Category Archives: GMO’s

Campbell Soup and GMO’s (Part 3)

Perhaps the most encouraging news on the food front recently was the Campbell Soup decision to label their foods that contain any ingredients that are genetically modified.

Make no mistake, this is a major decision, which is probably causing consternation at the soup company since they have long opposed GM labeling.

The move does not mean that you will be seeing any of the well-known GMO free certification labels on Campbell Soup cans, but it does mean that consumers will find a simple statement saying that some ingredients in the can were genetically modified.

According to an NPR report, “In a letter to the company’s employees, posted on Campbell’s website, Campbell’s CEO Denise Morrison wrote that the company was responding to the desires of consumers, but it also wanted to avoid multiple and conflicting demands for GMO labeling by individual states. “Printing a clear and simple statement on the label is the best solution for consumers and for Campbell,” Morrison wrote.”

Campbell posted a mock-up of one possible label on a can of Spaghetti-Os, with these words: “Partially produced with genetic engineering.”

Proponents of a labeling law, including the Environmental Working Group, the Just Label It campaign and US Right to Know, praised Campbell’s move.”

It’s not my intent, in this post, to rehash the GMO labeling debate or to offer comments on genetically modified food.

But I do think that the Campbell Soup decision could be a tipping point in the battle to have food labeled clearly. The move, combined with Whole Foods’ decision to label all their products relative to GMO content by 2018, will hopefully mean that action by individual states or Congress will not be necessary.

One of the reasons Campbell cited in their decision was a desire to avoid a hodgepodge of various state regulations on GMO labeling.

Hopefully other companies who have opposed GMO labeling will be convinced to follow Campbell Soup – at least there is some hope.

More GMO’s in Our Food Chain

This week the Food and Drug Administration added more GMO’s to the US food supply when they approved the sale of genetically modified salmon.

Many retailers, including Safeway, have already stated they have no intention of selling the fish, but supporters say it won’t be long before it shows up in supermarkets in the US.

Helena Riess, Ph. D., a vocal opponent of GMO foods, noted this week that, at the very least, the decision will once again rekindle the debate about GMO labeling.

“I don’t think there has been enough time to adequately test the long- term implications of GMO food on humans,” Dr. Riess noted. While adding that animal studies have raised serious questions and concerns about the long-term effects of GMO’s on humans.

Dr. Riess also pointed out that much of the testing supporting GMO’s was sponsored by the industry itself (Monsanto) and had a predictable outcome. She compared it to the fox guarding the hen house.

That aside she said, “I think people have a right to know what they are eating. It’s pretty simple.”

The FDA is currently accepting comments on GMO labeling although the US House has already passed legislation prohibiting states from mandating GMO labels. Senate sponsors of the legislation say they hope that body will take up the legislation shortly.

While consumers can vote with their pocketbooks, which is exactly what the GMO industry fears, Dr. Riess suggests that anyone concerned about GMO’s contact their representatives and strongly encourage them to oppose legislation that would deny individuals the ability to “know what our food contains. States should be allowed to pass their own labeling laws as Vermont did in 2014.”

Some Hope on the Horizon?

Two items in the news this week have given us some reason for optimism that future generations will live in a healthier world.

First, Chipotle Restaurants announced it will no longer use ingredients that contained genetically modified (GMO) components.

Now, I am fully aware that, the Chipotle announcement was about 90% marketing hype, since you could drive a truck through the qualifications and exceptions. These include soft drinks and other products where they could not find substitutes.

Additionally, this says nothing of the GMO products fed to animals that provide the beef, pork, or chicken in their food. But it does include corn, which is largely a GMO product in the United States and is an important ingredient at a restaurant specializing in Mexican food.

But the announcement marks the first time a well-known major chain has made any statement on GMO’s and flies directly in the face of the Monsanto supporters who claim the food is perfectly safe and there is no reason to even label the products.

The announcement comes, of course, just a week after, Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, famously stopped for lunch at a Chipotle restaurant on her initial campaign trip.

Now, this also says nothing about the overall wellness level of the food at Chipotle, since many people insist that it’s not too many steps above fast food.

Will the announcement alone end the use of Roundup and make the world less polluted? Probably not, but if it raises awareness and helps the next ballot battle to label GMO foods, I think we should support it.

Combined with the impending labeling rules that Whole Foods hopes to implement by 2018, maybe consumers will be able to vote on GMO products with their wallets.

The second development was the announcement by a group of scientists and a federal official putting pressure on chemical giant Dupont to reduce the use of PFAS’s.

PFAS’s, poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances, are a class of chemicals, used in everything from carpets to pizza boxes, that many independent scientists claim increase the risk of cancer.

Under public pressure, some classes of the chemicals were replaced a few years ago, but now a new effort is being made to ban them entirely. Industry, which has a financial interest in their continued use, insists they are safe but unfortunately, since they stay in the human body for decades, it is very difficult to verify their claims.

The only solution, in my book, would be to ban them entirely to create healthier products and lessen the body burden of chemicals, which are leading to a host of health issues which no one can, or will explain.

This week, Linda S. Birnbaum, the head of the national toxicology program for the Department of Health and Human Services, wrote a commentary article in a well respected journal, questioning whether the chemical should be used, given their lifespan in the environment.

Earlier in the week a group of 200 scientists from all over the world urged all countries to ban the use of PFAS’s.

Together the two items will help consumers confront the chemical industry and demand that businesses find more environmentally friendly substances to replace them.

If we are going to improve our health and wellness, we all need help to create an environment where hidden chemicals, toxins, GMO’s and pesticides do not contaminate our world.