After Narrow GMO Labeling Defeat in Washington State, What’s Next?

After all the votes were counted, the Yes on 522 campaign in Washington State to label genetically engineered foods acceded defeat in mid-November by a margin of 48.9% to 51.1%, recalling the narrow defeat in 2012 of Proposition 37 to label GMO foods in California. The anti-GMO labeling side won by a slim 2% of the vote, but they won dirty. Proponents of GMO labeling knew they would be outspent, but they did not count on the fact that the No on 522 side would resort to illegal tactics to win the election, as alleged in an ongoing lawsuit filed by Washington’s Attorney General against a major food industry lobby group for concealing corporate contributions to the campaign, thus violating the state’s campaign finance disclosure laws (see below).

In all, 1.75 million people voted, comprising 45% of Washington’s electorate, the lowest statewide turnout in a decade, with some analysts citing a stronger turnout by more conservative, rural voters along with a poor turnout among younger, progressive voters, with some critics claiming the Yes on 522 campaign didn’t do enough to reach out to rural voters. Or, according to Grist writer Nathanael Johnson, “The Washington vote seems to be telling us that concern about GM food is broad and shallow. That is, lots of people are vaguely worried about transgenics, but it’s not a core issue that drives majorities to the polls.”

Still, said Johnson, the actual amount of money spent on advertising made “all the difference” in turning around polls indicating that Washington voters strongly favored GMO labeling going into the election. Blitzing voters with television advertising and direct mail, and dominating the airwaves in an off-election year with claims that voters didn’t need a confusing labeling law that would cost them more at the grocery store, the anti-GMO labeling lobby outspent the Yes on 522 side more than three to one, or $22 million vs. $8 million – a record for the state in overall campaign spending.

The No on 522 campaign to defeat the GMO labeling bill was supported with multi-million-dollar contributions from just a handful of multinational pesticide/biotech seed companies that donated directly to the No campaign, including Monsanto, Dow, Dupont, BASF and Bayer – and a number of food corporations that until late October remained hidden under the guise of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a Washington, DC-based industry lobby group.

"Defense of Brands" Scheme Backfires on GMA; Trade Group Faces AG Lawsuit In addition to the $11 million supplied by biotech to defeat the GMO labeling bill, more than three dozen mainstream food corporations – led by Nestle, Pepsico, Coca Cola, General Mills, McCormick, J.M. Smucker, ConAgra and others that purvey GMO foods without labels – matched biotech’s contributions to kill the labeling bill with nearly $11 million of their own.

Except…fearing the consumer backlash, brand tarnishing and PR disaster that many of these companies experienced when they were identified as contributors to defeat Prop 37 in California, they are alleged to have conspired to conceal their donations to the No on 522 campaign through an illegal slush fund, the “Defense of Brands” fund, secretly established n early 2013 by the GMA specifically to hide the names of the corporate campaign contributors from the public.

According to a lawsuit filed on October 16 by Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson, the GMA pumped $10.6 million into defeating the I-522 GMO labeling bill without first registering a political action committee, in violation of the state’s campaign finance transparency laws. Two days after the lawsuit was filed, the GMA registered a committee and finally disclosed the donors behind $7.2 million it had received from large food manufacturers.

However, the lawsuit is ongoing: in an amended lawsuit filed on November 20, Ferguson alleges that the GMA continues to violate the state’s campaign finance laws by not disclosing an additional $3.4 million in concealed contributions.

But the junk food industry’s game plan goes further, and that is to stop the state level GMO labeling movements “at any cost,” said public health attorney Michele Simon. In reviewing internal documents obtained as a result of the Attorney General’s lawsuit, Simon reported that the mainstream food industry's “ultimate game plan to stop the bleeding in the state-by-state onslaught of GMO labeling efforts is to lobby for a weak federal law that simultaneously preempts or trumps any state-level policy. Rather than a federal compromise, where industry would agree to a weak form of labeling in exchange for stripping state authority, what industry wants instead is to stop state laws to require labeling, while not giving up anything in return,” Simon wrote.

“In their own words, the game plan is to ‘pursue statutory federal preemption which does not include a labeling requirement.’ Let me repeat that,” Simons said: “The junk food lobby's ‘federal solution’ is to make it illegal for states to pass laws requiring GMO labeling. Period. End of story.”

Some good news is that not all major food companies are on board with this plan, and at least 30 companies that contributed to defeat Prop. 37 in California stayed out of the I-522 fight in Washington State, reported Ronnie Cummins of the Organic Consumers Association. “Some major food companies, including Unilever and Mars, bruised by bad publicity and consumer boycotts, have broken ranks with the GMA and the biotech industry, arguing that GMO food labels are inevitable and must be accepted, just as they’ve had to accept them in Europe and dozens of other countries,” Cummins said. GMO foods are required to be labeled in 64 countries, but not in the United States. In fact, in a 180-degree shift, Unilever, via its Ben & Jerry’s brand, was demonstrably active in promoting the Yes on 522 campaign to label GMO foods.

What’s Next: Oregon in 2014? Washington in 2016? Mandatory Federal Labeling? Yes on 522 campaign organizers, while disappointed in the narrow loss, vowed in a statement, “While it is unfortunate I-522 did not pass, it has set the stage for victory in 2016.” Trudy Bialic, director of public affairs for natural foods retailer PCC in Seattle and co-chair of the Yes on 522 campaign, said the voter turnout “was the lowest ever recorded, skewing older and more conservative, and away from younger, more progressive voters driving the GE labeling movement. We are disappointed with the results, but the polling is clear that Washingtonians support labeling and believe they have a right to know. This fight isn’t over. We will be back in 2016 to challenge and defeat the out-of-state corporations standing in the way of our right to know.”

Currently, GMO labeling language is being prepared and filed in Oregon and Colorado for 2014 ballot initiatives, according to Denver-based political consultant Rick Ridder and David Bronner, CEO of Dr. Bronner’s, a leading supporter of the Yes on 522 campaign and GMO labeling. Local legislatures in Hawaii have recently passed laws requiring biotech companies to reveal what GMO crops and pesticides they are applying to experimental fields. In Vermont, labeling legislation is still active and pro-GMO labeling supporters are not shying away from scientific research that demonstrates that there are, indeed, clear and present risks to human, animal an environmental health associated with genetically engineered food and agriculture.

On the federal front, the Senator Barbara Boxer’s (D-CA) and Congressman Peter DeFazio’s (D-OR) bill to label GMO foods, introduced in April 2013, is still pending. However, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) in mid-November announced that she was joining 13 other senators as a co-sponsor of Senator Boxer’s Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act.

Just Label executive director Scott Faber said, “We welcome the opportunity to work with food industry leaders and the FDA to devise a federal mandatory labeling system that alerts consumers to the presence of GE ingredients in their food.” However, Faber added, “The results in Washington State do not change the fundamental fact that consumers deserve the right to know about the presence of GE ingredients in their food. Just Label It will continue to fight to give American consumers the same rights as consumers in 64 other nations via a federal solution requiring mandatory labeling, while at the same time continuing to work with state legislators to give this basic right to consumers.

This article appeared in the November 2013 Presence News, a leading natural and organic products industry newsletter published by Presence Marketing/Dynamic Presence.

Forging the Way: Functional Formularies® Liquid Hope™

For Immediate Release:

Contact:

Robin Gentry McGee, Functional Formularies, robin@functionalformularies.com, 937.271.0381

Steve Hoffman, Compass Natural LLC, steve@compassnatural.com, 303.807.1042

Forging the Way: Functional Formularies® Liquid Hope™ Innovative Organic Whole Foods Meal Replacement Wins NEXTY 2014 People’s Choice Award

Award-winning Liquid Hope by Functional Formularies, the world’s first organic, non-GMO shelf stable whole foods meal replacement and feeding tube formula, is poised for growth in the natural products retail and health care institutional channels.

Wilmington, OH (October 17, 2013) – The combination of revolutionary product and the power of social media placed Liquid Hope—the first organic, non-GMO, shelf stable whole foods meal replacement designed for enteral (feeding tube) delivery produced by Ohio-based Functional Formularies—among a select group of 61 nominees for the 2014 NEXTY Awards.

The winners were announced in time to be showcased at Natural Products Expo East this past September. Liquid Hope won the People’s Choice Award in the Natural, Organic and Functional Foods and Beverages Category.

The NEXTY Awards, powered by Boulder-based New Hope Natural Media in conjunction with the Sterling Rice Group, recognizes companies in the natural products space for their ingenuity and innovation in a given category.

While meal replacements and supplements are a fiercely competitive and growing category—U.S. consumer sales of supplements grew 7.5% to $32.5 billion in 2012—the organic whole foods meal replacement feeding tube category was virtually nonexistent until Liquid Hope came to market. The leading conventional feeding tube formula brands are Nestle and Abbott Nutrition.

Robin Gentry McGee is the Founder and CEO of Functional Formularies, the company behind Liquid Hope. The whole foods meal replacement is the first of a line of products developed by McGee in 2006 in an attempt to help her elderly father recover from a traumatic brain injury. McGee realized the hospital feeding tube formula was comprised mainly of ingredients including corn syrup, soy and sugar that may have been genetically engineered, artificial flavors and other chemicals—“no real food to be found,” she says, and thus began her quest to use food as medicine to help her father.

Food as Medicine

As a seasoned chef, certified health coach and entrepreneur, McGee knows Functional Formularies is an opportunity to “delve into the deeper healing properties of food and share with those in need of alternative forms of nutrition due to illness or digestive issues, or simply a desire to consume nutritious whole foods on a regular basis.”

With an extensive ingredient list of pureed gluten-free, vegan, organic whole foods including green peas, carrots, sprouted quinoa, miso, almond butter, turmeric, rosemary and a proprietary vitamin blend, the meal replacement was originally intended for feeding tube delivery however it’s palatable savory flavor works well for anyone seeking increased daily nutrition through oral consumption.

Currently consumers of Liquid Hope range from children as young as 18 months to the elderly suffering from such illnesses as cancer and Eosinophilic Esophagitis, extreme inflammation of the esophagus.

“Many of my cancer and ALS patients have asked me for a whole foods approach to nutritional support and I have not had anything to give them until now. Liquid Hope is a perfect answer to this problem. It is … made to help improve the health of patients, not add to their illness. I would love to have all my patients on it,” said Lynn Goldstein, MS RD CDN, Clinical Nutrition Supervisor for Beth Israel Comprehensive Cancer Center.

With positive response from health care professionals, McGee would like to see the company launch into the larger health care institutional channel, crossover pharmacies, and the natural products retail marketplace. Retail outlets that emphasize education for the consumer are ideal, says McGee. Liquid Hope, available in 12 oz. shelf-stable pouches, is currently sold at Dorothy Lane Markets, select independent natural products stores and online atwww.functionalformularies.com.

Meet Functional Formularies at the Food and Nutrition Conference & Expo

Functional Formularies will exhibit at the Food and Nutrition Conference and Expo October 19-22 in Houston, TX. For more information visit www.eatright.org/FNCE.

For more information about Functional Formularies or to inquire about selling Liquid Hope in your store or health care practice, please email Functional Formularies or call 937.271.0381.

About Functional Formularies

Founded in 2008 by chef, certified health coach and entrepreneur Robin Gentry McGee, Functional Formularies produces organic whole foods meal replacement products, including Liquid Hope, designed for enteral feeding and oral consumption. The company is founded on the principles of “food as medicine” and is an alternative for patients suffering from a wide range of illness as well as those seeking increased daily nutrition through whole foods. For more information visit www.functionalformularies.com.

Communications by Compass Natural Marketing

info@compassnatural.com 303.807.1042

Calling All "Kitchen" Composters

For Immediate Release:

Contact: 

Kristen Hess, kristen@compokeeper.com, 720.532.3218
Steve Hoffman, steve@compassnatural.com, 303.807.1042

Calling All "Kitchen" Composters: CompoKeeper, the Odor-Free Composting Bin that Provides a User-Friendly Solution for Home and Office, Launches Kickstarter Campaign

BOULDER, CO - (October 3, 2013) - CompoKeeper, the innovative disposal bin for small-scale indoor compost collection, launched a Kickstarter crowdfunding campaign Sept. 24, according to the bin’s inventor, Van Hess of Boulder.

The user-friendly compost bin provides an odor-free way for consumers to dispose of and store food waste, making it easy to move such waste from the kitchen or office to the curb or garden. CompoKeeper presents a design that was shaped by users who share a commitment to composting, sustainability and healthful living.

The goal of the Kickstarter campaign is to raise $100,000 in funds so CompoKeeper can establish manufacturing in the U.S., thereby keeping its footprint small and supporting local jobs. CompoKeeper promotes the ever-increasing practice of composting, making it easier for homes and businesses to participate in community curbside programs.

To visit CompoKeeper's Kickstarter campaign page, click here.

The compact, attractive CompoKeeper bin comes with a carbon filter inside which absorbs the odors normally associated with composting. What’s truly innovative, though, is the use of a patented foot pedal that seals the inner bag, locking odors in. The bag itself is compostable.

Home and office users say they have found CompoKeeper to be just the solution they are looking for, touting its ability to reduce waste output.

“We have a CompoKeeper in our kitchen at Scrib, and our members love it,” said Shaw Lathrop, director at the shared workspace community in downtown Boulder. “We have reduced our office waste by one-third.”

“We love our CompoKeeper!” said Jessica Burtenshaw of The Tea Spot, Boulder. “It gets filled with tons of used tea leaves and fruit peels here in our office kitchen, and I'm shocked that it really has no smell. It's such a great item for offices that want to promote eco habits and make it truly simple."

Composting is becoming increasingly popular throughout the U.S., with more and more cities approving mandatory curbside programs. Seattle and San Francisco already require it, and in June 2013 New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced he will pursue a mandate that New Yorkers separate their food scraps from ordinary trash and recyclables.

CompoKeeper is a great solution for helping San Francisco residents and businesses sort their compostables, said Jack Macy of the city’s Department of the Environment.

“We were very pleased with the design as it allows air to flow through, thus removing any odor that accumulates,” Macy said. “Their creative and effective solution to clasp and seal the lined container reduces the occurrence of fruit flies, and the foot pedal assists in CompoKeeper's ease of use."

“I believe the CompoKeeper is a great storage option that could help increase participation in our curbside composting program helping our city move toward its zero waste goals," said Dan Matsch of EcoCycle in Boulder.

For more information, to purchase or carry the product in your retail store, or to schedule a media interview, contact Kristen Hess, CompoKeeper co-founder, kristen@compokeeper.com, 720.532.3218 or Sami Udell, relations, samiudell@gmail.com, 847.917.7264.

About CompoKeeper

Father and daughter team Van and Kristen Hess founded CompoKeeper in 2008 in Boulder, CO. The company developed a community envisioned, odor-free compost bin that makes kitchen composting clean and convenient. The CompoKeeper is manufactured in the US and will produce its first line of products upon reaching its Kickstarter campaign goal. For more information or to contribute to the campaign, please visit www.compokeeper.com.

Egg-ceptional Variety

For Immediate Release:

Contact:

Dan Brooks, Director of Marketing, Vital Farms, dan.brooks@vitalfarms.com, 646.468.5902

Steven Hoffman, Compass Natural, steve@compassnatural.com, 303.807.1042

Egg-ceptional Variety: Increasing Consumer Awareness of the Benefits of Pasture-Raised Eggs Leads Vital Farms to Expand Offerings of Humane, Pasture Raised Eggs.

As demand soars for humane, pasture-raised eggs, Vital Farms is broadening its product offerings. In addition to its Vital Farms Certified Organic eggs, available exclusively at Whole Foods Market, it now also offers Pasture Verde and Alfresco Farms brands to serve retailers and consumers in the natural, organic and conventional food markets nationwide. The company has also recently introduced Backyard Eggs, a Non-GMO Project Verified brand, available exclusively at Whole Foods Market.

Vital Farms will be exhibiting at Natural Products Expo East, Sept 26-28, booth #8205

Austin, Texas (September 24, 2013) – One look at the egg set in your local grocer will tell you all you need to know about how much customers are embracing the benefits - both personal and ethical - of pasture-raising. Where before you might have had to shop at specialty stores to find eggs of this kind, increasingly you'll find them right alongside regular eggs, and the chances are they'll be one of Vital Farms' delicious offerings. Consumers are quickly learning to appreciate the benefits of pasture-raising, a farming method that centers on the highest standard or animal welfare – fresh air, salad and plenty of exercise if you will – that produces healthier, tastier eggs. The farming of the future rooted firmly in the past. People get it, and people love it.

"The public misunderstanding of the term ‘Free-range’ is a misconception that the egg industry does nothing to dispel," says Matt O’Hayer, co-founder and CEO of Vital Farms, the nation’s leading producer of Certified Humane®, pasture-raised eggs for natural, organic and, more recently, conventional food markets.

"Whenever you have up to 20,000 chickens crammed into an industrial-size barn that has only a very few tiny doors, or “pop holes” as the egg industry calls them, most of the birds inside the building never see the open doors, let alone the light of day. Yet, the mere existence of an access point permits the industry to call eggs from this process “free range” or “cage free,” " he explains. “Granted, it is an improvement over the squalor of caged production, but a small one at best.”

In reality, each “free range” hen lives practically its entire life indoors on about 1 square foot of total space. By comparison, pasture-raised birds, like those on Vital Farms’ properties, bask in a positively luxurious minimum of 108 square feet of outdoor space each. With access to fresh pasture, native grasses and sunshine, this makes for premium quality pasture-raised eggs that are lower in cholesterol and saturated fat and higher in omega-3s, vitamins A, D and E, and other key nutrients compared to their conventional, cage-produced counterparts, according to a study conducted by Mother Earth News.

Sales of humane and specialty eggs are outpacing the category overall, reports Progressive Grocer, and, as the leading supplier of Certified Organic and pasture-raised eggs to Whole Foods Market and other retailers, Vital Farms’ continued growth reflects this trend.

New Pasture Raised Egg Brands Positioned to Serve a Growing Market

To serve the growing demand for humanely produced, pasture-raised eggs, Vital Farms has launched new brands to serve different markets and consumer segments throughout the country. In addition to its Vital Farms branded Certified Organic eggs, which are, by the very definition of organic standards, non-GMO, the company also recently introduced Backyard Eggs, the first line of specifically Non-GMO Project Verified, pasture-raised eggs, in the nation. Both brands are available exclusively at Whole Foods Market stores nationwide.

For independent natural and organic retailers and conventional grocers across the country, the company recently launched the Pasture Verde brand, which are the very same certified organic, pasture raised eggs sold as Vital Farms Egg in Whole Foods. All their pasture-raised eggs are produced by a network of more than 40 independent family farms in Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Georgia and California. These farmers are committed to humane, sustainable production, says Dan Brooks, Marketing and Communications Director for Vital Farms.

In addition to its Certified Organic and non-GMO Project Verified brands, Vital Farms also offers Alfresco Farms pasture-raised eggs, from chickens raised on conventional feed but with no added hormones or antibiotics, and no toxic, synthetic pesticides or herbicides used on their pastures. By mitigating the expense of the Organic or Non-GMO feeds, Alfresco Farms is able to offer customers an egg with all the benefits of pasture-raising at lower price point on the shelf, and sales of this category of product have contributed enormously to Vital Farms’ growing success. Shelved next to eggs that perpetuate the fallacies of industrial egg production, choosing affordable pasture-raised eggs is a no-brainer.

“Every time I have a chance to chat with customers at the egg shelves, and I explain pasture-raising to them, you can see the light bulb go off. It's basically the kind of egg that they think they've been buying all along, and the egg that they've wanted all along!” says O’Hayer. “The idea that the hens are happy clearly makes people feel good about what they are buying and eating.”

Vital Farms brands:

• Pasture Verde – Pasture raised; Certified Humane®; USDA certified organic (non-GMO) vegetarian feed; available at independent natural and organic products retailers nationwide.
   

• Vital Farms – Pasture raised; Certified Humane®; USDA certified organic (non-GMO) vegetarian feed; available at Whole Foods Market nationwide.
   

• Backyard Eggs – Pasture raised; Certified Humane®; Non-GMO Project Verified vegetarian feed; produced without antibiotics, or toxic, synthetic pesticides and herbicides; available at Whole Foods Market nationwide.
   

• Alfresco Farms – Pasture raised; Certified Humane®;
   non-organic, vegetarian feed; produced without antibiotics, or toxic, synthetic pesticides and herbicides; available at independent natural and conventional grocery stores nationwide.
   

• Texas Chicken Ranch – Pasture raised, Certified Humane®; non-organic, vegetarian feed produced without antibiotics or toxic, synthetic pesticides and herbicides; available at H-E-B.

“Eggs classified as ‘pasture raised’ are laid by hens raised primarily outdoors,” says O’Hayer. “With lots of space and plenty of opportunity to perch, forage and behave just as they would in the wild, we believe that these happy hens lay the best eggs in the world. Frequently rotated onto fresh pastures, managed without the use of toxic, synthetic pesticides or fertilizers – and safely roosted at night in secure hen houses, pasture-raised hens naturally supplement their diet with fresh grasses, herbs and the sort of creep-crawly goodies that only a pecking hen could love! This combination of diet and healthy, outdoor living result in eggs that are unsurpassed in flavor, appearance, texture and nutritional content, loved by our customers and chefs alike.”

About Vital Farms

Matt O’Hayer and his wife Catherine Stewart started Vital Farms in 2007 with 20 Rhode Island Red hens on a 27-acre farm in southeast Austin, TX, in hopes of providing the best quality eggs while creating a place where the hens can “flap their wings, stretch their legs, move around, and act like chickens.” In 2009 they were joined by Jason Jones, who had recently tired of corporate life. “When Jason came along,” says O’Hayer, “we knew that we had a way to make this work on a much larger scale. The combination of experience, belief and passion has proven to be a powerful one!”

Currently, the company works with a network of more than 40 independent, family-owned farms to produce Certified Humane® pasture-raised eggs for the natural, organic and conventional food markets, and is the largest supplier of pasture-raised eggs in the nation. In August 2013, Vital Farms was awarded the #85 slot on the Inc. 500 list of fastest growing privately held companies in the U.S. The company strives to be environmentally sensitive in all aspects of its operation and uses 100% recycled pulp for its egg cartons. For more information, visit www.vitalfarms.com, info@vitalfarms.com, tel 877.455.3063.

Communications by: Compass Natural Marketing

info@compassnatural.com tel. 303.807.1042

The Sustainable Adam Smith

The triple bottom line of planet, people and prosperity is not a modern day notion. In fact it was written about more than 250 years ago. Adam Smith, best known for his book, The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, is widely considered to be the father of modern capitalism. However, few people are aware of the book he wrote 17 years prior called The Theory of Moral Sentiments.

Moreover, each book has a markedly different view of the three forms of capital – natural, human and financial – that lead to decidedly different conclusions. I view Wealth of Nations as the masculine side of Smith, and Sentiments as his feminine side. Let’s take a quick look at their differences. In Wealth of Nations, Smith’s primary thesis is “Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production.” It is at the core of every capitalist endeavor; someone has to buy what we produce. In Wealth of Nations the three forms of capital are organized in the following formula: Financial + Natural = Human. The first question any capitalist asks is, “Will we make money” or there’s no reason to continue the investments in production. “Do we have the resources” is the next logical parameter as we must have the raw materials to create the products, and finally “Who will buy it,” which is where the human element comes into play, for without customers there is no market. This equation places FINANCIAL capital as the starting point of any discussion. Natural capital is in the middle of the equation and serves only a role of subjugation to Financial. This is a model of masculine dominance.

Let’s examine how these same three forms of capital might be arranged by Smith according to his core tenets from the Theory of Moral Sentiments. Smith writes, “The produce of the soil maintains at all times nearly that number of inhabitants which it is capable of maintaining.” Smith viewed the limits of the ecosystem as affecting not only animals and nature, but humans as well. This same thesis was brought to light in the book The Limits To Growth in 1972. In this scenario the basic formula is Natural + Human = Financial. We begin with the question of natural resources, and then the “effect” this has on the soil, followed by the potential it has to create “value” to humans. Herein we see that humans determine the value AFTER the production of goods or services, not prior as in the capitalist view. This is a model of female thoughtfulness.

I began my career in the natural and organic products industry 18 years ago as the VP of Marketing for Traditional Medicinals, one of the core companies of our industry, and subsequently worked with market leaders including Spectrum Organics, Strauss Family Creamery, Lundberg Family Farms and Numi Organic Tea. All of these companies embrace a Sustainabilist view of capitalism by bringing a decidedly nurturing and respectful view of the role of natural capital in their business models. Clearly, their customers have rewarded them for their stewardship and promotion of sustainable business practices, as well as recognition of human capital. These are model companies that are surviving in a fiercely competitive marketplace against much better capitalized mainstream companies. Nevertheless, they have stayed true to their principles and have become beacons of well-run companies with high ethical standards. Unfortunately, they are among a small minority.

My belief is that both views of capitalism can co-exist and balance each other out over time. For the past 200 years we’ve been operating under a more masculine-dominant form of capitalism with many side effects including global warming, financial instability and strained natural systems. If we begin to view our decisions through the lens of a Sustainabilist we could restore our natural systems to balance and thus create a longer lasting value for all, and bring a more motherly approach to how we leverage the natural capital of our shared Earth.

More on this topic can be viewed on SlideShare.

--Nils Michael Langenborg

Nils-Michael Langenborg is President and CEO of Whole Health Marketing, a marketing consultancy for triple-bottom line brands. He received a green MBA from Dominican University of California, focusing on the total enterprise and its requirement to adopt sustainable business practices throughout the organization.

Social Media: an Image Speaks a Thousand Words

The rules of social media marketing are rapidly evolving. Businesses are constantly strategizing how to best reach current and new fans while generating new content and staying ahead of technology trends. What is the most effective way to engage fans in a cost effective way?

The answer is images. According to a 2012 study by ROI Research, pictures and videos accounted for 49% of the most enjoyable content for social media users. Attention spans are short; people are on the go; and social media engagement is increasingly accessed through mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets. Readers want instant gratification and easy-to-digest information. A good image is eye-catching, always ties back to the ethos of the brand and is not necessarily product-focused.

Triumvirate: Facebook, Instagram and Pinterest
With Facebook’s multimillion-dollar acquisition of Instagram, those two entities now share the top-tier with Pinterest. What do they have in common? Ease and popularity of sharing images on the go. Facebook has the upper hand due to its structure of free newsfeed content paired with sponsored content such as ads. However, Instagram’s simple user interface cuts through the noise of Facebook and focuses on the image as the source of content, as opposed to an accompaniment to a lengthy status update. Pinterest is unique in that it allows users to view multiple images at once in an attractive, organized screen layout.

As of now, Instagram and Pinterest do not have advertising options for brands, like Facebook, however, integrating instant shopping capabilities directly on the social media site is an upcoming trend, according to Gideon Lask, CEO and founder of BuyaPowa.

Make Your Fans Drool
In the ROI Research study, 43% of social media users said they “like” or follow anything relating to food. Food brands have a large opportunity to share and interact with their fans due to the highly photographable and interactive nature of their products.

Where a food company may have posted recipes on their blog in the past, now they can use Pinterest and Instagram to share pictures of their products and recipes and still link back to their main blog pages. Fans can now instantly gain access to that information instead of having to wait for a new blog post to arrive in their inbox or go to the company’s actual website. That immediate access lends to spontaneous sharing of posts and that is how a brand can go viral. Even traditional media like food magazines are embracing digital social media by giving their editors Instagram and Twitter handles to post pictures of meals at trendy new restaurants and food events.

"Visual social media platforms like Instagram, Pinterest and Tumblr are fantastic for publications like Food & Wine because we have so many gorgeous, delicious-looking food photos to share. On Instagram, we love to post images from the F&W Test Kitchen, restaurant outings and parties to give fans insider access to our brand. Food does incredibly well because it's enticing and a topic that inspires such enthusiastic engagement," explained Alex Vallis, Digital Features Editor at Food & Wine.

The 80/20 Rule
If you have ever tried to create an ad on Facebook you have surely run into the myriad of rules relating to choosing demographics, setting a per click budget and now, how much text is allowed alongside an image. In part due to the rise in image use in sponsored posts and ads in the newsfeed, Facebook has imposed an 80% image, 20% text policy that your submission must pass in order to be approved for posting.

Using a grid tool to assess the image, Facebook can either approve or reject your image on the spot. Text overlay on a photo (below) counts towards the 20%, but logos on your products do not. To learn more, click here.

While the 80/20 rule can be frustrating, Facebook may be on to something by trying to keep images from looking too ad-like. They know their users’ habits better than any other website, so they understand how long people spend on each post and what type of content earns ‘likes’ and ‘comments’ and what does not.

Remember, “Visual fantasy sells product,” according to a recent Fast Company article. “Brands can use visual content on their social media to increase engagement and inspire sharing and viral marketing.”

-- Shoshana Romer

FDA Gives Meaning to “Gluten Free” Claim

With the August 2 publication of the FDA’s final gluten-free (GF) labeling rules, natural food, supplement, and in certain cases, beer producers now have standardized means for promoting gluten-free foods to their customers in a voluntary, verifiable, and consistent manner. Considering that “gluten-free” health claims accompanied more than 11% of all new specialty food products released in 2012, a 2.6% increase from the year before, the FDA’s decision serves a readily expanding market.

Understanding the Law and Implementation The guidelines establish a maximum threshold for gluten content in gluten-free foods as 20 parts per million (ppm) (200mg/kg), which is consistent with international standards defined in the UN’s Codex Alimentarius and determined by FDA to be the scientifically most reliable minimum measurement for gluten content currently available. However, because of the voluntary nature of reporting (manufacturers are not required to label products as gluten-free), as well as no official FDA standardized certification scheme or stamp (a lá USDA Organic), the onus of verification and accountability to consumers ultimately falls on producers.

The ruling took effect on Sept. 4, 2013, but any company looking to update its packaging or any other marketing materials has until Aug. 5, 2014, to comply.

Industry Implications First and foremost the new rule is meant to benefit consumers avoiding gluten out of medical necessity, for whom the risks of consumption range from gastric discomfort to osteoporosis and intestinal cancer. However, according to Laura Kuykendall, Director of Marketing for Glutino, a gluten-free manufacturer founded in 1983, consumers adopting a gluten-free lifestyle are clearly increasing. As a result, Glutino has embraced the use of third party GF certification. “Transparency about process and providing information to consumers is the most important factor" when dealing with medically sensitive consumers, Kuykendall explained.

Jeanne Cloutier, Director of Operations at Alter Eco, an importer and producer of Fair Trade foods, explained that because of the nature of gluten allergies, GF consumers are extremely well educated on manufacturing processes and regulatory issues, “much more than most people are with, say, the USDA Organic standard.” Currently, both companies certify with GFCO, the largest GF certifier operating in the United States.

Depending on how a company plans, implementation costs can be kept to a minimum. Alter Eco waited until its labels required several changes before printing updated packaging. And while costs vary, regular, high caliber testing doesn’t need to be expensive. Ultimately, both women conclude, for gluten-free consumers, your brand is only as good as your reputation. "It’s a trust thing,” says Cloutier, “but somebody needs to validate that logo."

-- Sam Kressler

GreenMoney Journal: GMOs in Our Food: Do We Have a Right to Know?

Test your knowledge on GMOs in food! Compass Natural's Steve Hoffman and Nikki McCord of McCord Consulting co-authored an article in the Fall 2013 edition of GreenMoney Journal: "If you’re anything like us, you’re probably enjoying a snack while checking your email and catching up on your blogs. If you’re eating a conventionally produced snack – that is, one that is not Certified Organic or Non-GMO Verified – chances are it could be full of GMOs. Check your packaging. Did you see the label informing you of this fact? Most likely you didn’t because companies are not required to tell you whether or not GMOs are in your foods. And yet, GMOs are in about 80% of commonly processed foods. So what are GMOs and what is their impact on human and animal health and the environment? . . ."

Read More: http://www.greenmoneyjournal.com/fall-2013/gmo/

GMOs in the News: 2 Million Rally Against Monsanto

More than 2 Million People Rally in 52 Countries to Protest GMO Giant Monsanto
From a single Facebook page started in February, the March Against Monsanto held on May 25 drew more than 2 million people in 52 countries and 436 cities to protest chemical giant Monsanto and the genetically engineered seeds it produces. "If I had gotten 3,000 people to join me, I would have considered that a success," protest organizer Tami Canal told USA Today. "It was empowering and inspiring to see so many people, from different walks of life, put aside their differences and come together," she said. The group plans to harness the success of the event to continue its anti-GMO cause. "We will continue until Monsanto complies with consumer demand. They are poisoning our children, poisoning our planet," she said. "If we don't act, who's going to?" Protests were held in Los Angeles, Portland, OR, Buenos Aires, Argentina, Amsterdam in the Netherlands, and elsewhere around the globe. “As a single company, Monsanto is the tip of the iceberg representing the threat that unchecked corporate power has in corrupting our democratic institutions, driving family farmers off the land, threatening human health and contaminating our environment,” said Dave Murphy, executive director of Food Democracy Now, in a May 28 commentary in the Huffington Post.

Washington State Yes on 522 Launches GMO Labeling Campaign into Full Gear
With a new website, www.yeson522.com, the recent hiring of professional campaign management staff, and $1.1 million in contributions received, the Yes on 522 campaign to label GMO foods in Washington State is swinging into full gear and is appealing to natural and organic products business leaders to help fund what many experts say is the best opportunity to achieve mandatory GMO labeling in 2013. At a recent press conference, Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO), co-sponsor of the Boxer-DeFazio federal GMO labeling bill, said it is critically important to support the Washington State initiative to give greater weight to the Washington, DC, federal GMO labeling efforts, given biotech’s strong lobbying presence in the nation’s capitol. In a letter to donors, Yes on 522 finance chair David Bronner of Dr. Bronner’s reported that the campaign has launched an ambitious grassroots outreach program called “Kitchen Conversations,” in which advocates can receive a kit containing information to host informal gatherings among voters, and is rolling out a “Dining Out for 522” chef’s fundraising campaign. The campaign scheduled its first stakeholder meeting for May 31 in Seattle. Presence Marketing/Dynamic Presence is among the leading supporters of the Yes on 522 GMO labeling bill. Steven Hoffman of Compass Natural Marketing is helping lead fundraising efforts and outreach to natural and organic products industry leaders. For information and to contribute, visit www.yeson522.com.

Whole Foods Market Endorses Washington State’s Yes on 522 GMO Labeling Bill Joining a coalition of leading Washington State-based retailers including PCC Natural Markets and Marlene’s Natural Foods Market and Delis, among others, Whole Foods Market on April 25 announced its support for the Yes on 522 (www.yeson522.com) campaign to label genetically engineered, or GMO, foods. In support of Yes on 522, Whole Foods Market launched a grassroots effort, Will Vote for Food (www.willvoteforfood.com) to engage consumers and build support for the ballot initiative. “This issue is about transparency and the consumer’s right to make informed decisions,” said Joe Rogoff, president of Whole Foods Market’s Pacific Northwest region. “We believe that growers using genetically modified seed, and producers using the products grown from those seeds, have an obligation to share that information with their public. And the price paid by the food industry for relabeling is a pittance compared to the distrust that increasingly results from their concealment. We support Yes on 522. At Whole Foods Market, we will vote for food.”

New Leaf Markets Require GMO Labeling; Terra Organica Labeling GMO Products Following in the footsteps of Whole Foods Market, Santa Cruz, CA-based natural retailer New Leaf Community Markets announced it would require labeling of foods containing GMO ingredients in its seven stores by 2018. New Leaf was an early retail member of the Non-GMO Project and a strong supporter of California’s Prop 37 2012 GMO labeling measure, which was defeated by a narrow margin. New Leaf co-owner Scott Roseman commended Whole Foods for taking the lead on the labeling issue and said the five-year deadline gives manufacturers time to update packaging or research alternative ingredients. In related news, Stephen Trinkaus, owner of Terra Organica in Bellingham, WA, asked his customers what they wanted in terms of GMO labeling. The choices were: do nothing, label products that contain GMO ingredients, or get rid of the items altogether. Customers overwhelmingly chose labels, so Trinkaus began labeling products in the store that are likely to contain GMO ingredients. “I thought it would be simpler than it is,” Trinkaus told the Seattle Times. He wants customers to know if a manufacturer is working to replace GMO ingredients with non-GMO alternatives – many are after Whole Foods Market’s announcement to require GMO labeling in 2018, he said – and is revamping labels in his store to display more complex information.

Vermont, Maine Advance GMO Labeling Legislation
On May 14, despite concerns over lawsuit threats from the biotech industry, Maine's House Agriculture Committee passed a GMO labeling measure on an 8-3 vote. The bill, LD 718, offered by Rep. Lance Harvell (R-Farmington) wouldn’t go into full effect until 2018, and only after four of the nine northeastern states approve similar laws. However, they may be one step closer to realizing that goal: on May 10, the Vermont House passed a mandatory GMO labeling bill by an overwhelming 107-37 vote, again, despite massive lobbying efforts by the GMO biotech industry and threats to sue the state. If approved by the state Senate and signed by the governor, the bill, H 112, could make Vermont the first state in the nation to require labeling of genetically modified foods. But the measure likely wouldn’t go into effect for two years, and it would not affect meat, milk or eggs from animals that were fed or treated with genetically engineered substances, including GMO corn and the rBGH cattle hormone. While GMO labeling is not required in the U.S., according to the Center for Food Safety, 64 countries, including China, Russia and all EU nations currently have GMO labeling laws in place.

Monsanto CEO Blames Social Media for “Elitist” Anti-GMO Sentiments
Citizens who are against genetically modified foods or are calling for mandatory labeling of GMO foods are guilty of “elitism” that is fanned by social media, and they fail to consider the needs of the rest of the world, said Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant in a May 15 interview with Bloomberg Press. “This place is getting busier and more crowded,” Grant said. “As long as you’ve got money in your back pocket and you drive your station wagon to the supermarket on weekends, then it’s out of sight, out of mind, so far.” The advent of social media helps explain why many people in the U.S. have come to oppose genetically engineered crops in recent years, Grant told Bloomberg. Grant feels that GMOs are the answer to feeding the world’s growing population, while opponents point to increased use of toxic synthetic pesticides associated with GMO agriculture, the fact the farmers can no longer save seed if they are practicing GMO farming, the potential contribution of GMO farming to global climate change, and peer-reviewed studies that warn of risks to human, animal and environmental health. In related news, executives from Monsanto, DuPont and Dow Chemical – among the world’s largest producers of GMO crops and pesticides, and owners of a significant majority of the world’s seed companies – told Reuters that they are developing a national promotional campaign aimed at turning the tide on growing public sentiment against GMO crops. With GMO labeling measures before the federal government and more than 20 states, the biotech firms seek to limit the spread of such initiatives, which the companies say would only confuse consumers and upset the food manufacturing industry, according to Reuters. The biotech industry is still working out details of their marketing campaign, but it will likely have a large social media component, the company executives said.

Supreme Court Rules for Monsanto in Seed Case Rejecting an Indiana farmer’s argument that his planting of seeds he had bought second-hand did not violate Monsanto’s GMO seed patent, the U.S. Supreme Court on May 12 ruled unanimously that farmers must pay Monsanto each time they plant the company’s genetically engineered soybeans. Farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman asserted that because the company’s herbicide-resistant, Roundup Ready soybeans replicate themselves, he was not violating the company’s patent by planting progeny seeds he had purchased elsewhere. However, the justices unanimously rejected that claim, with Justice Elena Kagan writing there is no such “seeds-are-special” exception to the law. But Kagan warned that the Monsanto decision was a limited one and did not address every issue involving a self-replicating product. The court ordered Bowman, a conventional farmer, to pay nearly $85,000 in damages to Monsanto. The Supreme Court's decision implies that Monsanto has the legal right to stop farmers from saving seeds from patented genetically modified crops one season, and plant them the next season.

UNPA Hosts GMO Symposium for Supplement Manufacturers Despite what happens on a legislative and regulatory front, what is certain is that consumers want GMO labeling, and Whole Foods Market is requiring GMO transparency from all of its vendors by 2018, said Loren Israelsen, Executive Director of the United Natural Products Association (UNPA), a Salt Lake-based trade association serving the natural and nutritional products industry. To help companies understand the challenges and implications of GMOs in nutritional supplements and food products and to prepare for GMO labeling, UNPA hosted on May 23 a day-long symposium, “The Non-GMO Future: How to Source, Test, Label and Market Food and Supplement Ingredients.” “If you sell into Whole Foods [Market] or aspire to sell to them, you need to understand the GMO supply chain,” said Israelsen in a recent interview with Nutra-Ingredients. “We sense that the issue is substantially more significant than dietary supplements companies think,” he said. Speakers at the symposium included Courtney Pineau, assistant director of Non-GMO Project; Robert Craven, CEO, FoodState/Megafood; John Fagan, Ph.D., founder of Global ID; Sandy Kepler, CEO of Foodchain Global Advisors; Adam Ismail, executive director of GOED; Steven Hoffman, managing director of Compass Natural Marketing; and Ken Roseboro, editor and publisher of The Organic & Non-GMO Report. For info visit www.unpa.com.

After Being Rejected by Consumers, Will GMO Spuds Make a Comeback? While the FDA weighs approval of GMO salmon, a dozen years after Monsanto ditched its GMO potato after disappointing sales, an Idaho company, J.R. Simplot, asked FDA in mid-May to approve five varieties of GMO potatoes. The varieties have been genetically engineered to avoid black spots and designed to have less acrylamide, a naturally occurring but potentially toxic chemical. Simplot, according to MSN News, sells potatoes to McDonald’s for its French fries, and McDonald’s rejects potatoes with black spots. The FDA is also reviewing the “Arctic” apple, genetically engineered by Canada-based Okanagan Specialty Fruits to resist turning brown when cut. While Simplot said 20 field trials demonstrate that GMO potatoes are virtually identical to their unmodified cousins, Bill Freese, senior policy analyst with Washington, DC-based Center for Food Safety, said that genetic engineering is a “noisy, unpredictable process,” where the best-intentioned genome tinkering could be accompanied by unforeseen effects on human health and the environment. "The biotech approach is to change the food on a genetic level in quite frankly risky ways with inadequate regulation to adapt a crop to an industrial food system that's really unhealthy in so many ways," he said.

Market Research: Fruit Flies Say Organic is Better

You may have heard, of all things, about recent research related to organic food and fruit flies published in the respected scientific journal Plos One. The study, conducted by Dallas middle-school student Ria Chhabra, tracked the effects of organic and conventional diets on the health of fruit flies. By nearly every measure, including fertility, stress resistance and longevity, flies that fed on organic bananas and potatoes fared better than those who dined on conventionally raised produce, according to the New York Times. The study, which earned 16-year-old Chhabra top honors in a national science competition, provided “evidence that organically raised food may provide animals with tangible benefits to overall health.”

U.S. families, too, are flocking to organic foods, with 81% of families reporting that they purchase organic at least sometimes, says the Organic Trade Association (OTA) in its survey, “U.S. Families’ Organic Attitudes and Beliefs Study,” conducted in January 2013. Nearly half (48%) of those who purchase organic foods said they do so because “they are healthier for me and my children.” Among the top reasons to purchase organic are the desire to avoid toxic and persistent pesticides and fertilizers, antibiotics and growth hormones, and genetically modified organisms or GMOs. More than four in 10 parents (42%) said their trust in organic products increased, vs. 32% who indicated this point of view a year ago. “More and more parents choose organic foods primarily because of their desire to provide healthful options for their children,” said Christine Bushway, Executive Director of OTA.

However, in a March 2013 Harris Interactive poll of 2,276 U.S. adults, more than half (59%) agreed that labeling food or other products as organic is just an excuse to charge more. "What surprised us most was that while Americans are showing more concern for the environment, they aren't necessarily willing to pay more to do anything about it," said Mike de Vere, Harris president. "While Americans feel better about the economy, many are wary of the 'greenwashing' concept that gives companies a chance to cash in on consumers who want to help the planet but are confused by all the eco-friendly jargon." Manufacturers who convey the true value of organic while offering a fair price will be better positioned to win over this skeptical consumer.

Similarly, the Hartman Group discovered in its 2012 Organic and Natural Report that only slightly more than half (54%) of consumers surveyed believe “organic” means non-GMO. While GMOs are prohibited in certified organic production, the proliferation of non-GMO seals, often appearing next to the USDA Organic seal on packaging, may have diluted the consumer’s perception that organic also means non-GMO.

However, OTA reports that U.S. families are becoming increasingly aware of the presence of unlabeled genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in foods in the marketplace, with one-third (32%) of U.S. households turning to organic to avoid GMOs.

Graphic: Courtesy of The Hartman Group, www.harman-group.com.