Daily Archive

According to an article in the New York Times, (August 29, 2009 ‘Non-GMO’ Seal Identifies Foods Mostly Biotech-Free By WILLIAM NEUMAN) there will soon be a label affixed to foodstuffs to indicate participation in a GMO reduction program. The program is run by The Non-GMO Project. The Project’s website includes a pledge for consumers to sign, a list of participating products and retailers and good information on what GMOs are and how to avoid them.

The Good, or what certification does: The project’s seal (shown above) indicates that manufacturers have followed procedures, including testing, to ensure that crucial ingredients contain no more than 0.9 percent of biotech material. In European countries that have banned genetically modified foods, 0.9 percent is the upper acceptable level of biotech matter allowed.

The Bad, or what certification doesn’t do: The program does not guarantee “No GMO” status. Terms like “crucial ingredients,” “largely free of GMO ingredients” and “mostly clean” are used to describe the program. Could this mean that of the fifteen ingredients on a package, only the three most major ingredients are tested to be 0.9 percent “clean?” What about the remaining ingredients? Does it mean that five of them each hit 0.9 or lower or that the entire product is 0.9 percent or lower? These and many other questions (and possible loopholes) await answers.

The Ugly, or why we need this new certification: Hundreds of products already claim on their packaging that they do not contain genetically modified ingredients. The green and white “Certified Organic” sticker is supposed to provide us that assurance. But in truth, odds are the products have not actually been tested.

Here in the real world, there is so much contamination going on that it is probably impossible to guarantee that any given crop is free of biotech interference. Organically grown products now being tested are showing contamination to some degree, and as the land planted with genetically modified crops increases, so will the contamination.

The newspaper article also provides the following frustrating statistics:

Plantings of crops with genetic modifications have risen sharply over the last decade, to the point that about 85 percent of corn and canola and 91 percent of soybean acreage this year was sown with biotech seed.

Once this year’s crop is processed, close to half of the nation’s sugar will come from gene-engineered plants. Monsanto, a major developer of such seeds, has said it plans to develop biotech wheat, and scientists are moving forward on other crops.

I’m glad we are moving toward voluntary labeling, because it provides movement in the right direction. If consumers push for the label, choose to purchase labeled products over unlabeled and participate in other activities (like writing or calling companies who choose to or not to label) the first mile will go quickly. From there, if we can keep the ball rolling, mandatory labeling, mandatory testing on all levels, and eventually the demise of the GMO menace (yes, I said menace) could be on the horizon.

We slept through the initial warnings and allowed genetically modified organisms to get a foothold. They will be hard to rid ourselves of, but it is a goal worth working toward.

This post is part of Real Food Wednesdays, hosted this week by Kelly the Kitchen Kop.