theTexas High Plains.”

Heart with breeding,genetic diversity,genetic resourcepreservationAt Bayer, Dever became frus-trated with the focus ondeveloping plants as “pro-jects” with a distinct begin-ning and end as opposed tobreeding, which she sees as aprocess.

“What a lot of folks don’tunderstand is that ‘breeding’and ‘GM trait development’ aretwo entirely different things,”she says. “It did not take longto understand that companieslike these are not in the seedbusiness unless they can realizegrowth from GM traits.”

Dever says she gainedvaluable experience at Bayerbut says: “My heart is withbreeding, genetic diversity, andgenetic resource preservation.”

When the cotton breedingposition at Texas A&MAgriLife opened in 2008,Dever “took a leap of faith”and accepted it, backed bysupport from Texas farmers,the National Institute forFood and Agriculture’sOrganic Research and Exten-sion Initiative, and the TexasOrganic Cotton MarketingCooperative (TOCMC).

The focus of her work atAgriLife is breeding organiccotton varieties that haveimproved fiber quality,drought tolerance, resistanceto thrip pests, and bolls thatcan handle Texas’s nastysandstorms and extremeweather. Preserving geneticresources from unintendedGMO contamination isanother goal of Dever’sresearch.

An estimated 15,685 acresof organic cotton was plantedin the US in 2013 with more

than 95% of that grown onthe High Plains of WestTexas. North Carolina hasalso emerged recently as aproducer of organic cotton.

Hard to find non-GMOseeds; screen to detectGMO contaminationKeeping GMOs out of non-GMO and organic cotton is achallenge because—as withcorn and soybeans—GMOvarieties account for morethan 90% of production inthe US.

The three major compa-nies that sell cottonseed—Monsanto, Bayer Crop-Science, and Dow Agro-Science— don’t offer non-GMO varieties.

Non-GMO cottonseedoptions are even more limit-ed than they are for corn andsoybeans.

“It’s very difficult for non-GMO farmers to get plantingseeds,” Dever says.

Dever often receivesinquiries on where to findnon-GMO seeds, especiallysince the spread of herbicideresistant weeds, which aredevastating cotton fields inthe South.

The Roundup ReadyGMO trait is so widespreadin cottonseed that it is diffi-cult for plant breeders likeDever to keep it out of herorganic varieties.

“The problem for non-GMor organic breeders in a cropwhere biotechnology traits havebeen intensively adopted is thatpotential contamination is notvisible,” Dever says. “Even thesmallest amount of unintendedcontamination can multiplyduring the crossing, plant selec-tion, and even testing phase ifyou do not know it is there.”

Tests to detect GMOtraits can also be expensive.

Another aspect of Dever’s


The controversy focused onthe “sunset” provision of theNational Organic Program(NOP) rules. The provisionhad originally stated that everyfive years the NOSB mustreview each material on the“National List” of materialsthat are allowed and prohibitedin organic food production. Amaterial may “sunset” or beremoved from the list unless

two-thirds of the full NOSBvotes in favor to keep it on thelist.

Last September, MilesMcEvoy, NOP deputy admin-istrator, sent a memo to theNOSB, changing the sunsetprovision so that it would allowall materials on the NationalList to be renewed automatical-ly unless a two-thirds majorityof the NOSB votes to notrenew them.

NOSB member FrancisThicke, an organic dairyfarmer in Iowa, said: “It willmake the process for gettingmaterials on the National Listeasier and the process for get-ting them off harder.”

Organic activists such as theOrganic Consumers Associa-tion and Cornucopia Institute


NON-GMO PLANT BREEDING • F R O M P A G E 2 1

ORGANIC NEWS

research is developing a fast,economical method to screenorganic cotton for theRoundup Ready GMO trait.Seed Matters, an initiativethat supports organic seedbreeding projects, provided a$125,000 fellowship to TexasTech graduate student RyanGregory to develop themethod.

“If he can help devise a prac-tical method to nip contamina-tion in the bud, it will be ofinterest to every public cottonbreeder,” Dever says. “Seedgrowers and farmers can main-tain purity reasonably well iftheir beginning seed stocks arefree from unintended presence ofGM traits.”

Encouraging results onorganic cotton vari-etiesTesting of the new organiccotton varieties began in2011 on TOCMC members’organic farms.

The results so far areencouraging. “We saw a 30%-40% reduction in insect damagefrom thrip, which is a majorpest problem in organic cottonproduction,” Dever says.

Dever plans to release anorganic cotton variety forfarmers next year and aims toget an agreement with All-

Tex Seed, a regional cotton-seed company that offersnon-GMO varieties and willprocess the organic cottonvarieties.

The varieties could also beused in non-GMO cottonproduction.

“The (research) results areapplicable in many cases to con-ventional, non-GMO produc-tion,” Dever says.

She emphasizes thatbreeding is a process thattakes time. “It’s a long-termthing. Once you get a variety,farmers can follow best manage-ment practices with isolationguidelines, but they have tostart with clean seed. Theirchallenge is my challenge.”

Dever is happy she left thebiotech industry for her posi-tion at Texas A&M where shecan help organic and non-GMO farmers and preservegenetic diversity.

“The non-GM market issmall and certainly under-served, which is exactly why it iswhere I focus as a public breed-er,” she says. “It is not ‘pickingup crumbs’ left from privatesector crop development, whichis short-sighted, but rather con-tinuing the work needed toensure genetics will do its partto address global resourceissues.” �

Sparks fly at National OrganicStandards Board meeting

Arecent meeting of the National OrganicStandards Board (NOSB) in San Anto-nio, Texas, saw protests—and an arrest—

against changes to how the NOSB evaluatesnon-organic materials used in organic foodproduction.

Nutritionist RosemaryStanton of University of NewSouth Wales hopes the study isreplicated with larger samples,as it indicates the health bene-fits of eating organic food. Theorganic diet in the study con-sisted of 83% certified organicand another 10% “likelyorganic” food.(SOURCE: The Conversation) �

Reversing cli-mate changeachievable byfarmingorganically

The Rodale Institute recentlyannounced the launch of aglobal campaign to gener-ate public awareness of

soil’s ability to reverse climate

change, but only when thehealth of the soil is maintainedthrough organic regenerativeagriculture. The campaign willcall for the restructuring of ourglobal food system with thegoal of reversing climatechange through photosynthesisand biology.

The white paper, entitled“Regenerative Organic Agri-culture and Climate Change: ADown-to-Earth Solution toGlobal Warming,” is the cen-tral tool of the campaign. Thepaper was written by RodaleInstitute, the nonprofit agricul-tural research institute widelyrecognized as the birthplace ofthe organic movement in theUnited States.

The white paper states: “Wecould sequester more than100% of current annual CO2



are concerned about addingmore non-organic and synthet-ic materials to the list, saying itdetracts from the organic idealof using only organic materials.

The change sparked criti-cism from three former NOSBchairmen, as well as SenatorPatrick Leahy and Congress-man Peter DeFazio, who calledon Agriculture Secretary TomVilsack to reverse the change tothe sunset provision.

Leahy and DeFazio, whoauthored the Organic FoodsProduction Act in 1990 thatestablished the NOP, said thechange “is counter to the keyprincipals of public involve-ment and oversight in theorganic certification process aswell as adhering to the higheststandards possible for organicfood production.” �

US organicsales top $35billion New survey showsorganic sales jump near-ly 12% in 2013 to a newrecord

Sales of organic products inthe United States jumpedto $35.1 billion in 2013, up11.5% from the previous

year’s $31.5 billion and thefastest growth rate in five years,according to the latest surveyon the organic industry fromthe Organic Trade Association(OTA).

“The US organic market isexperiencing strong expansion,with organic food and farmingcontinuing to gain in populari-ty. Consumers are making thecorrelation between what weeat and our health, and thatknowledge is spurring height-ened consumer interest inorganic products,” said LauraBatcha, executive director andCEO of OTA.

A niche industry in the huge

food sector just a decade ago,consumer purchases of organicfood now account for morethan 4% of the $760 billionannual food sales in the UnitedStates. More telling, thegrowth rate of organic foodsales, which has averagedalmost 10% every year since2010, has dwarfed the averageannual growth of just over 3%in total food sales during thatsame period.

The organic fruit and veg-etable category continues tolead the sector with $11.6 bil-lion in sales, up 15%. Withmore than 10% of the fruitsand vegetables sold in theUnited States now organic, the$1.5 billion in new sales oforganic fruits and vegetablerepresented 46% of the organicsector’s $3.3 billion in new dol-lars. �

Eating organicfood dramati-cally lowerspesticideintake

Arecent study from RMITUniversity in Australiafound that consuming anorganic diet for one week

lowered pesticide levels—dialkylphosphates (DAPs)—by nearly 90% in adults.

While recognizing thepossibility of other sources ofthe pesticides, the dietarychange suggests that most ofthem came from food con-sumption. DAPs represent70%-80% of organophos-phate pesticides.

People living outside ofurban areas had higher expo-sure, although they were lesslikely to eat food contaminat-ed with chemicals. Dr. LizaOates, who led the study,noted that pesticides areabsorbed through skin andinhaling.

GM crops inglobal decline

For the first time, the num-ber of countries growingGM crops is in decline.Poland and Egypt are the

most recent to suspend orphase out transgenic crops, fol-lowing Mexico and Kenya, saysa new report from Friends ofthe Earth International.

“There are readily available,less risky and more effectivesolutions than GMOs to tacklehunger and poverty,” said Kir-tana Chandrasekaran, food sov-ereignty coordinator forFriends of the Earth. “Thesolution… is more low-cost,high-yield agro-ecological

farming—the type beingthreatened by GMOs.”

In the US, 49% of farmersreport herbicide resistantweeds; more toxic chemicalsare being applied; people aregetting sick from pesticideexposure; and the farmingpractices are not sustainable.

The report reveals that 90%of GM crops are grown in justsix countries and by less thanone per cent of the world farm-ing population.

“Food and farming shouldnot be in the hands of compa-nies who profit from GM seedsand the chemicals needed togrow them,” said MuteSchimpf, of Friends of theEarth Europe.


GMO NEWS

ORGANIC NEWS • F R O M P A G E 2 3

s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s

emissions with a switch towidely available and inexpen-sive organic managementpractices, which we term‘regenerative organic agricul-ture.’”

Regenerative organic agri-culture is comprised oforganic practices includingcover crops, residuemulching, composting, andcrop rotation. Conservationtillage, while not yet widely

used in organic systems, is aregenerative organic practiceintegral to soil-carbonsequestration.

“We know that correctingagriculture is an answer toclimate chaos, and that ithinges on human behavior,”said “Coach” Mark Small-wood, executive director ofRodale Institute. “The futureis underfoot. It’s all abouthealthy soil.” �

Survey finds84% of Ameri-cans buyorganic foods

Arecent survey commis-sioned by ConsumerReports found that 84% ofUS residents buy organic

food and 45% do so at leastonce a month. The survey of1,016 US adults also found that81% think the USDA organic

seal means no toxic pesticideswere used and 61% think thatno antibiotics were used.

The majority of consumers,91%, think organic produceshould not have pesticides orantibiotics (86%).

An overwhelming percent-age of consumers, 84%, thinkthe use of artificial ingredientsin organic products should bediscontinued, if not reviewed,after 5 years.(SOURCE: Food Safety News) �

Oregon counties ban plantings ofGM cropsGMO-free initiatives could provide model forother US counties to follow

Voters in both Josephine County and JacksonCounty, Oregon overwhelmingly approvedballot measures to prohibit the cultivation of

genetically modified crops in the counties. TheJackson initiative passed 66-34, while theJosephine initiative passed 58-42.

The victories come despite awave of opposition fundingfrom the chemical industry,topping out at nearly $1 millionin out-of-state spending.

“We fought the most pow-erful and influential chemicalcompanies in the world and wewon,” said Elise Higley, a Jack-son County farmer and cam-paign director of Our FamilyFarms Coalition, which backedthe ban. “The federal govern-ment and state governmenthave twiddled their thumbs asMonsanto and the other chem-ical giants have been allowed tosell a product that spreads ontofamily farms and can contami-nate the seeds we depend onfor next year’s crop,” addedHigley, who owns a 100-acre

farm in Jackson County. “These victories represent a

turning point in the foodmovement. Just two weeks ago,the Governor of Vermontsigned a historic law mandatingthat GM foods sold in Vermontbe labeled. Across the country,members of the food move-ment are engaging in the politi-cal process and demandingtheir rights as consumers and ascitizens,” said Rebecca Spector,who spearheads state labelinginitiatives for Center for FoodSafety.

“The people of Jackson andJosephine Counties have giventhe rest of the country a model –and the inspiration – to protectlocal communities. This is justthe beginning,” added Spector. �

Supporters of Jackson County’s GMO ban rallyprior to their recent election victory

Photo courtesy of GMO-Free Jackson County


GM varieties have not beenshown to improve nutrition,solve world hunger or increaseadaptability to climate change.In contrast, sustainable farmingmethods have produced doubleyields in Africa and pest man-agement capability. �

EPA set toapproveincreased useof toxic 2,4-Don Dow’s“AgentOrange” GMcrops

The Environmental Protec-tion Agency (EPA) hasannounced a proposal toapprove the direct spraying

of the toxic herbicide 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) on genetically modified cornand soybeans. Dow Chemicaldeveloped the GM crops —known as Enlist—solely to with-stand high doses of 2,4-D, whichit also sells, and several otherherbicides. 2,4-D comprised ofone-half of “Agent Orange”used in Vietnam, leading manyto call Dow Chemical’s corn andsoybeans “Agent Orange” crops.EPA will reach a final decisionafter a 30-day comment period.

“With this decision it is clearthat the EPA is serving the inter-ests of Dow Chemical and thebiotech industry rather thanprotecting our health and theenvironment,” said AndrewKimbrell, executive director ofCenter for Food Safety.

The US Department of Agri-culture (USDA) has given pre-liminary approval to Dow’sEnlist crops, but warned thatthey would increase annual useof 2,4-D in American agricul-ture from 26 million pounds ayear to as much as 176 millionpounds.

Seventy health scientistswrote EPA a joint letter urgingthe Agency to reject Dow

Chemical’s application forcommercial sale of 2,4-Dresistant corn and soybeans.Medical scientists have linkedexposure to 2,4-D and herbi-cides of its class to increasedrates of cancer, Parkinson’s dis-ease and low sperm counts,among other effects. �

GMO goldenrice falls atfirst hurdle

Golden rice,” which is genet-ically modified to increasevitamin A levels and helppeople in poorer countries

avoid blindness, is not passingmuster in terms of yields andagronomic performance accord-ing the International RiceResearch Institute (IRRI).

In a press release, IRRI stat-ed: “Average yield [of GMgolden rice] was unfortunatelylower than that from compara-ble local varieties already pre-ferred by farmers.”

IRRI went on to state that“more research is needed” toaddress the yield drag.

In addition, IRRI has alsopreviously made clear that it stillisn’t known whether golden riceis safe or even works: “It has notyet been determined whetherdaily consumption of goldenrice does improve the vitamin Astatus of people who are vitaminA deficient and could thereforereduce related conditions suchas night blindness.”

For nearly 15 years, GMOsupporters have promised thatthe GMO beta-carotene-enriched rice variety wouldhelp address vitamin A defi-ciencies and prevent blindnessin millions of people world-wide. Opponents have dis-missed golden rice as a publicrelations stunt meant toimprove the damaged image ofa technology that is facingincreasing rejection worldwide.(SOURCE: GM Watch) �


A recent article by formermilitary official LieutenantGeneral Mi Zhen-yu cited the“shocking” increase of diseasesin China over the past 20 years,including birth defects, infertili-ty, autism, childhood cancers,

Parkinson’s disease and chronickidney disease, that might berelated to ingestion of GMOs.Last year, Major General PengGuangqian, of China’s NationalSecurity Policy Committee,warned that GMO grain

imports could be a costly mis-take for the country.

“The US dumped soybeanson China due to huge subsidiesfor their soybean farmers, and ina few years destroyed the tradi-tional Chinese soybean indus-try,” Mr. Mi wrote.

Chen I-wan of the ChinaDisaster Prevention Associationaffirmed the army’s GMO ban.China maintains the world’slargest military force, with2,285,000 members. (SOURCES: Seattle GMO Exam-iner.com; Sustainable Pulse; WallStreet Journal) �

France andItaly ban GMcorn cultivation

Bans to prevent the growingof genetically modifiedcorn in two EU states haveheld strong, after attempts

by growers to overturn them.The French Senate gave final

approval in May to ban currentcultivation of Monsanto’s MON810 as well as any future strains.The GM variety Pioneer 1507,developed by DuPont and DowChemical, is on slate for EUapproval.

“This law aims to give a legalframework to our country, toensure that a ban is applied,”said the French agriculture min-ister, Stephane Le Foll.

A petition by French growersto annul the ban was immedi-ately rejected by a top Frenchcourt.

In Italy, a regional court inLazio rejected an appeal byfarmer Giorgio Fidenato tooverturn the national ban oncultivation of MON 810; pollenfrom his GM corn crops hadcontaminated crops in a nearbyfarm.

Monica Frassoni of theEuropean Green Party says,“The Italian government can gobeyond this and extend the rightto say no to GMOs to the wholeof Europe.”

(SOURCES: Reuters; SustainablePulse; Teatro Naturale Interna-tional) �

Russian law-makers wantto imposecriminal liabili-ty for GMO-related prob-lems

Russian lawmakers want toequate GMO-relatedactivities that may harmhuman health and impose

criminal liability on producers,sellers and transporters ofgenetically modified organisms,the newspaper Izvestia reportedrecently.

A bill to this effect was sub-mitted to the Russian StateDuma lower parliament houseby the Duma agrarian commit-tee and the Liberal DemocraticParty (LDPR) faction, whoclaimed that the government’sbill referred to parliament wastoo weak. The bill’s initiatorssay liability for GMO-inflictedharm should be expanded tostate and local self-governmentofficials. Under the bill, crimi-nal responsibility should beapplicable to companies andgovernment officials only,while individuals should besubject to disciplinary liability.

The bill also provides forfines for concealing or deliber-ate distortion of informationabout environmental impactsof GMOs.

Kirill Cherkasov, the firstdeputy chairman of the StateDuma agrarian committee, saidthat tough regulation should beimposed in the area of geneengineering, since imports ofGMO-containing products hadincreased dramatically afterRussia joined the World TradeOrganization (WTO).(SOURCES: Sustainable Pulse, itar-tass.com) �

Chinese army bans GMO grainsand oils from supply stations

Sentiment against genetically modifiedorganisms in China took a sharply negativeturn recently, as health safety concerns

prompted the army to forbid any GMO grainsor food oils to enter military bases. The gov-ernment may extend the import ban country-wide within two years—with colossal impacton the global biotech industry.

INTERNATIONAL NEWS

Green Festival. May 31-June 1. Washington, DC.www.greenfestivals.org.

International Food TechnologistsExpo. June 21-24. New Orleans,LA. www.am-fe.ift.org.

Seed Savers Exchange Confer-ence. July 19-21. Decorah, IA.www.seedsavers.org.

Natural Products AssociationMidwest Trade Show. July 18-20.Columbus, OH.www.npamidwest.org.

Northeat Organic Farmers Asso-ciation-Massachusetts SummerConference. August 8-10.Amherst, MA.www.nofamass.org.

The “Corn Zone” exhibit at the Figge Museaumin Davenport, Iowa is meant to show the poten-tial danger of genetic modification. The cornpieces are made from blown glass.

ANTI-GMO ART CALENDAR

THE ORGANIC & NON-GMO REPORTPO Box 436, Fairfield, IA 52556

Change Service Requested

Documents

The Organic & Non-GMO Report