Sustainable Action Leadership

GMOs and Wal-Mart's new Check-Out Blog:

I have copied my post last month, to the new Wal-Mart "Check-out" Blog:

"It would seem natural for Wal-Mart to adopt the same Non-GMO labeling standard as Whole Foods and other multi-stakeholders in the organic food market: (See link below.)

Organic agriculture is certified organic in a process based standards system. While GMOs are prohibited per the USDA/NOP Certified Organic Standard, there are NO TESTS conducted during the certification process on organic agriculture to ensure/prove that Organic food is indeed Non-GMO or GMO-Free.

As you know GMO contamination does happen albeit primarily accidental via drift-or inappropriate transfer handling of GMO product. Concerns are arising daily with GMO contamination especially in the area of feedstock (e.g.cows) for products such as organic milk.

In 2006 the US represented 55% of the GLOBAL area devoted to biotech planted crops. Of the area in the US ( 2006) that is now laden with GMO crops; 89% of SOY is GMO, 83% of Cotton, 75% of Canola and 60% of all the CORN planted is a GMO variety.

Europe has a Non-GMO labeling system-mandatory-inplace.By the way demanded for, by consumers!!!
Since Wal-Mart has stores in the EU, it is already being done there and you could follow best practices in the EU.

For Wal-Mart to adopt the labeling of Non-GMO product for ALL ORGANICS seems like an extra bit of an insurance policy to ensure the integrity of the "Certified Organic" label in your stores (Sams Club too!)

PLUS- This lets the Wal-Mart consumer know that YOU-Wal-Mart truly care about the health and well being of all of us consumers that shop there.

If this was adopted by Wal-Mart this would prove Wal-Marts Market Leadership in Sustainability, and if you are leary of this,why don't you start where you did in organic cotton--in the baby area. Infant formula and baby food would be a natural--what says you care more about consumers than that?

PS While, I would like to see Wal-Mart adopt Non-GMO Labeling of all food, organic and conventional it seems appropriate to start somewhere like baby, as that proved successful in the area of organic cotton."

Link to Mulit-Stakeholder: Non-GMO Project: www.nongmoproject.org

GMO Resource Corner: Science or Nonsense; Two Sides of the GMO Debate Part IV of IV

Click Here:Science or Nonsense; Two Sides of the GMO Debate

GMO RESOURCE CORNER:

Cornell University GEO-PIE http://www.geo-pie.cornell.edu/

Friends of the Earth International http://www.foei.org/

GMO Compass http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/home/

National Ag Law Center http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/

National Organic Program http://www.ams.usda.gov/NOP/indexNet.htm

Organic & Non-GMO Report http://www.non-gmoreport.com/

Organic Trade Association http://www.ota.com/index.html

Union of Concerned Scientists http://www.ucsusa.org/

University California Davis Ag Division http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/

University of Richmond-PEW Ag Bio Tech http://pewagbiotech.org/

Soil Association UK http://www.soilassociation.org/

Non-GMO Project Part III of IV

 

What is the Non-GMO Project?

The Non-GMO Project’s central mission is to provide the following:

Knowledge—Knowledge and information on GMOs that will help the organic and natural foods industry to understand and avoid them in their products.

Standard—A uniform, authoritative, consensus-based standard with which to verify non-GMO foods.

Verification Program—A centralized, economical, confidential, third-party program for verifying that products meet the non-GMO standard.

The Non-GMO Project is a non-profit organization, created by leaders representing all sectors of the organic and natural products industry in the U.S. and Canada, to offer consumers a consistent “non-GMO” choice for organic and natural products that are produced without genetic engineering or recombinant DNA technologies.

The Project began as an initiative of independent natural foods retailers who were interested in providing their customers with more information regarding the GMO risk of their products. As the Project evolved, it became clear that in order for the initial vision of standardized labeling to be possible, a 3rd party verification program was needed that would identify products compliant with a uniform, consensus-based definition of non-GMO. With the help of technical consultants FoodChain Global Advisors, and fueled by the passion of a dynamic array of industry leaders.

Download here the latest Spring 2008 update from the Non-GMO Project.

GMOs what are they? Part II of IV

Unlike open-pollination and hybridization, which occur in nature, genetic engineering requires human intervention in a laboratory setting, directly manipulating DNA. Genetic engineers insert a foreign gene into the host DNA. Genetic engineering has the ability to cross all natural species boundaries and its products are often called “transgenic” (literally across genus boundaries).

Plant breeding, animal husbandry, beer brewing and yogurt fermentation as well as more advanced technologies of using micro-organisms, phyto-pharmacology, vaccination or the use of biomass for energy production - All these technologies are forms of biotechnology.

Getting it straight? GM, GE, GEO and GMO?

The terms genetically modified (GM) and genetically engineered (GE) are used interchangeably by the industry, concurrently referring to genetic engineering, also known as recombinant DNA technology. GMO’s are genetically modified organisms, i.e. organisms whose DNA has undergone gene insertion. They are also called GEO’s, for genetically engineered organisms. If a GMO is used for food or to produce GM proteins used in food, the ingested product is called GM food. The term Bioengineering is also used to describe genetic engineering.

Hybrids are not GM, they are the result of the deliberate crossing of two different parent varieties, usually inbreeds. Typically, a corn variety will be crossed with a different corn variety and the result will always be a corn.

Pharma crops are crops genetically engineered to produce drugs to prevent or treat a variety of diseases and certain froms of cancer, AIDS, and hepatitis. The term can also encompass industrial crops engineered to produce raw materials for plastics, detergents, paints, and other products.

What crops (foods) are genetically engineered? Data; 2006

Soybeans - Farmers planted 89% of the US 2006 soybean acreage with varieties genetically engineered to be resistant to Roundup herbicide. Soybean oil, soy protein, and soy lecithin are found in a wide array of processed foods.

Corn – 60% of corn varieties planted are the insect resistant and herbicide tolerant varieties. Corn oil, corn syrup, corn flour and corn starch are used in many foods.

Canola -  75% of canola is herbicide resistant. Canola oil is extracted from rapeseed and is a common cooking oil.

Cotton – 83% of GE varieties that are herbicide resistant and/or insect resistant. While cotton is primarily thought of as a fiber crop, the seed is processed into cottonseed oil for use in many fried snacks, peanut butter, and other products.

Other plants; Disease resistant GE varieties of papaya (Hawaiian papaya 50%), squash and zucchini grown commercially. FlavrSavr tomato and insect resistant Bt potatoes were marketed at one time. GE varieties of rice, sugar beet, and radicchio have been approved, but are not currently marketed.

 

U.S. organic food industry fears GMO contamination Part I of IV

Organic an alternative to genetic engineering in agriculture?

U.S. national organic standards and industry practices do not allow the use of genetic engineering in the production and processing of organic products. Organic agriculture gives consumers who wish to avoid genetically modified foods a choice in the marketplace. However, there are  concerns with the possible contamination  of  organic  agriculture. This is the first in a four part series exploring genetic engineering and steps being taken to minimize the risk of contamination by the foremost organic industry pioneers and leaders .

By Carey Gillam (Reuters) - Widespread contamination of U.S. corn, soybeans and other crops by genetically engineered varieties is threatening the purity of organic and natural food products and driving purveyors of such specialty products to new efforts to protect their markets, industry leaders said this week.

A range of players, from dairy farmers to natural food retailers, are behind an effort to introduce testing requirements and standards for certification aimed at keeping contamination at bay. That goal is rapidly becoming harder, however, as planting of biotech corn, soybeans, and other crops expands across the United States.

"We think we can keep the contamination from getting worse by putting safeguards in place so people who want to choose to eat organic products free of genetic contamination can do so," said Michael Funk, CEO of United Natural Foods, which is backing the initiative. "The longer we delay ... the more challenging it is going to be."

Biotech crops, primarily corn, soybeans, cotton and canola, have genes that have been manipulated to express specific traits, most commonly a resistance to herbicide, which helps farmers. Biotech developers such as Monsanto Co patent the crop technology and tightly control use of the seed.

But mixing of biotech crops and conventional crops can occur during many phases of harvest, storage and shipment of grain, and drifting pollen and other natural forces can also contaminate crops while they are still in the fields.

Indeed, contamination of conventional crops by biotech crops has been reported around the world. There were 39 cases of crop contamination in 23 countries in 2007, and more than 200 in 57 countries over the last 10 years, according to biotech critic Greenpeace International.

Contamination of corn is the biggest concern for those trying to sell biotech-free food. Corn is not only used in human food but is also used to feed livestock, meaning organic beef and dairy farmers must ensure their animals are fed corn that is free of contamination.

That has become more difficult as biotech corn acres have expanded in the United States. In 2007, an estimated 73 percent of the 92.9 million acres of U.S. corn planted were biotech, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Organic Cotton Fact Check... Part III of IV

Organic Cotton the Journey………

This is the journey of cotton environmental marketing claims, as it relates to both conventional and organic cotton.

This is not about content and or care labeling nor third part organic certification. If you would like to have more information regarding the USDA National Organic Program labeling or third party certification criteria as it pertains to organic cotton please see previous posts on this blog ( Part II of IV of this post or previous post 2/19/08.) Also you can click here to visit Organic Trade Association.

It is also recommended that you review part one and part two as well.

Where we have been:
Organizations committed to organic cotton incorrectly utilizing and reporting outdated data, that had not been updated for almost ten years. (See part I of III) Reporting; "1/3 pound (150 grams or 5 ounces) of pesticides and fertilizers to grow enough cotton to produce one tee shirt" reporting this as a global number when it was actually data reported for US Cotton in the 90's. Also not indicating the weight of the "one tee shirt?" this is prevalent throughout the industry; comparison of a tee-shirt without specifying the weight of that tee-shirt, enough to cause mass confusion right from the start.

What can we do now?

Facts:

There are no known global conventional cotton pesticide numbers by which to compare organic cotton to conventional cotton.

Cotton production worldwide varies greatly by region, country and season.

According to PAN-UK "The US is the only country in the world with accurate and publicly available data on inputs used." There have never been globally reported numbers for comparing organic cotton to conventional cotton:

The only current, quantifiable information is provided publicly by the USDA as it pertains to USA cotton which includes all cotton (conventional and organic.)

(Note; this report dated 5/06 is the most recent report available. According to the USDA, 2007 report will be available May ’08. Also this report does not include fertilizers. That information has been requested, as that information is received it will be posted on this blog and added to the calculation.)

Calculation method (A) from the above document; Nine US States grew cotton. Texas represents almost half of that; Texas also uses the least amount of applied pesticides per acre.

In total, all nine states applied 55,738 pounds of pesticides divided by the total 12,425 planted acreage equals 4.4859 pounds applied per acre of cotton. 4.4859 pounds equals 71.774 ounces applied per acre. For the documented year, the yield per acre was 831 pounds of cotton fiber per acre. 71.774 ounces divided into 831 pounds of cotton fiber per acre equals 0.08637 ounces of pesticides used to grow a pound of cotton fiber in the US. * US cotton application of pesticides vary by State. This is the preferred calculation method by Cotton Inc.

Calculation method (B) from the above document: Some organizations (see Part I of IV are choosing to look at each individual pesticide(type) per acre application. Then dividing that into the total of acres that the pesticide was applied to, when calculated this way the total is .1144 ounces of pesticides per pound of cotton grown. (Please contact me if you want the detail of this calculation.)

As mentioned previously, fertilizers are not included in these calculations. This information will be updated when it is received.

Facts:
According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Environmental Marketing Guides.

“Your label claims CANNOT be deceptive.” “It is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by implication, that a product, package or service offers a general environmental benefit.”

Additionally, claims should be adequately qualified to avoid consumer deception. What claims can an organization committed to organic cotton agriculture make? #1 Always abide by the FTC Guidelines:

A.) Supply Chain Transparency: Where does your cotton come from?

If the answer is that your organic cotton was grown in the U.S. then according to the rules set forth by the FTC, for your environmental marketing claims; if you are choosing to compare organic cotton to conventional cotton then you are able to utilize USDA information, of 0.08637 ounces of pesticide application per pound of cotton grown, While this number actually includes organic cotton, as noted below organic cotton is a very small portion of US production.

B.)  If you do not know the origin of your organic cotton, or if it comes from a country other than the U.S. there is no comparative number to use at this time, and you would not be able to make an environmental marketing claim as it pertains to organic cotton versus conventional cotton. If indeed you do have qualified comparative conventional cotton information in the country where your organic cotton was grown in order to quantify the claim you could report that number. It is possible, though highly unlikely given the following statement from PAN-UK.

C.) Some organizations are choosing to utilize the USDA 0.08637 ounces per pound comparison number for global organic cotton purchases. If you are such an organization, a disclaimer in your marketing materials indicating that you are using USDA conventional cotton comparisons to your global organic cotton purchases might be the right thing to do, this is a decision your organization will have to make and I would advise you to contact the FTC for full disclosure guidelines.

The US grows 16% of the conventional global cotton crop. The US also grows 6.6% of the global organic cotton crop. The total number of US cotton bales in 2007 was 119 million bales (480 pounds per bale) of the 119 million bales of cotton produced in the US last year, 11,537 bales were Organic Cotton or .0006% of the US production.

It is notable since the first post Part One of Organic Cotton Fact Check dated March 13, that several organizations have removed the outdated information of 1/3 pound of pesticides used to grow one pound of conventional cotton from their websites.

Again this is no longer viable correct information of which to use in your marketing materials.

The purpose of the above reported information is to correct the facts which have been misused.

I remain committed to organic agriculture, make no mistake there are harmful pesticides that cause harm to both our ecosystems and to our people used in current conventional cotton production.

*The above calculation does not include fertilizers. That information will be posted as it is received.

** Part I of IV the calculated pesticide application reported was .1188 ounces of pesticides per pound of cotton grown. This was calculated using the same data as above; by individual input rather than the sum total, in addition a different yield number was used.

***Pesticide applications not only vary region to region, season to season, but must be updated annually or whenever new data is reported.

 

 

 

 

Sustainable Action Leadership