GMO Labeling, Now that Prop 37 Failed

Non GMO Sales

Source: Spins LLC

California was close, but ultimately the majority voted against Proposition 37, which would have required the labeling of food products made with genetically modified ingredients. Just a few months ago, consumers polls showed that Californians overwhelmingly approved of the new law.

But a $45 million advertising push by “Big Ag” and “Big Food” companies managed to convince a majority to vote no. Money talks. The CEO of Monsanto will see a thousandfold return on his company’s $8 million dollar investment in keeping food labels free of any GMO information.

The silver lining is that the GMO issue has become an important consumer talking point and sales of non GMO products are on the rise. According to market insight company SPINS, sales of Non GMO verified products in the last year were $2.4 Billion, an 85% increase over the $1.3 billion the year before.

What to do at the supermarket:

If you want to avoid GMOs in your food, look for the Non-GMO verified label on the package. Organic food is also a good bet, but may be cross contaminated with GMOs.

You can also use the GMO feature on Fooducate’s Android and iPhone app, as well as on on our website (It’s Free on all 3).

NON GMO Project

 

Get Fooducated

  • Maria

    I don’t get it. Some people care about avoiding GMOs and would vote to label them. Some people couldn’t care less or think GMOs are fine, so I imagine they wouldn’t vote. Who is motivated enough to actively vote AGAINST labeling. I mean if you don’t mind eating them, go ahead. Why spoil someone else’s ability to avoid them. I’m confoozled! :(

    • http://www.fooducate.com/ Fooducate

      People voted against because of misleading ads suggested that GMO labeling would increase a family’s grocery bill by $400 a year.

      • Chantelle

        People voted against it because it was a sloppily written punitive law that provided no benefit to anyone. Many of us voted against it to send a message to tinfoil hat wearing technophobes to mind their own damned business and stay the hell out of our lawmaking.

        • http://www.fooducate.com/ Fooducate

          No. People where overwhelmingly pro the measure just 2 months ago. They voted nay only after they saw misleading ads on TV.
          Many laws written by our representatives are sloppy too, so that cannot be an argument against prop 37.

          • Salem

            People once thought burning witches was the right thing for everyone to do. Hmmm…come to think of it they put terribly ignorant hateful laws in place to justify the thrill they got from witch hunting. Some things never change, I guess. Thank goodness a majority of California voters are more civilized than that.

          • http://www.fooducate.com/ Fooducate

            Actually, a small majority of California voters were misinformed by a $45 million dollar fear mongering campaign on the wrong side of white lie. The “witches burned” were our basic rights to know what’s in our food.

        • CT

          I am not a CA resident, so I am only following the chatter post-election. But, why were foreign manufacturers exempt from this labeling regulation (or, another way, why was there a gigantic loophole for importers)?

          Knowing how strapped FDA is to handle our own domestic inspections and labeling issues (much less worry about imports), I would be significantly less trustful of anything coming through a foreign manufacturer that was labeled “GMO-free”.

  • Michelle @ Eat Move Balance

    I agree with Maria’s comment. It’s too bad Prop 37 didn’t pass. :(

  • James Cooper

    Perhaps it is because there are no known side effects to eating gmo foods despite years of study

    • http://www.fooducate.com/ Fooducate

      Not true Jim. Can you provide a link to “years of study”?
      No? That’s because no long term safety study has been conducted.

    • CT

      We don’t conduct “years of study” on every cross-pollinated crop or cross-bred animal that we use for food production.

      Traditional breeding practices (whether in animals or crops) are essentially random. Genetic techniques allow us to make very specific changes to very specific genes.

      If you can demonstrate that the genetic change you have made doesn’t alter the crop/animal in any way other than the very specific gene you have targeted, and there is data and a physiological mechanism to support that change, what else do you need? That’s more than what we know with the random changes that result from “traditional” practices.

  • Veggie Val

    As always, the discussion at Fooducate is much more high-level and sane. I was disappointed about Prop 37, but pleased to hear that a community in Washington state approved such. Also, the Just Label It and the Non-GMO Food project are great resources. Just don’t go vandalizing grocery stores (as some sites suggest). Patronize your local health food store. Be responsible for what you eat!

  • Pingback: Is the Lawsuit Against Goldfish Crackers' Manufacturer Frivolous? | Fooducate

  • nope

    Non-GMO Project
    STILL ALLOWS .9% GMO , DOES YEARLY CHECKS AND STILL LABELS PRODUCTS
    NON GMO! GMO LABELING — It’s a loophole scam, just like it is with the
    ORGANIC LABEL!!!

    “We
    use an Action Threshold of 0.9%. This is in alignment with laws in the
    European Union, where any product containing more than 0.9% GMO must be
    labeled. Absence of all GMOs is the target for all Non-GMO Project
    Standard compliant products. Continuous improvement practices toward
    achieving this goal must be part of the Participant’s quality management
    systems.

    Verification is maintained through an annual audit, along with onsite inspections for high-risk products.”

    http://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/understanding-our-seal/

  • nope

    NEW
    DATA THAT HAS SURFACED PROVING PLASMIDS WITH ARTIFICIAL DNA VECTORS
    HAVE CONTAMINATED THE WATER SUPPLY. It’s is therefore UNKNOWN THE EXTENT
    TO WHICH FREE ROAMING GMO ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANT BACTERIA EXISTS IN THE
    ENVIRONMENT.

    COMMENT by UC Berkeley microbiologist Dr Ignacio Chapela:
    “The antibiotic resistance is not at all the most important point of this
    paper (even when the authors themselves seem to think it is). Looking
    for antibiotic resistance was the easiest feasible
    way to do this work and it also has the obvious medical implications,
    but this is only a fraction of the many other sequences of transgenic
    DNA which must be expected out there in the environment, from all kinds
    of origins, with all kinds of possible functions. This paper is the
    equivalent of the proverbial sighting of the iceberg’s tip. A polaroid
    photo of a small part of what must be a very large and relevant
    phenomenon.”

    http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14571:new-study-finds-antibiotic-resistance-from-gmos-in-microbes-in-rivers

  • Pingback: When Natural Food Companies Obfuscate their GMOs | Fooducate