Category Archives: genetically modified foods

Food manufacturers quietly making the move away from GMO ingredients

GMO signWhile many states are attempting to adopt initiatives like the Vermont’s recently passed GMO labeling legislation, it appears that many food manufacturers are quietly attempting to make changes to their ingredients to meet consumer demands.

There have been other companies that haven’t been quiet about their non-GMO intentions. Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream publicly pledged to remove GMO ingredients from their products over a year ago and has worked hard to keep that pledge.

In fact, in the face of complaints from some of their customers, the much-loved Ben & Jerry’s Coffee Heath Bar Crunch has been reworked to become Coffee Toffee Bar Crunch. That flavor reformulation was a direct result of the company’s very public pledge. Heath Bars, manufactured by Hershey, DO contain GMO ingredients. Ben & Jerry’s couldn’t leave the Heath Bars in the ice cream if they were going to remove all GMO ingredients.

Ben & Jerry’s has taken a vocal stand in recent years in support of states looking at legislation that would require manufacturers to disclose food that is made with genetic engineering. And Vermont recently passed law will require labeling starting in 2015. Ben & Jerry’s co-founder Jerry Greenfield launched a campaign to help fill the coffers of Vermont’s crowd-sourced defense fund set up to combat lawsuits over its labeling law.
The news that Ben & Jerry’s is taking a stand on a controversial issue is no surprise; it’s part of the company’s calling card. But some other mainstream companies are carefully — and much more quietly — calibrating their non-GMO strategies.

General Mills’ original plain Cheerios are now GMO-free, but the only announcement was in a company blog post in January. And you won’t see any label on the box highlighting the change. Grape Nuts, another cereal aisle staple, made by Post, is also non-GMO. And Target has about 80 of its own brand items certified GMO-free.

Megan Westgate runs the Non-GMO Project, which acts as an independent third-party verifier of GMO-free products, including Target’s. She says her organization knows about “a lot of exciting cool things that are happening that for whatever strategic reasons get kept pretty quiet.”

The Non-GMO Project has certified more than 20,000 products since it launched in 2007, and Westgate says this is one of the fastest growing sectors of the natural food industry, representing $6 billion in annual sales. But just because they’re testing the water doesn’t mean most mainstream companies are ready to start publicizing their changes.

Nathan Hendricks, an agricultural economist at Kansas State University, says big food producers are trying to gauge what direction consumers are headed in. “Ultimately,” he says, “these big companies aren’t just friends with Monsanto or something. They want to make a profit, and they want to be able to do what’s going to make them money.” So they’d better have a product line in the works if consumer sentiment starts to shift more heavily toward GMO-free food.

But even as they create GMO-free products, many of these corporations are fighting state initiatives that would require them to give consumers more information about their ingredients.

They often fight those battles through the powerful Grocery Manufacturers Association, or GMA, a trade group with hundreds of members. It has just filed suit against Vermont over the state’s GMO labeling law.

Even Ben & Jerry’s, so vocal in its anti-GMO stance, has a conflict, of sorts. It may have eliminated GMOs, but it’s still owned by Unilever, which put a lot of money toward fighting labeling legislation in California and belongs to the GMA. That might make things sticky for Ben & Jerry’s CEO Solheim.

But he equivocates. “You know,” he shrugs, “in big companies a lot of things happen behind closed doors. I think we’ll leave that conversation behind closed doors.” But Solheim says a unique agreement between the ice cream maker and Unilever allows Ben & Jerry’s to continue its social mission independent of its parent’s choices.

One reason these large companies might be quietly working to make GMO-free food now is because finding ingredients can be a major challenge. More than 90 percent of all the soybeans and corn grown in the U.S. are genetically engineered. Most of those GMO crops go to producers of eggs, milk and meat who feed their animals with them, but GMO soy oil and cornstarch are used in a lot of food manufacturing, too.

To ensure non-GMO ingredients, the supply chain has to remain separate and pristine. Crops need to be grown far enough away from genetically engineered seeds to prevent cross-contamination. Harvesting equipment needs to be either used only for non-GMO crops or cleaned extensively before switching. The same is true for processing and manufacturing facilities and transport receptacles like shipping containers.

That’s why Westgate says a natural foods brand like Kashi, owned by Kellogg’s, is transitioning more slowly than many fans would like. She points out that Kashi told consumers it would take a couple of years to switch over all of its ingredients. It’s a matter of changing contracts with growers, finding farmland where non-GMOs can be grown successfully, and reworking recipes so the flavors that customers have grown used to aren’t drastically changed, like what has happened with Ben & Jerry’s new toffee.
Right now, non-GMO food fetches a premium. Purdue University agricultural economist Chris Hurt says that premium is likely to come down if this part of the agricultural sector gains more traction and an efficiency of scale can kick in.

Ultimately, the consumer is king. And the question of whether or not consumers will want non-GMO products is still up in the air.

Not every company is Ben & Jerry’s. Their agreement with Unilever is the exception and not the rule in food manufacturing. We do get that. And we do understand that the removal of GMO ingredients from product lines is expensive and complicated. It’s a long process and one that isn’t easy for food manufacturers to undertake. FoodFacts.com is pleased to learn that there are mainstream manufacturers taking the necessary steps towards the removal of GMO ingredients even though they aren’t making announcements. Is the “consumer king” though? While it is true that consumer voices are motivating changes in food manufacturing, we have to believe that if all of us matter so much to food companies, many of the problems inherent in our food supply probably wouldn’t exist in the first place.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/07/22/333725880/some-food-producers-are-quietly-dumping-gmo-ingredients

GMO-free original Cheerios coming to a grocery store near you

If you’re concerned about purchasing products containing probable GMO ingredients, you’ll want to make note of this story.

General Mills Inc. has announced that it has begun producing original Cheerios WITHOUT any genetically modified ingredients. The 73-year-old breakfast cereal is one of the highest-profile brands to make this change, responding to the growing number of complaints in regard to the use of genetically modified ingredients in packaged foods.

This change is only being made to original Cheerios. Other varieties, like Honey Nut Cheerios, Multi-Grain Cheerios and Apple Cinnamon Cheerios are still being manufactured using the same ingredients. General Mills began working towards this change in the manufacturing of original Cheerios about a year ago and began the actual manufacturing process of the GMO-free cereal several weeks ago. They are stating that they expect the new product to be available to consumers “shortly,” once the products have made their way through the distribution system and onto shelves nationwide.

You’ll be able to identify the new GMO-free version of the cereal easily. These Cheerios will carry the label “Not Made With Genetically Modified Ingredients.” General Mills does note, however, that the product could contain trace amounts due to contamination in shipping or manufacturing.

We know that the FoodFacts.com community is well-versed in the debate regarding GMO ingredients in our food supply. GMO critics are calling this major move by Cheerios a victory in the fight against the use of genetically modified ingredients. There are initiatives proposed in several states calling for the labeling of GMO ingredients in our food supply.

While many advocacy groups have petitioned major food manufacturers to change their policies and begin producing their brands without the use of genetically modified ingredients, most large companies have rejected these efforts. They argue that there is no proof of health concerns resulting from the use of GMOs. Most are also against GMO labeling, saying that this would be a costly measure and reinforces a misconception about genetically modified ingredients.

General Mills spokesperson Mike Siemienas stated that “There is broad consensus that food containing GMOs is safe, but we decided to move forward with this in response to consumer demand.” Because the primary ingredient in Cheerios is oats, a crop that isn’t grown from genetically modified seeds, the transition just required General Mills to find new sources of cornstarch and sugar.

“Even that required significant investment,” Mr. Siemienas said. He didn’t provide a figure, but said that the hurdles would make it “difficult, if not impossible” to make Honey Nut Cheerios and other varieties without GMOs.

GMO Inside, a campaign that advocates GMO labeling, said Cheerios is the first major brand of packaged food in the U.S. to make the switch from containing GMOs to marketing itself as non-GMO. Other companies have also said they plan to change. Whole Foods Market Inc. said it will require by 2018 that all food in its stores containing GMOs, disclose the fact on labels. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. and Kellogg Co.’s Kashi, which markets its cereals and snacks as having “natural ingredients,” have both said they are working on taking GMOs out of their food.

But it is a lengthy and expensive process. Kashi says only 1% of U.S. cropland is organic and around 70% of packaged foods contain GMOs.

This voluntary change by General Mills in the manufacturing of original Cheerios may encourage other large manufacturers to follow suit. While it may be difficult and expensive to source the ingredients and change their processes, a brand as large as Cheerios embracing what companies view as a difficult transition can certainly begin a trend in food manufacturing.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303370904579297211874270146

Congratulations Connecticut!

FoodFacts.com wants to extend our congratulations to the state of Connecticut for becoming the first state in the U.S. to officially pass a law requiring the labeling of all genetically modified ingredients on food products sold in their state! Great job Connecticut legislature!

Unfortunately, when we read further we discovered that, in fact, passing the law for Connecticut is only just the beginning. Those transparent labels we’re all so adamant about won’t be on food product’s on the state’s grocery store shelves just yet. Connecticut needs the company of its neighbors before it can actively enforce the law.

Governor Dannel P. Malloy’s office issued a press release explaining both the law and what’s required for it to go into effect:

House Bill 6527 – An Act Concerning Genetically-Engineered Food, will require producers to label genetically-engineered food in Connecticut as long as four states from the New England region with an aggregate population of 20 million also adopt a labeling provision.

So neighboring states will need to pass similar legislation in order for Connecticut to realize the benefits of this newly passed law.

Health and nutrition-conscious consumers nationwide have been standing up for the consumers right to know if ingredients in the products they are purchasing are genetically modified. We are looking for the transparency that will allow us to determine for ourselves whether or not we want to consume GMOs.

Opponents of the Connecticut bill (and others like it) continue to point out there is very little scientific evidence that GMOs are dangerous to our health. They say that available information points to the idea that genetically modified crops are “generally safe” for human consumption and are not associated with any serious health problems.

While Connecticut is the first state to official pass a GMO labeling law (whether or not it can currently be acted upon), it’s not the first to propose one. California is still working on it after the defeat of Proposition 37. Vermont is halfway there. And New Hampshire, Maine, Massachussetts and Rhode Island are in discussions about similar bills.

While we’ll have to wait for Connecticut’s neighbors to take similar actions in order to see the results of their leadership, FoodFacts.com wants to applaud the groundbreaking actions taken by its legislature. Passing the GMO Labeling initiative in Connecticut took real initiative, courage and leadership. It required the state’s lawmakers to disregard possible backlash from food manufacturers and put the rights of its citizens ahead of other voices. We’re hopeful that the actions of these lawmakers will encourage others nationwide to do the right thing for consumers all over the country.

Read more: http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/2013/06/connecticut-passes-gmo-labeling-law/#ixzz2VOcmejaI

GMO apples are getting closer to grocery stores

When it comes to GMOs in our food supply, FoodFacts.com has always been firmly in the “anti” camp. We’re thrilled that so much is being done in different states to fight for transparency in the labeling of products that contain GMO ingredients. Even though that will be a major win for consumers who have the right to know and understand what’s in the food they’re eating, sometimes it doesn’t seem like enough. This is one of those times.

Today we learned that by the end of 2013, two varieties of genetically modified apples may be sitting in produce sections across the country. The Arctic Granny Smith apple and the Arctic Golden Delicious apple may become the second genetically modified fruits to enter our food supply. Currently, the Hawaiian papaya (Rainbow and SunUp) is the only GM fruit available.

Arctic apples were created by Okanagan Specialty Fruits in British Columbia, Canada. The purpose of their genetic modification was to prevent the browning of their flesh when cut. Browning in apples and potatoes is the result of polyphenol oxidase which is an enzyme that produces melanin that gives the cells a brownish color. A man-made gene was inserted into these seeds and as a result, Arctic apples produce less than 10 percent of the enzyme than conventional apples do. They do not brown when sliced.

The apples have been nicknamed “Botox apples” by the Center for Food Safety, since they have only been genetically modified for cosmetic reasons. Their manufacturer claims that the benefits of Arctic apples go further than cosmetics. They claim that the apples have the potential to reduce food waste and that apples resistant to browning have a better taste and texture than their counterparts. They also claim that the apples are more likely to retain their vitamin C and antioxidants which are eliminated in the browning process.

Some supporters feel that Arctic apples can increase apple sales and consumption of the fruit here in the U.S. In addition, their use by sliced packaged apple producers would result in a healthier product at the grocery store. Most sliced apples have to be sprayed with an anti-oxidant that alters flavor prior to packaging. In addition, grocery stores stocking Arctic apples would cut down on losses because of apple bruising, which leaves the fruit in an unattractive condition and not fit for sale.

Critics focus on the unknown health issues of Arctic apples as well as other genetically modified foods. This has been the problem all along with the issue of GMOs in our food supply. We don’t know enough to proclaim their safety. And studies that have been conducted aren’t exactly encouraging. In addition, apple growers are concerned about genetic drift, where pollen from Arctic apple trees would drift and contaminate nearby organic and conventional orchards. This could prevent some crops from obtaining organic certification and others from exportation to the European Union.

Okanagan is currently seeking “deregulated status” from the USDA for both varieties of Arctic apples. They need to prove that the apple crops aren’t weaker against plant pests and won’t endanger other nearby crops. The Arctic Granny Smith has shown increased incidences of a leaf-eating but, that’s it. The other pests and diseases test for thus far on both varieties of apples have performed the same or better than their conventional counterparts. They are now expecting a second public comment period of 30 days and are anticipating full deregulation later on in 2013.

There are other genetically modified fruit manufacturers that are watching Arctic apples very closely as they prepare their own bids for the entry of other genetically modified fruits into our food supply. Okanagan is already developing genetically modified peaches, pears and cherries.

Kind of a slippery slope, isn’t it? Here at FoodFacts.com, we can’t help thinking that apples turn brown because that’s how nature intended it. Fresh food reacts with its environment. And we know what’s in fresh food. And we know how it works for our bodies and our health. We can’t say that we know the same for Arctic apples – or any other genetically modified food or ingredient. And, frankly, none of us asked for them to begin with.

Read more: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/world-our-backyard/2013/may/10/gmo-apples-may-hit-us-supermarkets-end-year/#ixzz2Tz1jwU60

Way to go Vermont! House passes GMO Bill

FoodFacts.com is excited to inform our community that Vermont is coming close to being the first state in the nation to require labeling of genetically modified foods!

The Vermont House passed the bill by an incredible 107-37 vote! While the measure wouldn’t go into effect for two years if passed by the senate and signed by the governor, this is a groundbreaking moment for all of us who support the labeling of GMO ingredients in our food supply.

A little more on the bill – if passed, it would not affect the labeling of meat, milk or eggs from animals that were fed or treated with genetically engineered substances. But it would require that any food product that contains a GMO ingredient (think corn, soy and sugar) would need to clearly state it on its labeling.

It was interesting to learn that there was no argument against the idea of transparent labeling for GMO ingredients in food. Those that voiced opposition to the bill stated concerns of likely lawsuits from the biotech and food industries. This appears to be the state’s biggest concern as it would be an exceptionally costly proposition. Many believe that the state would lose such a lawsuit, as the new law could possibly contradict the First Amendment by compelling speech and pre-empting federal authority (since the FDA has not made the labeling of GMO ingredients a federal requirement).

A ballot initiative that would have required the labeling of GMO ingredients in California was defeated last year. There was a lot of money spent accomplishing the defeat of that proposition. Since that time though, many states have been considering a bill like the one that just passed the house in Vermont. The legislation of GMO ingredient labeling isn’t dying. Most of the corn, soy, and sugar beets grown in the U.S. are genetically modified. These ingredients are used commonly in the processed foods on our grocery shelves. But consumers can’t know that since they aren’t labeled as such. The labeling requirement would allow consumers a much-needed choice in the products they purchase.

64 different countries – the European Union nations, China and Russia included – have GMO-labeling laws. If this bill passes in Vermont and is signed into law, a new trend may begin here in America. FoodFacts.com is excited to see that new trend begin! We’ll keep following this news and bring you the results as soon as we have them!

http://grist.org/news/vermont-house-approves-gmo-labeling-law/

Stay involved in the fight against GMOs … tell grocery stores to say NO to genetically modified seafood!

FoodFacts.com loves a good petition! We’re always encouraged by the impact of consumer voices on the food industry. Today we found information that we wanted to share with our community so that we all can stay involved in the fight against GMOs.

This comes from Friends of the Earth and their new petition that will tell supermarkets, food companies and restaurants to keep genetically modified seafood out of our food supply. Their new campaign has launched and we can all get involved.

Research indicates that over 90% of consumers are against the FDA allowing genetically modified fish in our food supply. The FDA, however is close to approving AquAdvantage – a salmon that’s been genetically engineered to grow faster. If they do approve this, it will be the first genetically modified animal to enter our food system. As it stands now, the fish will probably not be labeled and we won’t know what we’re actually consuming.

About 35 different species of genetically modified fish are currently in development. If the GM salmon is approved it will open the door for other genetically engineered fish and meats to enter the food supply.

This important information has spurred Friends of the Earth to ask grocery stores, seafood restaurants, chefs and seafood companies to commit to NOT source or sell GMO seafood if it comes to market. And they’re asking all of us to get involved in their efforts. Sign their petition asking companies to make this commitment and help keep genetically engineered fish out of our grocery stores and restaurants.

To date, almost a dozen major food retailers with stores nationwide have taken the Pledge for GE-Free Seafood or have otherwise stated their commitment not to knowingly purchase or sell genetically engineered salmon or seafood. These include:

Aldi
Abundance Co-Op Market
Berkshire Co-Op Market
Bi-Rite Market
Davis Food Co-Op
Marsh Supermarket
Merc Co-Op
PCC Natural Markets
Sacramento Natural Foods Cooperative
Three Rivers Market
Trader Joe’s
Whole Foods
Whole Foods Co-Op

Let’s help make this list longer! FoodFacts.com encourages our community to get involved with Friends of the Earth and tell companies to say NO to genetically engineered seafood. You can find the petition here at Friends of the Earth. Let’s stay active and involved in the fight against GMOs!

Read more: http://www.foe.org/gefreeseafood

GMO Inside needs our help getting GMOs properly labeled or completely out of our breakfast cereals

FoodFacts.com is aware of our community’s strong feelings regarding the genetically modified ingredients in our food supply. We know how important to is to you to educate yourself, shop carefully, and stay aware of the latest developments in the GMO controversy. When we saw this information today, we knew our community needed to know the details of how they can lend a hand in the ongoing battle over GMO labeling.

GMO Inside is a group devoted to the rights of food consumers to know if the foods they are purchasing contain genetically modified ingredients. They have announced that they are calling on Kellogg’s and General Mills regarding the GMO ingredients in their breakfast cereals and effectively start over with consumers by labeling or removing those ingredients from their products. It’s called the “Fresh Start” action and you can help to move these breakfast cereal giants in the right direction.

During the month of January at http://gmoinside.org/take-action/ , GMO Inside needs all of us to to sign petitions, phone both of these companies to request non-GMO products, and comment accordingly on the Facebook profiles of each company and their brands. For Kellogg’s, the brands include Corn Flakes, POPS, Froot Loops, Frosted Flakes and Special K. They are also the manufacturer of MorningStar Farms products and Keebler. General Mills boasts Lucky Charms, Cheerios, Chex and Kix as well as the Pillsbury and Betty Crocker brands. There are plenty more, these are just examples for both companies.

In addition to the effort to get the brands to label or remove GMO ingredients, GMO inside is also asking both brands to withhold funding from any opposition to the new Washington State ballot initiative for labeling GMO ingredients. This will come up for a vote during the next election season. It is important to note that both Kellogg’s and General Mills are selling their products in Europe, WITHOUT GMO ingredients.

The GMO Inside “Fresh Start” initiative has already gained over 5,000 signatures on their petition.

FoodFacts.com and GMO Inside share the same philosophies on the controversial topic of GMO ingredients. GMOs have never been proven to be safe for consumers. We find new studies constantly that raise serious issues about health issues that may be linked to genetically modified foods. And in addition, we are aware that the planting of GMO crops has actually increased the use of the pesticides and herbicides, proving harmful for farmers worldwide.

We urge our community to take action and visit the GMO Inside link to support this very important initiative.
Read more: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/fresh-start-for-2013-national-coalition-calls-on-us-cereal-giants-to-take-gmos-out-of-our-breakfasts-2013-01-17

Genetically Modified Salmon could hit supermarkets quicker than first thought … Frankenfish gets initial FDA Approval

FoodFacts.com learned today that it’s quite possible that GMO salmon may soon be coming to a seafood section near you – but you might not know it when it gets there. Nicknamed “Frankenfish” due to its abnormally large size in comparison to natural salmon, genetically modified Atlantic salmon was given initial approval. This was the last step in the process to market.

The genetically engineered salmon was developed by AquaBounty and uses DNA from a Chinook salmon and something called an ocean pout (which is an eel-like fish). This genetic combination caused the fish to grow twice as fast as wild salmon. This makes the production of the fish more cost effective for the manufacturer. While we’re all aware of the copious amounts of genetically engineered products in our food supply, the FDA’s approval for the new salmon is actually the first time a genetically engineered animal product would be available to consumers anywhere in the world. Of course, consumers won’t know which salmon they’re buying – the larger sized, faster growing genetically engineered fish or the wild product that only contains its own genes.

There is plenty of opposition to the genetically engineered salmon. Obviously, for consumers the big issue is the labeling. But, others are perturbed by possible effects on the fishing industry in this country as well as the impact the GMO salmon could have on the wild salmon population.

The approval process is to be followed by a 60-day public comment period regarding the genetically engineered salmon. After that time comments will be reviewed and final approval can be given in early 2013. AquaBounty insists that its methods of raising the new salmon circumvent any possible problems being brought to light by the fishes’ opponents.

FoodFacts.com will monitor the FDA site to locate the public comment area for genetically modified salmon, so that we can alert you to it. In the meantime, there is certainly a lot of reading you can do on this controversial subject. We’ve shared the links below in hopes that you will educate yourself further on the many and varied potential issues that may be moving in to your grocery store in the very near future.

http://my.firedoglake.com/edwardteller/2012/12/26/fda-approves-frankenfish-what-could-possibly-go-wrong/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/aquaadvantage-genetically-modified-salmon-no-threat_n_2347757.html
http://www.livescience.com/25799-frankenfish-salmon-gmo.html

The power of social media … Saying no to GMOs on the Cheerios Facebook page

FoodFacts.com definitely considers this story food for thought. It appears that consumers who are staunchly against GMOs and avidly for GMO labeling on food products have paid more than a bit of attention to the Facebook Cheerios page. They are expressing their extreme disapproval for the non-labeling of GMO ingredients in the popular General Mills’ product.

The General Mills’ Cheerios Facebook page was intended to be a social media outlet for consumers to share their childhood memories of Cheerios. Let’s remember that regardless of ingredients, Cheerios were and still are the first “finger food” that most pediatricians recommend for babies/toddlers. They’re actually included in evaluations for the Pincer Grasp (the incredibly important physical achievement for young toddlers that involves being able to pick up a small object between the thumb and index finger). Do a search in Google images for Pincer Grasp. Most of the images that turn up in the search will, in fact, involve Cheerios. Combine all that with the heart-healthy marketing campaigns and the little cartoon bees for the “Honey Nut” variety and it really isn’t so unusual that Cheerios is an incredibly popular brand here in the U.S.

But the power of social media can show its force on even the most popular of brands. It appears that late in November anti-GMO posters hijacked the Cheerios Facebook page. It seems that GMOInside – a coalition of organizations was somehow behind the efforts to inundate the Cheerios Facebook page with comments from Anti-GMO consumers.

General Mills contributed $1.1 million to the efforts to defeat Proposition 37 in California – the proposed bill to require the labeling of GMO ingredients in California’s food supply. While General Mills’ contribution was less than those of many other companies.

The floodgates opened when General Mills promoted a smartphone app that asked users to tell them what the Cheerios brand meant to them. They printed the comments in the classic Cheerios typeface and put them up on the Facebook page. But GMOInside asked its followers to send messages to General Mills via that same app.

So if you visit the Cheerios Facebook page right now, you’ll see posts from consumers telling General Mills they aren’t buying Cheerios anymore because General Mills isn’t labeling the product appropriately.

The power of social media is a huge and all-encompassing force. FoodFacts.com is hopeful that General Mills will take note of the plethora of messages on the Cheerios Facebook page. Consumers are simply asking for transparency and honesty. The request is not for them to remove ingredients from Cheerios, but to let consumers decide for themselves whether or not to include GMO ingredients in their diets. The only way a Cheerios consumer can do that is for General Mills to label Cheerios accordingly. We like the idea. We hope they do too.

http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/12/general-mills-cheerios-facebook-page-anti-gmo-campaign/
http://gmoinside.org/launch-gmo-inside-campaign-cheerios/

The fight to have GMOs labeled in our foods isn’t over yet! Goldfish Crackers have been cited in a lawsuit targeting genetically modified soy …

FoodFacts.com and those in our community were very disappointed by the defeat of Proposition 37 in the California elections last week. But we are happy to report tonight that it’s becoming more and more obvious that the fight is not over yet and there are folks taking action against popular products that contain genetically modified ingredients.

Last week a complaint was filed by Sonya Bolerjack against Pepperidge Farm that states that the company has “mistakenly or misleadingly represented that its Cheddar Goldfish crackers are “Natural” when in fact, they are not, because they contain geneticially modified organisms in the form of soy and/or soy derivatives.” The plaintiff went further, stating that “genetically modified soy products contain genes and/or DNA that would not normally be in them, and are, thus, not natural.”

This is a $5 Million dollar class action lawsuit. The plaintiff is claiming that she never would have bought the product if she had been aware that it contained genetically modified ingredients. She went further to explain that she took the products labeling as truth. The front of the Goldfish cracker package reads “Natural” in rather bold display. She is, therefore saying that the labeling and advertising is false and/or misleading and because of that, she did not get what she paid for.

While lawsuits like this will become more and more common, FoodFacts.com is fairly certain that the food industry is feeling comfortable that the issue will fade with the election. We know for sure, in fact, that Illinois, Alaska, North Carolina, Iowa, Maryland, New York, Oregon, Washington, Rhode Island, West Virginia, Vermont, Tennessee, Hawaii, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, Michigan and New Hampshire have all introduced bills that would require the labeling of GMOs. Additionally, in the last few years, lawsuits have been filed against other companies including Frito-Lay regarding product labeling for genetically modified ingredients.

FoodFacts.com thinks that lawsuits like those filed by Sony Bolerjack make a lot of sense. She’s right, she didn’t get the product she thought she paid for. Check it out for yourself right here: http://www.foodfacts.com/ci/nutritionfacts/Cheese-Crackers/Pepperidge-Farm-Cheddar-Goldfish-Baked-Snack-Crackers-72-oz/10769. And she spent money for a product repeatedly that was misrepresented as “natural” when many of the basic ingredients aren’t. Millions of food consumers take food companies at their word … or “at their labeling” and are often shocked to discover they’ve been misled. Why wouldn’t she want her money back?

FoodFacts.com feels strongly that consumers everywhere need to make their voices heard, just like the plaintiff in this lawsuit. If we can speak loudly enough, they’ll hear us over the big money that put down Proposition 37 in the state of California and hear us in court cases like the one we’ve highlighted hear all over the country.

Read more: http://www.topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/2912-goldfish-crackers-class-action-lawsuit