General Mills Gets a Taste of the Backlash After it Spent Over $1.1 Million to Defeat GMO Labeling Initiative

By Dr. Mercola

Organic foods are required by U.S. federal law to be produced in ways that promote ecological sustainability, without common toxic and genetically engineered ingredients. 

But organic products are increasingly being forced to compete with products that are labeled as "natural." There are no restrictions on the term "natural", and it often constitutes nothing more than meaningless marketing hype. Most disturbing of all, many foods labeled as "natural" actually contain genetically engineered ingredients, and breakfast cereals are particularly guilty of this.

California's Proposition 37, which would have required GE foods to be labeled as such and prevented GE foods from being mislabeled as "natural," was defeated back in November due to massive donations from multinational corporations that hide GE ingredients behind natural labels and "wholesome" advertising.

One such company was General Mills, which donated more than $1.1 million to the No on Prop. 37 campaign to defeat the GE labeling law. I recently told you this betrayal of consumers' trust will backfire, and General Mills just got a taste of the backlash.

At the beginning of December, General Mills' Cheerios brand released a Facebook app asking "fans" to "show what Cheerios mean to them." The app allowed users to create their own placards using Cheerios' trademarked black font on a yellow background, where dots and periods featured little cheerios.  One day later, the app was abruptly pulled after thousands of angry "fans" expressed their disgust over the company's betrayal. According to Activist Post1:

"You could literally spend all day looking at 'Recent Posts by Others' on Cheerios' Facebook page - they are nearly all complaints about GMOs and declarations of boycotts."

Cheerios diligently deleted posts as quickly as they could, and most have now been removed, along with the app. But screenshots of some of the creations have been preserved on Cheeseslave2 and the Happy Place3 website.

Examples include:

Occupy FoodPoison Science Experiment Cheerigmos Caution GMOs

As stated in the featured article4:

"General Mills has drawn their line in the sand, spent over a million to deceive paying customers, and is now trying to hide the backlash from other customers who do not yet know the damaging nature of genetic modification. It just goes to show that the fight for truth about GMOs in the face of deception by Monsanto, DuPont, and large food corporations is far from over. And consumers are winning without needing millions for a failed hushmoney campaign."

In a recent press release 5, Alisa Gravitz, CEO and president of Green America, stated:

"The sheer volume of comments on Cheerios' Facebook page raising concerns around genetically engineered ingredients is incredibly inspiring.  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."

One such parent posted a comment on Cheerios Facebook page saying,

"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."

She expresses exactly what so many people are now waking up to — the fact that there are an ever growing number of genetically engineered ingredients in our food that we had no idea were there.  As far as Cheerios goes, you'd never get the impression there might be anything unnatural about their cereal. According to its website6:

"Cheerios has been a family favorite for years — with good reason! Its wholesome goodness is perfect for toddlers to adults and everyone in between. Made from whole grain oats, Cheerios has no artificial colors or flavors. Those wholesome little O's have only one gram of sugar. They're low in fat, have no saturated fat and are naturally cholesterol free. Cheerios are also an excellent source of folic acid and a good source of fiber.

Maybe that's why parents feel so good about serving Cheerios to their families. It's a healthy way to start the day, a perfect snack, and tastes great in a recipe. You can trust Cheerios for a lifetime of wholesome goodness for your whole family."

However, two of the first three ingredients in Cheerios and Honey Nut Cheerios are corn starch and sugar — two ingredients that might be genetically engineered (a majority of corn-based ingredients and sugar from sugar beets on the US market is now GE). The thing is we can't know since they don't have to disclose whether they're using GE ingredients or not on the label. But the fact that General Mills chose to cough up well over a million dollars to avoid GE labeling definitely leads one to believe that, most likely, these (and/or other ingredients) of Cheerios ARE indeed the genetically modified versions. If that's the case, then there goes the "trust" for "a lifetime of wholesome goodness."

The fact that General Mills would rather pay millions to hide that their products contain GE ingredients rather than give you the choice to buy something else, or reformulate their product without GE ingredients (which would be the sensible thing to do if they were really concerned about children's long-term health and well-being) is quite telling. And fortunately, people are now starting to see through these shady tactics where actions do not match their words.

Besides the issue of whether the sugar in your favorite processed food is genetically engineered or not, it's important to remember that sugary breakfast cereals are bad news for your child's health no matter what.

Many are utterly fooled by advertisements promising "wholesome goodness," when it's really very little difference between many popular breakfast cereals and a candy bar. The following video illustrates this quite effectively. Honey Nut Cheerios contains the equivalent of four added teaspoons of sugar in each bowl compared to the original Cheerios. Few parents would allow their child to heap four teaspoons of sugar onto their cereal. Yet they fail to understand just how much sugar is hidden in the processed foods they serve their kids each day.

Last year, a report from the Cornucopia Institute titled Cereal Crimes7 exposed how most "natural" brands are actually just charging you more for what often amounts to genetically engineered ingredients. This is in all likelihood part of the reason why so many "natural" brands spent millions of dollars to defeat California's GMO labeling campaign.

According to the report:

"[There is a] vast differences between organic cereal and granola products and so-called natural products, which contain ingredients grown on conventional farms where the use of toxic pesticides and genetically engineered organisms is widespread... Our analysis reveals that "natural" products — using conventional ingredients — often are priced higher than equivalent organic products. This suggests that some companies are taking advantage of consumer confusion."

This is significant, because surveys have shown that more consumers pay attention to the "100% Natural" claim than the "100% Organic" label. In one such survey, 31 percent of respondents said the "100% Natural" label was the most desirable eco-friendly product claim, compared to just 14 percent who chose "100% Organic." Food companies clearly know this, and they're cashing in on your confusion. The truth is, synthetic ingredients and additives, toxic pesticides, fumigants and solvents frequently show up in products bearing the "natural" label, while these are strictly prohibited in organic production. But the most disturbing finding presented in the Cereal Crimes report related to the presence of genetically engineered ingredients found in so-called all-natural foods:

"The Cornucopia Institute sent samples of breakfast cereal to an accredited and highly reputable GMO testing laboratory. Samples were tested for the exact percentage of genetically engineered corn or soybeans, using the most sophisticated and accurate tests commercially available.

The results were stunning. Several breakfast cereal manufacturers that market their foods as "natural," even some that claim to avoid genetically engineered ingredients and are enrolled in the Non-GMO Project, contained high levels of genetically engineered ingredients."

Natural products found to contain 100 percent genetically engineered grains included:

The USDA certified organic label is your best guarantee that the food was produced without:

Toxic pesticides Genetically engineered (GE) ingredients Carcinogenic fumigants Chemical solvents

This peace of mind is something the "100% Natural" label will NOT give you. Genetically engineered (GE) ingredients are of particular concern when it comes to food products like breakfast cereals and granola bars, because, in the US, the vast majority of the most common ingredients in these products — corn, soy, and canola — are genetically modified.  Unfortunately, more than 60 percent of consumers erroneously believe that the "natural" label implies or suggests the absence of GE ingredients, according to a 2010 Hartman Group poll. If you're one of the 60 percent, please understand that at the current time, the ONLY label that can protect you against GE ingredients is the USDA 100% Organic label.

Once you realize that much of the "natural" claims are hype, it becomes easier to navigate around the deception. To find brands that are committed to sustainable organic agriculture and avoiding genetically engineered ingredients use Cornucopia's Cereal Scorecard8.

Another factor to consider is the fact that many small family farms actually adhere to fully organic practices even though they may not have gone through the expense of obtaining organic certification. So labels aren't everything when it comes to healthful food. But if you're going to shop by the label, make sure it's the certified 100% organic label.  Until or unless we get GMO labeling in the US, the 100% USDA Certified Organic label is the only assurance you have that the food you buy does NOT contain genetically engineered ingredients.

With the defeat of Prop. 37 in California, the field-of-play has now moved to the state of Washington, where the people's initiative 522, "The People's Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act," will require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it contains genetically engineered ingredients.

As stated on LabelWA.org9:

"Calorie and nutritional information were not always required on food labels. But since 1990 it has been required and most consumers use this information every day. Country-of-origin labeling wasn't required until 2002. The trans fat content of foods didn't have to be labeled until 2006. Now, all of these labeling requirements are accepted as important for consumers. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also says we must know with labeling if our orange juice is from fresh oranges or frozen concentrate.

Doesn't it make sense that genetically engineered foods containing experimental viral, bacterial, insect, plant or animal genes should be labeled, too?  Genetically engineered foods do not have to be tested for safety before entering the market. No long-term human feeding studies have been done. The research we have is raising serious questions about the impact to human health and the environment. I-522 provides the transparency people deserve.  

I-522 will not raise costs to consumers or food producers. It simply would add more information to food labels, which manufacturers change routinely anyway, all the time. I-522 does not impose any significant cost on our state. It does not require the state to conduct label surveillance, or to initiate or pursue enforcement. The state may choose to do so, as a policy choice, but I-522 was written to avoid raising costs to the state or consumers." 

The initiative reports having regional leaders across the state. In order to get I-522 on the 2013 ballot, they need to collect 241,153 valid signatures by December 31, 2012. I urge you to share this information with everyone you know in Washington State, and ask them to sign the petition. Vermont has also created a Right to Know Campaign10, and is also gathering signatures.

Remember, as with CA Prop. 37, these are people's initiatives, and they need support of people like YOU to succeed. Prop. 37 failed with a very narrow margin simply because we didn't have the funds to counter the massive ad campaigns created by the 'No on 37' camp, led by Monsanto and other major food companies — including General Mills. Let's not allow Monsanto and its allies to confuse and mislead the people of Washington and Vermont as they did in California.  So please, I urge you to get involved and help in any way you can, regardless of what state you live in.

No matter where you live in the United States, please donate money to these labeling efforts through the Organic Consumers Fund. If you live in Washington State, please sign the I-522 petition. You can also volunteer to help gather signatures across the state. If you live in Vermont, please sign the VT Right to Know GMO's petition. For timely updates on issues relating to these and other labeling initiatives, please join the Organic Consumers Association on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter. Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to actively support the Washington and Vermont initiatives.

View the original article here

Continue reading →

Will the Natural Products Association Live Up to its Name in the Continued Fight for GMO Labeling?

By Dr. Mercola

As you've no doubt heard, California Proposition 37, which would have required genetically engineered (GE) foods to be labeled as such and prohibited GE-containing foods to be labeled as "natural" or "all-natural," failed to pass on November 6 by just a few percentage points.

California is reporting that Yes on 37 garnered 48.5 percent of the vote compared to 51.5 percent on the No side.

This was the net effect of the $50 million dollar No to 37 campaign, which saturated California voters with misleading ads. It's a testament to consumer education that they won with such a narrow margin despite outspending the Yes campaign by tens of millions of dollars.

What they didn't anticipate was the backlash, and the inevitability of labeling now that so much awareness has been brought about in the media and word of mouth.

Finally, Americans will have a discussion about genetically engineered monocultures and the dangers they present to our environment and our health. I want to extend my personal thanks to each and every one of you who participated in the Right To Know campaign.

Just know that there will be plenty of opportunity to keep pushing for GE labeling in the coming year, and if the California ballot did anything, it was to massively increase awareness about GE foods across the US.

It is a critical first step that US states pass legislation; it is the ONLY way our federal government will take action. I am going to share my opinions about Prop 37 over a series of upcoming articles.

Here, I want to address the Natural Products Association (NPA) and ask them to protect the integrity of "Natural" and honor consumers' choice. Businesses love to market products as 'Natural' because it has value to the consumer, but what does the consumer expect from 'Natural' goods?

The NPA is the leading trade association for natural products, leading the charge in lobbying Capitol Hill and setting the standards for natural products. The NPA mission statement reads:

"As the leading voice of the natural products industry, the Natural Products Association's mission is to advocate for the rights of consumers to have access to products that will maintain and improve their health, and for the rights of retailers and suppliers to sell these products."

The NPA's Natural Standard for Personal Care Products1 debuted in 2008. It was the first and only natural certification in the US, and the certification has become well recognized in the years since. NPA certified products use natural ingredients, avoid ingredients with health risks, don't use animal testing, and include a majority of biodegradable or recycled material in the packaging.

What most people do not realize however, is that the NPA's Natural certification does not actually prohibit genetically engineered (GE) ingredients... In fact, a product can contain 100% GE ingredients and still qualify for their Natural certification! Furthermore, the Association did not support Prop. 37, and Shaw has stated the Association does not support state-by-state GE labeling efforts.

As recently as November, 2012, NPA CEO John Shaw was named one of the Top Lobbyists2. He was also named as one of the top lobbyists for 2010. There can be little doubt that the NPA is in an excellent position to take a strong stand to protect consumers' right to know and push for better certification standards when it comes to natural products.

Yet the unregulated "natural" food, supplements, and products sector, which is routinely produced with genetically engineered ingredients, toxic pesticides, synthetic chemicals, nitrate fertilizers, and livestock drugs, is actually larger than the certified organics sector. This "natural" market is worth more than $50 billion a year, compared to the certified organic sector, which is a $32 billion per year market.

Polls show that most US consumers are confused about the difference between organic and so-called "natural" products, with many consumers believing that "natural" means "almost organic" or even "better than organic," but of course "natural" products are typically much cheaper than the organic varieties, yet typically cost more than conventional products not labeled "natural." In other words, the $50 billion+ "natural" products sector is basically built upon low or non-existent standards, and this ability to charge a premium without actually having to use premium ingredients is what's being protected by organizations fighting against GE labeling.

So is the NPA really lobbying on your behalf on the Hill? In a recent interview with Newhope3603, Shaw is quoted as saying that:

"NPA continues to move aggressively, in Washington, DC, and all across the US, on behalf of its members... The members at NPA are expressing confidence in us. Membership is our No. 1 priority as we move forward, not only to expand, but also to maintain current members and make sure their needs are being met..."

So, who are the members of the National Products Association? Members4 of the NPA include not just trusted natural and organic brands, but also some of the biggest pharmaceutical and chemical companies in the world — in essence some of the premiere opponents to all things natural and/or organic, including:

A press release5 declaring the Association's opposition to Prop. 37 promulgated one of several false statements about Prop. 37, designed to scare people away from GE labeling:

"While the Natural Products Association... support consumers' right to know about their food ingredients, NPA has concerns regarding the enforcement provision and how the proposition defines natural foods. 'Proposition 37 places every supplier, manufacturer, and retailer of food products at risk of unreasonable and frivolous litigation,' NPA's official position said. 'We are concerned the restrictions on natural foods in the proposition language could create a difficult business environment in California and further hinder the ability of our members to sell natural products.' CRN said it opposes Prop 37 because it was not created to protect public health..."

That's a truly telling statement. Because certainly, opposing accurate labeling of genetically engineered products is not, and cannot be, a viable stance of any organization truly dedicated to consumer rights. According to an assessment of the litigation incentives in Prop 37 by legal expert James Cooper, PhD, of George Mason University6, the scope and certainty of Prop 37 make frivolous lawsuits highly unlikely. The press release also falsely claims Prop 37 "includes bounty hunter enforcement provisions". It does not.

John Shaw stated that, "NPA appreciates the contributions of our valued members in crafting this position."

Ironically, in the wake of the failure to pass Prop. 37, consumers are taking companies to court over products using the "natural" label when in fact they contain GE ingredients. (The latest example of this growing trend is Pepperidge Farm's Goldfish Crackers7, which contains GE soy.) In November of last year, a federal court did uphold the right of states to prohibit use of the term "natural" on foods produced through genetic engineering.

In Briseno v. Conagra Foods, Inc.8, in ruling on a motion to dismiss, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ruled that because the FDA has not established any definition of the term "natural," state law could be invoked to assert that a claim that genetically engineered food is "natural," is unlawful false advertising. Several other courts have also concluded that state laws regulating or restricting use of the term "natural" are NOT preempted by the FDCA as amended by the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act.

When it comes to genetically engineered products, the NPA seems to struggle under pressure.. Last year, in response to the lack of oversight, NPA said it was developing its own standard for natural claims on food products, which it planned to introduce in 20129. No such standards were ever introduced.

Interestingly enough, GE labeling supporter Roxanne Green from PCC Natural Markets10 --a certified organic retailer that supported Prop. 37 — recently joined the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors of the NPA. What this means is that while the NPA's CEO, John Shaw, is working against labeling of genetically engineered ingredients, the elected President, Roxanne Green, is working for it, as evidenced in the announcement that NPA Northwest supports Washington State's initiative I-522 to label GE foods in the state11.

PCC Natural Markets has already contributed $100,000 in support of I-522 to get it on the November 2013 ballot. (The current goal is to collect 320,000 signatures, recommended by the Secretary of State's office to ensure enough valid signatures by the deadline at year's end.) On October 5, the NPA Northwest also announced a $10,000 donation in support of the labeling initiative12.

It will be interesting to see what develops from this leadership over the long-term. My hope, of course, is that Shaw will reconsider the path the association has taken with regards to genetically engineered ingredients, and do the right thing — protect the integrity of "Natural" and support consumers' right to know.

The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) has launched a national petition on behalf of consumers asking the NPA to "amend its certification process for its NPA Natural Seal to exclude any and all genetically modified ingredients" in order to stop consumer fraud. According to the OCA13:

"The NPA advertises itself as working on behalf of consumers who want to purchase products that they believe are safe and authentically natural," said Ronnie Cummins, Executive Director of the OCA. "Yet nowhere in its personal care products certification process does the NPA screen for genetically modified ingredients, and nowhere on these products is there a label that says 'may contain genetically modified ingredients'. This is an outright act of consumer fraud."

Again, there's room for hope yet that NPA as a whole will take the higher road on this issue and do what is right for consumers, not to mention help establish a firm ground of consumer trust for its members that are truly dedicated to manufacturing superior, wholesome, all-natural and/or organic, safe and health promoting products. Additionally, increasing lawsuits over false or misleading use of the "natural" label will cause the label to lose value, which will set the entire industry back to square one 14.

No matter how you look at it, transgenic, synthetic life forms are very difficult to pull off as "natural." And if they're concerned now, they better get ready for the lawyers who took on Big Tobacco, and won, are now taking on the food industry. According to an October 15 article by BBC News15:

"Don Barrett likes his opponents powerful, and rich. He is the lawyer whose decade-long battle to force the tobacco companies to admit they knew cigarettes were addictive and pay the medical costs of victims was depicted in the film The Insider.

... Mr Barrett's case against Big Food is that companies are misrepresenting their products, promoting them as "natural" or "healthy", when in fact, he says, they are no such thing. His mission is to make them stick to the letter of existing laws which, he says, regulators have been too weak to enforce. He says that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which oversees food safety in the US, has merely been writing warning letters, which he thinks will not be enough.

... What he himself is fighting for, he says, is people's freedom to make a choice. "Nobody's trying to tell the American people what they have to eat or what they cannot eat, the American people can make those decisions for themselves. It's all about free choice. To have free choice you have to have accurate information. That means Big Food, the food companies, have to start telling the truth about what's in their product. The law requires it."

Yes, the issue of consumers' right to know is NOT going away..There is always more work to be done, and donating to the the Organic Consumers Fund will help several states that are pursuing the right to know genetically engineered foods by passing state legislation.

Over 60 countries around the world label genetically engineered foods, the U.S. is finally waking up. Our food system requires transparency, it's a shame we have to fight so hard for a basic right.

View the original article here

Continue reading →