Federal Actions Focus on Greater Transparency for GMOs & Ultra-Processed Foods

This article first appeared in the September 2026 issue of Presence Marketing’s newsletter.

By Steven Hoffman

For years, leaders in the natural and organic products industry have advocated for a simple, fundamental consumer right: the right to know exactly what is in the food we eat. Despite the steady growth of the natural channel and the soaring consumer demand for clean labels, federal regulations have historically provided conventional food manufacturers with ample regulatory shelter. Through confusing digital disclosures, vague ingredient definitions, and self-certified safety standards, the conventional food sector has often avoided the level of transparency that natural and organic brands readily provide to their customers.

However, a confluence of landmark judicial and federal regulatory actions in August 2026 has signaled a significant paradigm shift. Within a single month, a federal court struck down the regulatory loophole allowing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to be hidden behind QR codes, while the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) advanced efforts to formally define ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and tighten the oversight of self-certified food additives.

Photo by Annie Vo on Unsplash

For business owners, executives, and professionals in the natural, organic, and regenerative agriculture markets, these actions validate decades of persistent advocacy. More importantly, they stand to reshape the competitive grocery landscape, potentially forcing conventional brands to reformulate their products or face a new era of mandatory, unavoidable on-package transparency.

The Demise of the QR Code Loophole
The movement toward transparent GMO labeling achieved a decisive victory when a federal district court issued a final remedy decision regarding the USDA's bioengineered food labeling rules. According to the Center for Food Safety, the court ruled that the USDA must rewrite its National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard by Jan. 1, 2028, effectively voiding the provisions that previously allowed companies to obfuscate GMO disclosures.

The litigation, which was championed by a coalition of natural food retailers and consumer advocacy groups—including Natural Grocers and PCC Natural Markets—targeted two specific, controversial loopholes in the original 2018 regulation. First, the USDA had allowed food manufacturers to use a digital QR code, text message, or web address as the sole method of disclosing bioengineered ingredients. Critics argued this was fundamentally discriminatory, as it placed an undue burden on consumers who either lacked smartphones, experienced poor internet connectivity in grocery aisles, or simply did not know that a digital scan was required to view ingredient information.

Second, the original rule exempted "highly refined" ingredients from being labeled as bioengineered if the modified genetic material was no longer detectable through standard DNA testing. This exemption allowed a vast swath of ultra-processed ingredients—such as highly refined corn syrup, canola oil and soy oil—to avoid GMO labeling entirely, even though they were derived from genetically modified crops.

As reported by Food Dive, the federal court has now mandated that the USDA close these loopholes. The court’s official vacatur order requires the agency to implement clear, on-package text or symbols and to comprehensively address the disclosure of highly refined, ultra-processed GMO ingredients.

The reaction from the natural products community has been swift and celebratory. Max Goldberg, editor and publisher of Organic Insider, noted in a recent LinkedIn post: “The headline that Big Food has been dreading. Why? Because the QR code loophole is dead. A federal court just ordered the USDA to rewrite its GMO labeling rules by January 1, 2028 — and this time, there's nowhere to hide. For years, up to 80% of GMO products dodged real disclosure. Sodas, cooking oils, ultra-processed staples — all slipped through. And when brands did 'disclose'? A QR code you needed a smartphone to scan. Not anymore. Clear on-package labels. Actual transparency. The right to know what's in your cart. Big shift coming for food brands. Bigger win for consumers.”

As noted by DTN Progressive Farmer, the ruling places the timeline squarely in the hands of the USDA, rejecting the agency's initial request to delay the implementation of new rules until 2029. According to Feedstuffs, the mandated January 2028 deadline means food manufacturers must begin auditing their supply chains immediately to prepare for the transition to mandatory on-package disclosures.

George Kimbrell, legal director for the Center for Food Safety, underscored the historical importance of the ruling. Speaking to Food Navigator, Kimbrell stated: “Yesterday's decision was the final nail in the coffin of the 2021 unlawful GMO labeling regulations. We are gratified that the district court, like the court of appeals before it, has agreed with our legal arguments and struck them down.”

Closing the GRAS Loophole and Modernizing Food Oversight
While the courts tackled GMO transparency, the executive branch moved to address the proliferation of chemical additives in the American food supply.

As announced on Aug. 10, 2026, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. introduced two landmark food policy reforms designed to modernize federal oversight of ingredients. The most immediate regulatory shift involves a proposed rule to tighten the "Generally Recognized as Safe" (GRAS) designation.

For decades, the GRAS framework has served as a primary regulatory pathway for food manufacturers to introduce new ingredients into the market. Originally intended by Congress for common, historically well-understood ingredients like vinegar or baking soda, the GRAS provision has increasingly been utilized by companies to self-certify novel synthetic chemicals, preservatives, and artificial additives as safe. In many cases, companies could convene their own industry-funded expert panels to determine safety, effectively bypassing the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) review process altogether.

According to Food Business News, the proposed HHS rule will fundamentally alter this dynamic by requiring food and animal feed manufacturers to formally notify the FDA whenever they conclude that a new substance added to food meets the GRAS criteria. By ending the era of secret, self-certified additives, the administration aims to ensure that the FDA can properly review the safety data of novel ingredients before they ever enter the food supply.

This move has drawn widespread support from medical professionals and health experts who have long criticized the FDA's lack of authority over food additives. Former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb voiced his support, stating that the reform is important because the FDA has generally lacked sufficient authority to meaningfully regulate these substances. This shift aligns closely with the long-standing demands of natural health advocates, who have consistently warned about the cumulative health impacts of unchecked synthetic chemicals.

The Drive to Define Ultra-Processed Foods
Alongside the GRAS rule proposal, the federal government took an unprecedented step toward formally defining a category of food that has dominated recent nutritional research and public health discussions: ultra-processed foods (UPFs).

As reported by Food Safety Magazine, the FDA and the USDA jointly submitted a white paper to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for final review, proposing the first-ever federal definition of ultra-processed foods. While there are international frameworks—such as the NOVA classification system developed by researchers in Brazil—the United States has historically lacked a uniform, statutory definition for UPFs.

Establishing a formal definition is far more than a semantic exercise. As highlighted by Food Industry Executive, the submission of the definition as a white paper signals a foundational step toward widespread regulatory changes. Once a federal definition is established and finalized, it can be utilized across multiple government agencies to shape public policy. This could eventually impact everything from the composition of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the National School Lunch Program to the eligibility of certain products within the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. emphasized the urgency of the initiative. “Nearly 60% of the American diet is made up of ultra-processed foods, and childhood obesity now affects more than one in five American children,” Kennedy noted in a statement. “We cannot reverse America’s chronic disease epidemic without transforming our food system.”

Writing for The Atlantic, journalist Nicholas Florko noted that Kennedy’s push to define ultra-processed foods is a central pillar of the administration's "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA) agenda. By creating a standardized metric for what constitutes an ultra-processed food, the administration is laying the groundwork for a broader public health campaign aimed at reducing the consumption of heavily refined, additive-laden products that have been linked to rising rates of diet-related chronic diseases. As health advocates have pointed out, reining in UPFs is fundamental to tackling chronic disease in America, and establishing a federal definition is the required first step.

Industry Pushback and the Economic Argument
Unsurprisingly, these swift regulatory changes have encountered vocal resistance from conventional food industry groups and free-market advocates. The prospect of reformulating products, updating packaging to remove QR codes in favor of explicit text, and submitting GRAS ingredients for rigorous federal review represents a significant operational cost for legacy food manufacturers.

According to a statement from Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), the new food proposals advanced by HHS threaten to disrupt supply chains and increase consumer costs. ATR argued that by growing the regulatory state and enforcing stricter definitions on processed foods, the administration will invariably drive up the cost of manufacturing. “HHS’s new food proposals would raise grocery prices and grow the regulatory state,” the group warned, suggesting that the financial burden of compliance will ultimately be passed down to consumers at the checkout counter.

Conventional industry trade associations have echoed similar concerns regarding the GMO labeling mandate. They argue that replacing digital QR codes with on-package text could clutter labels and confuse consumers who are already overwhelmed by existing nutritional information. They further contend that highly refined oils and sugars derived from bioengineered crops are chemically identical to their non-GMO counterparts, arguing that forcing a bioengineered label on these ultra-processed ingredients is scientifically unnecessary and economically punitive.

A Competitive Advantage for the Natural Channel
Despite the pushback from the conventional food sector, the recent federal actions represent a profound validation for the natural, organic, and regenerative agriculture industries. For decades, independent retailers and natural product brands have voluntarily adhered to higher standards of transparency, often bearing the financial cost of non-GMO verification, organic certification, and clean-label formulation without any federal mandate requiring their competitors to do the same.

The death of the QR code loophole effectively levels the playing field. When conventional brands are forced to explicitly disclose the presence of bioengineered ingredients on their packaging by January 2028, consumers will be able to make direct, side-by-side comparisons in the grocery aisle. This increased visibility is expected to drive even greater consumer migration toward certified organic and Non-GMO Project Verified products, categories that already serve as the bedrock of the natural products industry.

Furthermore, the federal drive to define ultra-processed foods aligns perfectly with the core philosophy of the natural channel. Independent natural and organic food stores have long prioritized whole foods, minimally processed ingredients, and regenerative agricultural practices over synthetic formulations. If federal nutrition programs eventually integrate the new UPF definition to disincentivize the purchase of highly processed items, the market demand for nutrient-dense, clean-label alternatives will likely accelerate.

The closure of the GRAS loophole further reinforces consumer trust in the natural sector. As the FDA gains greater visibility into the synthetic additives utilized by conventional manufacturers, consumers will become increasingly aware of the chemical complexities inherent in highly processed diets. Brands that are committed to simple, recognizable, and transparent ingredient panels will find themselves perfectly positioned to capture the market share of health-conscious shoppers seeking refuge from synthetic additives.

Looking Ahead: The Path to 2028
While the regulatory wheels have been set in motion, the transition will not occur overnight. The USDA now faces a mandated deadline of Jan. 1, 2028, to finalize and implement the new bioengineered food disclosure rules. Concurrently, the proposed UPF definition and the GRAS notification rule must navigate the federal review process, including periods for public comment and potential revisions by the Office of Management and Budget.

For business owners and leaders in the natural products sector, the immediate path forward requires sustained vigilance and proactive consumer education. Retailers and manufacturers should begin preparing marketing and merchandising strategies that highlight their existing commitments to transparency, non-GMO sourcing, and minimal processing.

As the federal government finally moves to mandate the transparency that the natural channel has championed for decades, the industry is entering a new era. The days of hiding ingredients behind digital links and self-certified safety designations are drawing to a close. For the natural, organic, and regenerative food market, this is not just a regulatory victory; it is an affirmation of a business model built on integrity, health, and the consumer's fundamental right to know.

Steven Hoffman is Managing Director of Compass Natural Marketing, a strategic communications and brand development agency serving the natural and organic products industry. Learn more at www.compassnatural.com.

Natural Grocers Wins GMO Labeling Appeal; Supplement Industry Under Pressure

This article first appeared in the February 2026 issue of Presence Marketing’s newsletter.

By Steven Hoffman

In January 2026, the regulatory framework governing the natural products industry encountered significant developments affecting how food and dietary supplements are labeled and regulated. Through a combination of judicial rulings, agency guidance, and legislative proposals, the requirements for transparency and product disclosure are shifting, presenting new compliance considerations for manufacturers and retailers alike.

For CPG brands, ingredient suppliers, and compliance officers, these updates signal a continued move toward explicit, on-package disclosure. Recent events indicate that both the courts and legislators are increasingly prioritizing clear, accessible information for consumers, challenging previous standards that allowed for digital or abbreviated disclosures.

This report outlines two primary developments from the start of the year: the U.S. Court of Appeals ruling in favor of Natural Grocers regarding Bioengineered (BE) disclosures, and a dual-front regulatory discussion involving the FDA and Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) regarding the dietary supplement sector.

Federal Appeals Court Sides with Natural Grocers in GMO Ruling
In a decision delivered on Jan. 6, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of a coalition of plaintiffs led by the Lakewood, CO-based retailer Natural Grocers by Vitamin Cottage (NYSE: NGVC) and the Center for Food Safety (CFS). The court’s decision effectively strikes down key portions of the USDA’s Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard, addressing industry arguments that the previous rules contained exemptions that limited consumer access to information.

The "National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard" (NBFDS) has been a subject of debate since its inception. Critics, including the plaintiffs, argued that the USDA’s implementation allowed manufacturers to obscure the presence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) through the use of digital links and unfamiliar terminology.

According to a Natural Grocers press release, the court’s ruling necessitates a significant revision of USDA rules. The outcome aligns with a long-standing position of Natural Grocers, the nation’s largest family-operated organic and natural grocery retailer, which has prohibited most GMO ingredients in its stores since 2012 and advocated for clearer labeling standards.

The court’s decision focused on three specific areas where the USDA’s previous rules were found to be insufficient or unlawful. Food and beverage manufacturers must now prepare for a regulatory environment that will likely require strategic adjustments in the next rulemaking cycle.

The "Bioengineered" Terminology Battle
First among the court's findings was the rejection of the USDA’s mandate that strictly required the use of the term "bioengineered." Plaintiffs successfully argued that this term is unfamiliar to the average shopper and infringed on free speech rights by prohibiting the use of terms consumers actually understand.

Under the overturned rules, a manufacturer was forced to use "bioengineered" even if their customer base was far more familiar with "GMO" or "Genetically Engineered." According to the Non-GMO Project, recent market research indicates that while 63% of consumers recognize the term "GMO," only 36% are familiar with "bioengineering." By mandating the lesser-known term, the USDA was seen as complicating disclosure. The ruling now paves the way for retailers and brands to use terms that resonate more clearly with their customers, potentially returning the familiar "GMO" acronym to federal disclosures.

Closing the Digital Divide: The End of QR Code Exclusivity
Operationally, a significant aspect of the ruling is the rejection of standalone QR codes as a sufficient means of disclosure. The USDA had previously allowed companies to forgo on-package text disclosures entirely in favor of a scannable code. Natural Grocers and the Center for Food Safety argued that this practice excluded consumers without smartphones, reliable internet access, or technical literacy—demographics that often include the elderly and rural populations.

The court agreed, ruling that companies cannot rely solely on digital disclosures. This decision impacts the "scan to learn more" approach that some large CPG companies had adopted. Brands that utilized digital links to manage label space must now redesign packaging to include clear, on-pack text or symbols accessible to the naked eye.

Highly Processed Ingredients: No More Hiding
Finally, the court found the USDA was incorrect in exempting highly processed foods—such as sugar from sugar beets or oil from canola—simply because the genetic material might not be detectable in the final refined product.

This "highly refined" exemption had been a major point of contention. Natural Grocers argued that even if the DNA is denatured or removed during processing, the ingredient still originates from a bioengineered crop system. The environmental and agricultural impacts remain, regardless of the final chemical structure of the sugar or oil.

"The court’s rejection of the ‘highly refined’ exemption reinforces an important principle: how food is made matters," noted Charlene Guzman, Communications Director of the Non-GMO Project, in a statement to Nosh. Brands that have relied on this exemption should expect closer scrutiny as the USDA revises its rules, particularly for ubiquitous ingredients like oils, sugars, and starches derived from GMO crops.

Heather Isely, Executive Vice President of Natural Grocers, stated that the decision reflects congressional intent. "Congress never intended to require the use of specific terms, the sole use of QR codes, or the exclusion of ingredients made from highly processed GMO crops," she said. "We are pleased the court recognized the shortcomings of the final rule and mandated corrections. Natural Grocers will remain actively engaged in the GMO regulatory process."

George Kimbrell, Legal Director of the Center for Food Safety, added that the ruling ensures consumers will eventually see "clear and accurate GMO label information."

The legal victory is consistent with Natural Grocers' long history of rigorous product standards. Founded in 1955 and with 168 stores across 21 states, the company has utilized a dynamic list—"Things We Won't Carry and Why"—to screen products. As stated in WholeFoods Magazine, if a company cannot verify non-GMO status, Natural Grocers will not stock the item.

The Supplement Industry’s Regulatory Tug-of-War
While the food industry assesses the implications of the GMO ruling, the dietary supplement sector is navigating a complex regulatory landscape. On one hand, the FDA is signaling potential flexibility regarding labeling requirements. On the other, Senator Dick Durbin has reintroduced legislation that could impose new registration requirements.

In a letter to the industry issued on Dec. 11, 2025, the FDA announced it is considering amendments to 21 C.F.R. § 101.93(d). This regulation currently governs the placement of the disclaimer required for structure/function claims under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA).

Under current rules, supplements making claims such as "Supports heart health" must carry the standard disclaimer: "This statement has not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease." Regulations have historically required this disclaimer to appear on every single panel where a claim is made. For small bottles, this often leads to "label clutter," where the same disclaimer is repeated multiple times.

According to the National Law Review, the FDA is looking to remove the "each panel" requirement. Kyle Diamantas, FDA Deputy Commissioner for Human Foods, noted in the letter that revising this regulation would "reduce label clutter and unnecessary costs," aligning with the agency's historical enforcement posture.

Effective immediately, the FDA is exercising "enforcement discretion." The agency will not prioritize penalizing companies that do not repeat the disclaimer on every panel, provided the disclaimer appears at least once and is properly linked to the claims. However, companies should proceed with caution; this is a relaxation of placement frequency, not a removal of the disclaimer itself.

Not all experts view this relaxation as positive. Pieter Cohen, M.D., Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School expressed concern to Nutraceutical Business Review, warning that reducing disclaimer visibility could mislead consumers. "Then you start saying things such as, ‘We only need it on the actual bottle.’ Then you let the print get smaller," Cohen noted, highlighting the tension between industry simplification and consumer protection.

Durbin Reintroduces the Dietary Supplement Listing Act
While the FDA offers potential labeling flexibility, Congress is considering increased oversight. On Jan. 17, 2026, Senator Dick Durbin reintroduced the Dietary Supplement Listing Act, aimed at modernizing FDA oversight through Mandatory Product Listing (MPL).

The core of the bill would require manufacturers to register products with the FDA, providing product names, ingredient lists, electronic copies of labels, allergen statements, and structure/function claims. This data would populate a public database accessible to consumers.

Senator Durbin’s argument is rooted in the growth of the sector. When DSHEA passed in 1994, there were approximately 4,000 supplements on the market. Today, the FDA estimates there are over 100,000. Durbin argues that the FDA cannot effectively regulate a market it cannot track. "FDA—and consumers—should know what dietary supplements are on the market and what ingredients are included in them. This is FDA’s most basic function," Durbin stated.

As reported by RiverBender, the bill has garnered endorsements from the American Medical Association, US Pharmacopeia, and Consumer Reports. However, the industry itself remains divided, illustrating a strategic difference between its two major trade associations.

A House Divided: CRN vs. NPA
The reintroduction of the Listing Act has reignited a debate between the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) and the Natural Products Association (NPA).

The CRN supports the legislation, viewing transparency as a path to legitimacy and consumer trust. Steve Mister, President and CEO of CRN, stated, "In an era when the Administration has rightly called for more transparency about what we eat and how food is made, it makes sense to apply that same transparency to dietary supplements." The CRN views the registry as a tool to distinguish legitimate, responsible brands from "fly-by-night" actors selling tainted products, arguing that a federal registry is "a transparency tool—not a barrier to innovation."

Conversely, the NPA opposes the bill. Daniel Fabricant, Ph.D., President and CEO of NPA, characterizes it as unnecessary bureaucracy that burdens lawful companies while failing to stop bad actors. Fabricant argues that DSHEA already gives the FDA ample authority; the agency simply fails to use it.

As detailed in Nutrition Insight, NPA fears that the FDA could use the list to arbitrarily challenge ingredients, citing the recent (and reversed) attempt to ban NMN (nicotinamide mononucleotide) as an example of regulatory overreach. "This proposal will hand bureaucrats new leverage over lawful products, cool innovation, and punish companies investing in new science," Fabricant warned.

Conclusion: The Transparency Mandate
As the year progresses, the common thread connecting the Natural Grocers victory and the Durbin bill is transparency. In the food aisle, the courts have ruled that accessibility is key—labels must be readable without a smartphone and use terms the public understands. In the supplement aisle, the debate continues over whether transparency requires a federal database of every product on the market.

For business leaders, the takeaway is operational agility. Packaging workflows must be adaptable, supply chain documentation must be robust, and regulatory monitoring must be constant. The "clean label" trend is extending beyond ingredients to include the regulatory integrity of the package itself.

Natural Grocers has signaled it will remain active, with executive Heather Isely stating, "Natural Grocers will remain actively engaged in the GMO regulatory process." Brands wishing to remain on the shelves of such high-standard retailers must ensure their transparency efforts meet these rising expectations.

Steven Hoffman is Managing Director of Compass Natural Marketing, a strategic communications and brand development agency serving the natural and organic products industry. Learn more at www.compassnatural.com.

Argentina Becomes First Country to Approve GMO Wheat

Photo: Pexels

This article originally appeared in Presence Marketing’s November 2020 Newsletter

By Steven Hoffman

Among the first countries in the world to use genetically modified (GMO) crops, including soybeans, corn and cotton, on a large scale in agriculture, Argentina on October 9, 2020, announced it has now become the first nation to approve the use of GMO wheat. The move prompted criticism from Argentina’s agriculture export industry, reported Reuters.

The country approved HB4, a wheat variety genetically engineered to be drought resistant and developed by agricultural biotechnology company Bioceres SA, based in Argentina. 

To date, no other country has approved the importation or production of GMO wheat, due to consumer concerns, as wheat is grown primarily for human consumption. According to Reuters, Bioceres said it will only begin marketing the GMO wheat once it is approved for import by Brazil. Brazil is currently the largest importer of wheat produced in Argentina.

“I will not plant HB4 wheat, and I would not recommend that anyone else does, until it has been approved by importing countries. It seems risky in the sense that we could end up with crops that no one wants to buy,” Francisco Santillan, who manages a number of farms in Argentina, told Reuters.

Dave Green, EVP of the Wheat Quality Council, a U.S. trade group, told Reuters, “I don’t hear anything about GMO wheat efforts here. None of our export customers want any.” 

Argentina is one of the world’s largest producers of GMO soy and it is among the nation’s leading exports. However, the BBC reported in 2014 that massive synthetic pesticide use in the country as a result of the explosion of GMO agriculture may be linked to skyrocketing rates of cancer and birth defects in the country.

GMO Labeling Fight Goes to Washington

Source: Wikimedia Commons

Alarmed that pro-GMO labeling advocates may be gaining ground, opponents of GMO labeling took their money and influence to Washington, DC, in December to try to outlaw states from passing GMO labeling bills, and allow manufacturers to call their GMO products “natural.”H.R. 4432, called the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2014 by bill sponsor Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), and backed by corporate agribusiness and mainstream food industry interests, seeks to prohibit states from exercising their right to label GMOs. Further, the bill would allow manufacturers to call GMO foods “natural.” Additionally, Pompeo's legislation, if passed, would create a “voluntary” labeling system over mandatory labeling, and would nullify GMO labeling laws already passed by Maine, Vermont and Connecticut.

While many in the food industry favor uniform national GMO labeling legislation over a patchwork of state laws, Pompeo’s bill, dubbed the DARK Act, or the “Deny Americans the Right to Know Act,” by opponents of the bill, seeks to take the teeth out of GMO labeling. Backers of H.R. 4432 hope to do away with mandatory labeling, while codifying FDA's voluntary labeling system. Currently, FDA does not require labeling for genetically modified foods. However, voluntary labeling has been in place since the mid-1990s, and yet few
to no companies have ever voluntarily labeled their products as containing GMOs.

On December 10, the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s health panel held a hearing in Washington, DC, entitled “Examining FDA’s Role in the Regulation of Genetically Modified Ingredients.” Despite a growing body of scientific research pointing to environmental and health risks associated with GMOs, when asked by Congressional panel member George Butterfield (D-NC), “Is there a scintilla of evidence that would suggest that these foods are unsafe?,” FDA official Michael Landa responded, “Not to our knowledge, no.”

Representatives at the hearing were skeptical of the need for GMO labeling, claiming it would confuse consumers or that it was simply “illogical” and “irrational.” Rep. Pompeo claimed that GMO labeling would raise food prices dramatically for consumers.

In testifying at the Congressional hearing, Kate Webb, Assistant Majority Leader in the Vermont House of Representatives, cautioned that H.R. 4432 would ultimately undo the work of Vermont’s recently passed Act 120, the law that requires genetically engineered products sold in Vermont to be labeled as such. Webb was one of the primary sponsors of Act 120, which passed 28-2 in the state Senate and 114-30 in the Vermont House.

“Most people would greatly prefer a national mandatory labeling system and national rules designed to restrict misleading claims of products being ‘natural,’” Webb said at the hearing.

“One of the great strengths of a capitalist democracy is not only do we cast a vote at the polls, we also do so in selecting the products we purchase,” she said. “Transparency allows us to see how things work, be it government, financial institutions or the foods we eat—what is in them, where they come from, and how they are produced. This transparency allows us to make informed decisions, and ultimately build trust.” Webb urged the subcommittee to oppose H.R. 4432 and support the mandatory labeling of genetically engineered products.

Webb and Scott Faber, Vice President of Government Affairs for the Environmental Working Group, were the only two witnesses to testify against H.R. 4432. Other witnesses included Michael Landa, Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, FDA; Alison Van Eenennaam, PhD, Biotechnology and Genomics Cooperative Extension Specialist, University of California, Davis; Stacey Forshee, Fifth District Director, Kansas Farm Bureau; and Tom Dempsey, President and CEO of the Snack Food Association.

“Poll after poll shows that consumers want the right to know what’s in their food and how it’s produced,” said Scott Faber. “Because our food choices have such a significant impact on our lives, this is a trend that should be welcomed, not frustrated. So it’s disappointing that some members of Congress, led by Rep. Mike Pompeo, are fighting to deny Americans the right to know whether their food contains genetically modified ingredients.”

FDA Approves Genetically Engineered Salmon

Source: Wikimedia Commons

It’s been a whirlwind month of GMO developments, and health-conscious consumers, GMO labeling proponents, fishermen, non-GMO food producers and others are resting a bit uneasy as the nation heads into the year-end holiday season. First, without requiring any labeling and insisting that it’s safe, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on November 19 approved the world’s first genetically engineered animal for human consumption – the AquAdvantage salmon, produced by AquaBounty Technologies in Waltham, MA.

Saying that it “rigorously evaluated extensive data submitted by the manufacturer…and other peer reviewed data,” FDA concluded, "there are no biologically relevant differences in the nutritional profile of AquAdvantage salmon compared to that of other farm-raised Atlantic salmon.” The GE salmon is expected to enter the market, including restaurants and retail stores, in about two years, reported ABC News.

Saying No to “Non-GMO”

On the same day, FDA also announced it is not in favor of the term “non-GMO,” used by hundreds of companies on tens of thousands of product labels. In guidelines published for voluntary labeling of food from genetically engineered sources, FDA said “GMO” conveys an overly broad and inaccurate meaning when applied to food products. “Most foods do not contain entire organisms,” the agency said.

FDA indicated it would prefer food labels to say “Not bioengineered,” or “This oil is made from soybeans that were not genetically engineered,” reported the New York Times on November 20. The Times also reported that FDA remains opposed to mandatory disclosure of genetically modified ingredients on food labels.

Consumers want to know, however. Driven by market demand, the Non-GMO Project Verified seal is the fastest growing seal in the natural products channel. In 2015, 34,000 products representing $13.5 billion in annual sales featured the Non-GMO Project Verified seal on the label, reported the Non-GMO Project. Additionally, the market for certified organic products, where GMOs are prohibited, grew 11% to $39 billion in annual sales, Organic Trade Association reported in April 2015. And, in a June 2015 ABC News poll, an overwhelming 93% of U.S. consumers said the federal government should require labels on food saying whether it's been genetically modified or "bio-engineered" (the poll used both phrases). “Such near-unanimity in public opinion is rare,” ABC News said.

Senate Grapples with GMO Labeling

Also in late October, Senate Agriculture Committee ranking member Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) announced she would deal with the GMO labeling issue once and for all, hopefully seeking a compromise before the end of the year. Depending on whom you talk to, this would either provide some semblance of mandatory labeling – perhaps by requiring cryptic QR codes on the label, a move that would require consumers to have smart phones and the time to check each product – or Stabenow’s efforts could potentially pre-empt Vermont’s mandatory GMO labeling law, set to take effect in July 2016, in favor of a national voluntary labeling system. Such a move would be seen by GMO labeling proponents as an extension of the DARK Act (Safe and Affordable Food Labeling Act, H.R. 1599), passed in the House of Representatives this past summer, and backed by the biotech industry and the Grocery Manufacturers Association.

“Senator Stabenow believes that for any solution to pass the Senate, it must establish a national system of required disclosure that would ensure consumers get the information they want about their food, while also solving the problem of a 50-state patchwork of regulations,” a spokesperson for Senator Stabenow said. Groups including Organic Consumers Association, Center for Food Safety, Food Democracy Now!, Food & Water Watch, Just Label It and others are urging industry and consumers to contact Senator Stabenow's office as well as their own senators and the White House to demand mandatory GMO labeling.

Spawning a GE Animal Market

From its first application in 1996, AquaBounty Technologies had been waiting nearly 20 years for commercial approval of its GE salmon, produced by combining the genes of Atlantic salmon and Chinook salmon with those of a different marine species, an ocean pout, to make it grow twice as fast as normal farmed salmon on 25% less feed.

“AquAdvantage salmon is a game-changer that brings healthy and nutritious food to consumers in an environmentally responsible manner without damaging the ocean and other marine habitats,” Ronald Stotish, CEO of AquaBounty, said in a statement.

One wrinkle, exacerbated by FDA’s refusal to require labeling disclosure in approving the GE salmon, is that the ocean pout, an eel-like fish, is not considered Kosher, creating an unprecedented conundrum for lovers of Kosher lox.

“The decision to approve GMO salmon without a mandatory disclosure is yet another example of how FDA’s outdated policy keeps consumers in the dark,” said Scott Faber, executive director of Just Label It, in a statement. “Consumers will have no way of knowing whether the salmon they are buying comes from nature or comes from a lab. It makes sense to give consumers the right to know and to choose whether this fish, or any other food that contains GMO ingredients, is right for their dinner table.”

Into the Wild

Producing the GE salmon eggs in Canada, and then shipping the fry to be raised in fish farms in Panama, AquaBounty ensures that it can keep its genetically engineered fish from escaping and potentially contaminating or outcompeting native salmon populations. The company also claims its GE salmon are sterile and would be unable to breed in the wild.

Yet, Canadian scientists in 2013 reported that AquaBounty’s GE salmon could crossbreed with a closely related species, brown trout, and pass on the GE traits to the hybrid offspring. Also, Dana Perls of Friends of the Earth pointed out to NPR that the company’s egg production facility, located on Prince Edward Island, is near an estuary that feeds into the North Atlantic, prime breeding waters for native Atlantic salmon.

Additionally, Center for Food Safety (CFS), Food & Water Watch and others expressed concerns over reports of negligence and mismanagement at AquaBounty’s Panama facilities that could increase the risk of escape. According to a complaint filed in November 2013 by the environmental group Centro de Incidencia Ambiental de Panama (CIAM), AquaBounty’s Panama production facilities were missing legally required permits and inspections, including a wastewater discharge permit.

“These allegations suggest a dangerous pattern of non-compliance and mismanagement by AquaBounty, raising the likelihood of an environmentally damaging escape of these fish,” said George Kimbrell, senior attorney for Center for Food Safety. Indeed, CFS also revealed that AquaBounty itself reported “lost” GE salmon, which resulted from extreme weather and frequent flooding in this region of Panama.

“We’ve been fighting against GMO salmon for 10 years,” Larry Collins, VP of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, told the San Francisco Chronicle. “It’s shockingly irresponsible of the FDA to allow this untested science to be tested on human guinea pigs.”

“This sets the bar incredibly low for engineered animals,” said Michael Hansen, senior scientist for Consumers Union. “There were serious problems with the safety assessment.” Hansen expressed concern that testing for potential allergens was only done on a very small sample size, and that the tested GE salmon actually did show a higher allergenicity.

AquaBounty was recently acquired by biotech billionaire Randal Kirk, reported Max Goldberg, editor and publisher of LivingMaxwell.com. In addition to owning the AquAdvantage GE salmon, Kirk is reported to own Okanagan Specialty Fruits, producer of the recently approved GMO Arctic apple; Oxitec, a company that wants to release genetically engineered mosquitoes to fight dengue fever; and Intrexon, a company pursuing synthetic biology, an extreme form of genetic engineering, said Goldberg.

A number of major retailers have announced they won't sell the GE salmon, including Whole Foods Market, Costco, Trader Joe's, Safeway, Target, and Kroger. Leading restaurants including Legal Sea Foods, Red Lobster and others also announced they wouldn’t be offering GE salmon on the menu.

Photo: AquaBounty Technologies

Lawsuits Seeking to Overturn GMO Laws in Hawaii and Vermont

Source: Wikimedia Commons

In a 5 to 4 decision, Hawaii County Council voted on December 17 to appeal a decision by a U.S. Magistrate Judge who had ruled to protect Monsanto and GMO testing and production on the Big Island of Hawaii, reported the Hawaii Tribune Herald. Hawaii County voters in 2014 elected to ban the cultivation of GMOs on the island. The new ordinance prohibits growing GMO crops in open-air conditions, with some exceptions including GMO papaya.

Monsanto swiftly sued Hawaii County over the new law, and on November 27, U.S. Magistrate Judge Barry Kurren moved to invalidate the GMO ban, saying that state law pre-empts county law on agricultural issues. Paul Achitoff, attorney for Earthjustice, disagreed, saying, “The Legislature never intended the existing state laws we have in Hawaii to govern genetically engineered crops.” Judge Kurran has a long history of ruling in favor of Monsanto and agribusiness, claims journalist Christina Sarich in a report in the Natural Society.

Based on the Hawaii Council’s vote, the issue will now be taken up by a higher court. “This is an important decision with far-reaching impact on home rule,” said Councilwoman Margaret Wille, author of the original bill limiting GMOs in Hawaii.

Meanwhile, in Maui County, proponents behind the passage on November 4 of a referendum placing a moratorium on GMO cultivation and experimentation on the islands of Maui, Molokai and Lanai have been given the “green light” to intervene in a federal lawsuit filed by Monsanto challenging the measure, reported Maui Now on December 16. Honolulu attorney Michael Carroll, representing the authors of the Maui GMO initiative, said the group won standing on Monday to intervene in a lawsuit filed by Monsanto, which seeks to delay enforcement of the measure and ultimately to have it declared unenforceable. Carroll is representing the SHAKA Movement and others who led the effort to suspend the cultivation and testing of GMO crops in Maui County until an environmental and public health study can show that they are safe.

“We look forward to advancing our position with the Federal Court in order to validate the ordinance that the majority of Maui voters passed into law in November,” Carroll told Maui Now. A federal judge will consider arguments on March 10, 2015, regarding whether to throw out Monsanto’s lawsuit challenging Maui County’s newly approved moratorium on cultivating genetically engineered crops, reported the Honolulu Civil Beat.

In related news, in Vermont, oral arguments are tentatively set to begin in January 2015 regarding a lawsuit filed by the Grocery Manufacturers Association to overturn Vermont’s mandatory GMO labeling law, passed by the state Legislature in May. Vermont's law doesn't go into effect until July 1, 2016, however, the GMA is asking the U.S. District Court in Vermont to grant a temporary injunction to prevent the state from moving forward with implementation of the law. Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell's team, which includes high-powered Washington, D.C., law firm Robbins, Russell, will argue to dismiss the lawsuit.

Oregon GMO Labeling Bill Defeated by 837 Votes in Election Recount

After an official recount, Oregon’s Secretary of State announced on December 16 that Measure 92 to require mandatory labeling of GMO foods in the state was defeated by a razor-thin margin of 837 votes out of a total 1.5 million votes cast. The Yes campaign’s last-ditch legal challenge to approve 4,600 invalidated ballots due to signature discrepancies was rejected on December 9 by a Multnomah County Judge, sealing the defeat of the measure. The narrow defeat came as anti-labeling interests, including Monsanto, DuPont, Conagra and others, outspent the pro-labeling side by more than two to one, pumping nearly $21 million into the state to defeat the bill, while the pro-GMO labeling campaign raised more than $9 million.

Additionally, while they were pouring millions into the No on 92 campaign, out of state agribusiness companies and trade groups including Monsanto, Dupont, Coca-Cola, the Grocery Manufacturers Association and others contributed $80,000 to Oregon legislators’ campaigns and to Oregon political action committees, reported the Statesman Journal.

Out of the No campaign’s total contributions, over 99.99% came from out-of-state corporations, led by Monsanto’s $5,958,750 and DuPont’s $4,518,150, noted Rick North of Blue Oregon.

“The initiative was about a lot of things – consumers’ right to know what’s in their food, voter turnout, the recount, mismatched signatures, and the continuing controversy over the safety of genetically engineered food. But more than anything else, Measure 92 was about money,” he said. “Only one actual human being donated more than $100 to the No campaign. In contrast, over 17,900 individuals contributed to the Yes campaign.”

The Oregon GMO labeling bill would have required labels on product packaging, bins and shipping containers of genetically modified foods and foods made with genetically modified ingredients. Measure 92’s failure follows voter rejections, also by narrow margins, in California in 2012 and Washington in 2013, and by a wider margin in Colorado in 2014, after being vastly outspent by the anti-labeling side in each of these campaigns.

Supporters of the Oregon measure conceded defeat on December 11, but pledged to keep fighting for GMO labeling. "We draw strength from the fact that we came so achingly close to winning this vote," the Yes on 92 Campaign said. "We will continue working until Oregonians and all Americans – like the residents of 64 other countries around the globe – have the information they need to make informed choices about the food that they feed their families."

Sales of Non-GMO Products Top $8.5 Billion, Post 20% Growth

Photo: Compass Natural

Sales of products carrying the Non-GMO Project Verified seal now total more than $8.5 billion, growing at more than 20% annually, reported Megan Westgate, Executive Director of the Non-GMO Project, a non-profit organization based in Bellingham, Washington. More than 22,000 products now carry the Non-GMO Project Verified seal, representing more than 2,100 brands, she said.

To qualify for the seal, a product has to be certified as containing ingredients with less than 1% genetic modification. Westgate said that’s a realistic standard, while totally GMO-free is not, particularly in an environment where more than 90% of conventional crops including corn, soy, canola, alfalfa, sugar beets and cotton are genetically engineered. “Interestingly, with all of this traction in the natural sector, we’re seeing more conventional companies coming on board and having their products verified,” Westgate told Iowa Public Radio in a December 17 interview.

To date, FoodChain ID, a third-party auditor that certifies products for the Non-GMO Project, has verified 17,000 ingredients from 10,000 suppliers in 96 countries. David Carter, General Manager of FoodChain ID, said he could barely keep up with the number of inquiries coming from companies that want Non-GMO Project certification. “The demand is now very, very high and it has been for probably over a year,” Carter said. Visit www.nongmoproject.org.

The Heroes: Companies Supporting GMO Labeling

Source: Pexels

In Colorado, while multi-billion-dollar, multinational corporate opponents have pumped nearly $17 million into the state to try to defeat Prop. 105, the 2014 ballot initiative to label GMO foods, the grassroots Yes on 105 side has raised just under $1 million in campaign funding. The Yes on 105 campaign is using these funds - contributed by hundreds of Colorado residents, and a small group of leading natural and organic products companies and consumer advocacy groups - tohelp educate voters and get out the yes vote via newspaper and digital advertising, an extensive volunteer network, phone banking, and social media - and to endure a withering onslaught of negative, deceptive television advertising and direct mail from the No on 105 side.

Put these brands contributing to consumer transparency and truth in labeling on your shopping list. Support the brands that have stepped up to contribute to Colorado's grassroots Prop. 105 Ballot Initiative to Label GMO Foods against a $17 million onslaught by Monsanto, Pepsi, Coke, Kraft, Dow, Dupont, Hershey, J.M. Smucker, Mead Johnson, Abbot Nutrition, Conagra and others.

Compass Natural Marketing and its principal Steven Hoffman have served as the lead fundraiser and industry communications specialists on behalf of Yes on 105, Right to Know Colorado - GMO. For more information, visit www.righttoknowcolorado.org.

The Heroes:  Support these Companies that Contributed to Yes on 105 to Label GMO Foods in Colorado*

More than $200,000 Food Democracy Now! Presence Marketing/Dynamic Presence

$50,000 - $100,000 Annie's Inc. Organic Consumers Fund

$10,000 - $50,000 Boulder Brands Lundberg Family Farms Dr. Bronner's Applegate Farms Clif Bar Nature's Path UNFI Hain Celestial Group Alliance for Sustainable Colorado

$5,000 - $10,000 Amy's Kichen Frontier Natural Products Co-op KeHE Distributors Nutiva Stonyfield Farm

$500 - $5,000 Daiya Foods Food & Water Watch Justin's .Organic Lucky's Market Door to Door Organics Suja Food Babe Living Maxwell New Belgium Brewery Snack Out Loud Red Idea Group Front & Center Marketing Vital Farms Good Earth Natural Grocery Lucky's Market

Special Thanks Natural Grocers by Vitamin Cottage Whole Foods Market Chipotle Mexican Grill

Acknowledgments Alex and Ana Bogusky Steve and Grace Hughes Organic & Non-GMO Report The Crunchy Grocer Alfalfa's Market Compass Natural Marketing Journeys for Conscious Living Durango Natural Foods Co-op Jared Polis John Foraker Joshua Kunau and Jeremy Siefert, GMO OMG Robyn O'Brien Quinn Popcorn Silver Hills Bakery The Organic Dish Meetings and Events Sandy Gooch and Harry Lederman

Visit our Donors Here:  http://www.righttoknowcolorado.org/donors Visit our Endorsers Here:  http://www.righttoknowcolorado.org/endorsements

Join a growing number of supporters of GMO labeling. To contribute to Right to Know Colorado to Label GMOs, visit www.righttoknowcolorado.org to make an online donation. For corporate or individual contributions, contact Steven Hoffman at steve (at) compassnatural.com.

Please help us win in Colorado, for all Americans.

* Sources: Right to Know Colorado, www.righttoknowcolorado.org Colorado Secretary of State Elections Division, reporting as of Oct. 27, 2014, http://tracer.sos.colorado.gov/PublicSite/SearchPages/CommitteeDetail.aspx?OrgID=25377

The Zeroes: Who Is Funding the Anti-GMO Labeling?

Seeking to crush a groundswell movement in America to label genetically modified foods, a small group of multi-billion-dollar pesticide, biotech and Big Food corporations have poured nearly $17 million into Colorado in September and October 2014 to try to defeat Proposition 105, a grassroots voter initiative to label GMO foods that has raised less than $1 million. These out-of-state corporations are literally outspending the underdog pro-labeling side by more than 20 to 1. Who are these corporations trying to buy our elections and keep Americans in the dark about GMOs?

Please see a more complete list below, however, just 15 corporations, including Monsanto, DuPont, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Kraft, Land O'Lakes, General Mills, Hershey, J.M. Smucker, Bimbo Bakeries, Dow, Kellogg, and Conagra, are responsible for more than $15 million of the $16.7 million total contributed to try to defeat the Colorado GMO labeling bill.

Baby formula makers don't want moms to know their products are full of GMOs.

Also of particular note among the anti-labeling donors are Abbot Nutrition and Mead Johnson, corporations that make nutritional formulas for infants and the elderly – companies that do not want mandatory GMO labeling on their packaging.

In contrast, the underdog Right to Know Colorado campaign has raised less than $1 million in cash and pledges, mostly through small business donations along with hundreds of $5, $10, and $25 contributions to the Yes on 105 campaign from primarily Colorado citizens.

The Zeros: Multinational Biotech Seed, Chemical and Big Food Corporations and the Amounts They Have Donated to Defeat Prop 105 to Label GMOs in Colorado*

Monsanto, $4.7 million DuPont/Pioneer, $3.04 million Pepsico, $1.65 million Coca-Cola, $1.1 million Kraft Foods, $1.03 million Land O'Lakes, $900,000 General Mills, $820,000 Target Enterprises, $500,000 The Hershey Co., $380,000 J.M. Smucker Co., $345,000 Dow Agrosciences, a Dow Chemical Company, $300,000 Bimbo Bakeries, $270,000 Kellogg Co., $250,000 Conagra Foods, $250,000 Flowers Food Inc., $250,000 Smithfield Foods, $200,000 Abbot Nutrition, $190,000 Cargill Inc., $135,000 Grocery Manufacturer's Association, $101,400 Hormel Foods, $85,000 Ocean Spray Cranberries, $80,000 Bumble Bee Foods, $50,000 Mead Johnson, $50,000 Shearer's Foods, $35,000 Welch's, $35,000 Knouse Foods, $25,000 Sunny Delight Beverage Co., $25,000 Biotechnology Industry Organization, $14,600 Niagara Bottling, $10,000

 * Source: Colorado Secretary of State Elections Division, reporting as of Oct. 27, 2014:  http://tracer.sos.colorado.gov/PublicSite/SearchPages/CommitteeDetail.aspx?OrgID=26735