Public outcry and demands to end open-air field testing of experimental GE crops are growing louder. And the discovery of rogue GE wheat in Oregon has driven key trading partners — like Japan and Korea — to suspend some wheat imports. All this exploded just days after millions of people around the world marched against Monsanto, denouncing its control, corruption and contamination of our food systems.

GE wheat in the loose is the latest in a series of warning signals that the systems we have put in place to ensure a vibrant and healthy food system are not working. We have had nearly two dozen other major incidents of noncompliance with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s notoriously lax rules on GE crops.

Contaminated food, fields & communities

Several years back Bayer’s experimental GE rice contaminated our rice supply, eliciting import bans from Europe and Japan. And “Starlink corn,” a genetically engineered variety approved only for animal feed, somehow got into our tacos and corn chips.

Undeterred by the ongoing genetic contamination of our food and farms, USDA continues to allow some 1,000 field trials to test new GE crops each year, covering thousands of acres in multiple states. This little known, searchable USDA database reveals just how extensive and widespread these field trials are.

Genetic drift aside, these test plots are typically doused heavily with pesticides that can drift from the fields where they’re applied, threatening the health of local communities and contaminating air, soil and water.

In Hawai’i — the global center of the Big 6 pesticide/GE corporations’ open air field testing operations — a fierce battle is heating up, with Hawai’ian residents no longer willing to let the pesticide industry exploit their land and damage their health.

Who’s in charge?

It’s not just our food and fields that have been contaminated. Our public agencies — those that bear the serious responsibility of protecting the public interest, our health and well-being — have been over-run by corporate influence. The revolving door between Big 6 industry representatives and USDA offices spins without pause, and millions of corporate lobby dollars flow directly into congressional campaign funds.

Recently, in a move that (on the surface) seemed to go against the grain of corporate control, USDA announced its intention to produce a full “environmental impact statement” (EIS) regarding Dow and Monsanto’s new and highly controversial 2,4-D and dicamba-resistant GE crops.

After receiving over 500,000 public comments last year — highlighting the dangers to farmers’ livelihoods and the health and well-being of rural communities — the agency acknowledged that its decision on these crops could have a significant effect on the “quality of the human environment.” Many, myself included, welcomed this news. For one thing, the EIS process is long enough that it will delay any possible commercialization of these crops into the 2015 season.

More importantly, the decision suggested that USDA might be preparing to pull its head from the corporate sands and began to look around at what is happening to our farmers and our rural landscape. Maybe that’s what the agency will do with the EIS. After all, USDA says it’s all about “helping rural America thrive” and “conserving the Nation’s natural resources.” But I’m worried.

Safeguard food & farming

Buried in the middle of the EIS notice, are signals from USDA that it has no intention of taking its own findings seriously. The agency warns that despite whatever the EIS might conclude regarding the GE seeds’ broader impacts on rural communities, the agency has “[no] authority to address those impacts beyond what the Plant Protection Act requires.” And the latter simply requires USDA to determine whether or not a new GE seed might be a “plant pest” that could harm another crop or plant. A “yes/no” decision on “pest status” almost always enables the agency to approve the new GE seed, a decision the Big 6 corporations have come to expect.

It’s time for USDA to take a long, hard and honest look at the full range of impacts of GE crops on our food and farming system. And then actually use this information to guide the agency’s decisions to safeguard our collective well-being. Gee, what a good idea.

Originally published by Pesticide Action Network

The study confirms anecdotal evidence from hog farmers who’ve reported reproductive and digestive problems in pigs raised on GM feed. Those who were following this sort of news in 2011 will remember an open letter to the USDA from Dr. M. Huber, a professor at Purdue University, about an unknown organism in Roundup Ready crops causing miscarriages in farm animals.

A common complaint from critics of GM technology – often painted as “anti-science” by GM proponents – is that they’ve been inadequately studied. (Don’t think about that for too long – your first instinct is correct, it doesn’t make sense.) The European Union has long based its regulatory framework (and resultant slow adoption of GMOs) on the precautionary principle. And in fact, according to this study, most of the research on the health impacts of GMOs has either been short term (less than 90 days), performed on non-mammals or failed to examine multiple GM traits concurrently, despite that many new GM crops “stack” traits, and that many diets – of both animals and humans – include multiple types of GMOs.

The scientists behind the study report having chosen pigs as their subject for the similarity between their digestive systems and those of humans, and the mixed GM diet for its similarity to the real-life diets of both swine and humans, so this is really damning stuff. They also describe their findings as conservative, noting that even the control group is likely to have been exposed to GMOs in indirect ways they couldn’t avoid, such as trace amounts of GMOs in non-GM feed, and parents fed GM diets.

As one might expect, the scientists conclude their report with a call for more testing, particularly of whether the findings also apply to humans. Scientists at the Consumers Union go one further, saying that concerns raised by the study further underscore the need to label GMOs.

Will the government listen? Time will tell. It’s also  hard to predict the potential impact of this study on the US pork market – or on the prices of corn and soy. As we saw recently when Japan and South Korea canceled orders for US-produced wheat after the discovery of unapproved GM wheat in Oregon, not all countries take a laissez-faire approach to GMOs. And what about that merger/takeover of Smithfield Foods by Chinese-held Shuanghui, rumored to have been spurred in part by friction over the livestock drug ractopamine? For that matter, will American hog farmers – seeking rightly to avoid sickening their own hogs – seek non-GM feed from other countries?

For now, more questions than answers, but if the findings of this study are as serious as they look, American agriculture may be on the verge of paying a very dear price for a long roll in the hay with the biotech industry.

Originally published on EcoCenteric

But how did the small state of Connecticut make this happen?

I spoke at length with the leader of the effort, Tara Cook-Littman of GMO Free CT, who worked for the past two years as a volunteer. (See the group’s impressive list of coalition partners.)

She said for a long time, efforts to pass labeling bills went nowhere, but things started to change two years ago once advocates formally organized themselves. While at first she and others “were dismissed as a bunch of crazy moms and environmentalists,” things started to pick up last year “when advocates were able to show themselves to be a serious movement with political power.”

What about the opposition? Cook-Littman said it was formidable, and that industry made all the same fear-mongering arguments we heard last year during Prop 37 in California about higher food prices and confusing consumers.

She and others suspect the biotech industry was funneling money through the trade group, the Connecticut Food Association, which represents retailers and wholesalers. Also in opposition was the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the national trade group for food makers, which firmly stated its opposition to Prop 37 last year, calling it the organization’s “single-highest priority.”

In addition, Cook-Littman told me about the front group industry formed to oppose the bill, called: “Connecticut Farm to Food.” (For more about front groups, see my recent report.) This group’s home page claims boldly if inexplicably: “Forced labeling will drive business and science out of Connecticut.” Listed as sponsors are three groups: The Council for Biotechnology Information (a trade group for the biotech industry; its website is:whybiotech.com), the Connecticut Retail Merchants Association, and the previously-mentioned Grocery Manufacturers Association. In other words, two of these three groups behind this “Connecticut” organization are based in Washington DC.

The toughest opposition though, Cook-Littman said, came from the Connecticut Farm Bureau, which claimed the bill would hurt farmers, despite the bill not even being about farming, but rather food products. “They claimed that farmers’ sales of value-added products would be destroyed if they had to be labeled,” she said. But, as a strong counter-weight, advocates had the support of the state’s numerous organic farmers, led by the Connecticut chapter of the Northeast Organic Farming Association, who Cook-Littman called “our truest partner.”

Still, how did this grassroots group fight off such high-powered lobbyists representing at least three major industries – biotech, food retailers, and food manufacturers? She said, “We just got louder.”

What exactly was the turning point for the movement? Cook-Littman said face-to-face meetings with politicians were critical. “We spent a lot of time developing relationships with our representatives. Just spending that time with them was invaluable,” she said.

Also, the group’s social media presence, especially on Facebook, allowed non-paid advocates to engage in less time-consuming ways. “We told our representatives: ‘look at what’s happening on Facebook.’”

And simply showing up in massive numbers when it counted: at two critical rallies, one before the legislative session began, another just weeks ago, along with a huge turnout for the hearing.

Cook-Littman credits the national advocacy group Food Democracy Now! for being a vital partner in the effort. “We could not have done it without them. They always believed in us, while others discounted us,” she said. “They also helped drive more than 40,000 phone calls to the governor’s office and provided strategic advice along the way.”

Dave Murphy, founder and executive director of Food Democracy Now!, told me that another turning point was when Jerry Greenfield of Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream came to the capital to testify in support of the bill. “That gave the issue instant credibility because Ben and Jerry’s is a very successful company. There were politicians who had been against the bill standing in line for ice cream and a photo opp with Jerry.”

Also, there were several times during the process when they thought the bill was dead. But the advocates didn’t give up; another crucial lesson: to hang in there.

Of course, to get any bill difficult bill passed, compromises must be made along the way. While the labeling provisions of the bill are strong, unfortunately, legislators added a “trigger clause,” which requires that four other states in the northeast region enact similar bills before the law takes effect in Connecticut.

Cook-Littman told me that the advocates fought to keep this provision out, but at the end of day, they were advised to take the compromise or else risk the bill going down to defeat, with an uncertain future. She is quite confident that the clause will actually motivate other states to get bill passed. And as a member of the Right to Know Coalition of States, she is determined to help others in doing so. She also hopes the passage helps the Washington State ballot measure coming up for vote this November.

What advice does Cook-Littman have for advocates in other states facing similar opposition from powerful lobbyists? “I told my fellow advocates: ‘Stand in your power as a constituent and let your representatives hear you.’ Too often, we give up our power,” she said. “But once you realize that you can make a difference, that’s when change happens. Also, stay the course and keep fighting.”

Dave Murphy called the Connecticut victory “one giant step for Connecticut and one giant leap for the GMO labeling movement.” He continued: “The grassroots have won the day in Connecticut for a key victory over Monsanto and the biotech lobby. It was inspiring to watch Connecticut legislators supporting GMO labeling stand strong in the face of the biotech industry’s effort to kill the bill.”

Also feeling inspired, Cook-Littman told me: “It truly feels amazing to know that our little state of Connecticut, with its grassroots power, was able to beat back the opposition to get the bill passed. I really do think it is an important step and will encourage other states to do the same.”

I couldn’t agree more. These victories don’t come very often. Let’s savor this one.

Originally published on Eat Drink Politics

Wheat farmers in the Pacific Northwest export up to 90 percent of their harvest; most of it is used to make noodles in Asia. “We are taking this situation very seriously and have launched a formal investigation,” said Michael Firko, of the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, in a press release.

The issue of genetic engineering of crops has been in the news in Washington state, as I-522, a  GE labeling initiative moves forward to the November 2013 ballot. While the Washington Association of Wheat Growers has been dismissive of claims that labeling would affect farmers’ abilities to export wheat, a response to the announcement of the discovery of the GE wheat in Oregon emphasized the safety of the food, and sought understanding from trade partners as the investigation continues.

Farmers in the east side of Washington grow 2.5 million acres of wheat, much of it the soft white wheat aimed for Asian markets. West of the Cascades, other markets for wheat are being cultivated. Farmers in this area are poised to feed the informed eaters who want grains with more identity than the anonymous products of the state’s grain belt.

Washington State University’s Mount Vernon Research and Extension Station tests 40,000 varieties of wheat each year–none of them genetically engineered. When Stephen Jones, director of the station, was the winter wheat breeder for Washington State University in Pullman, from 1995-2007, he struggled openly with farmer interest in GE crops. He wouldn’t breed anything that took ownership away from farmers and put it in the hands of corporations.

While all seed breeding seeks to develop specific traits, genetic engineering works through gene transfer, and can cross species barriers, which classical plant breeding cannot. Another reason genetic plant breeding is favored is the speed at which desired traits can be grown out. Jones is content to work at the pace of plants.

Plants have been hybridizing without human intervention for millennia. Jones and other plant breeders use classical breeding methods, relying on pollen to achieve results just as their peers did in the 1800s, when hybridization first became a habit.

“We make a cross in a greenhouse, put a male with a female in a dialysis sleeve,” said Jones. “Two generations out we plant test plots.”

However, even hybrids are perceived by some consumers as bad. The lack of transparency about genetic modification is adding to consumer confusion about seed breeding in general. Wheat breeding is taking a big hit from misconceptions promoted in the book Wheat Belly, which attacks modern wheat hybrids, claiming they are addictive and make people fat.

These fears and other concerns about gluten are giving gluten-free products a fierce market presence. On the other side, there is a separate, small but strong movement to relocalize grains, and Jones is part of it.

Across the country, farmers are putting grains in ground that haven’t seen a flour mill or malthouse for nearly a century. Researchers like Jones are working to help farmers find varieties that grow well in these areas, and also serve the needs of bakers and brewers. Conferences on grains and bread–like the Kneading Conference West, which Jones helps organize–are driving the movement forward.

“If you look at Iowa, this is what’s wrong with agriculture,” he said in Vermont in March, showing a 2008 USDA map that highlighted wheat production with green dots. The state was nearly white. “One hundred years ago, Iowa would be bright green. Now it’s wall to wall corn and soybeans. Winter wheat avoids drought. Corn and soy do not.”

The Northern Grain Growers Association had invited him to speak on the topic of growing grains “out of place,” or beyond the regions where the commodity crop is generally produced–eastern Washington and Oregon, Montana, the Dakotas, and Kansas. Jones gave a similar presentation in Tacoma at the Cascadia Grains Conference in January.

In the last century, same as other parts of our food supply, grain production was centralized. A staple food became a commodity crop, and the farmer know-how, and equipment needed to grow grains regionally was lost.

The research station builds on what farmers in the Skagit Valley and elsewhere in western Washington do know–how to grow commodity grains–with a goal of creating a closed loop system to meet the needs of farms and eaters in a region, from animal feed to flour and malting barley.

“These aren’t wheat farmers, these are farmers who grow wheat,” Jones said at his office and labs. Wheat farmers in eastern Washington grow large acres of commodity grains and little else. Farmers in his part of the state can’t afford to grow grains as their main crop. The land is too valuable, and the income from wheat is too low. Still, every few years, tulip, vegetable and seed farmers grow grains to break disease cycles and build up organic matter in the soil.

Growing the same plants year after year courts pathogens and pests. Grains are in the grass family, offering a break from the problems invited by other families of plants. Each family has different biological foes, so rotations help plants handle problems like funguses and bugs. Grains also add organic matter to the soil. Adding value to the grains farmers grow in rotation boosts farm economies as well as soil. Keeping those grains at home is key to Jones for many reasons, and not just because local food is in right now.

“I do like to get beyond the cliché of local and heirloom,” he said, and get to the root of the matter, which is to keep farmers farming in an area facing heavy development pressure.

News of GE wheat may well serve this mission, as consumer interest in non-commodity non-GE wheat could rise. Meanwhile, wheat farmers will have to contend with the risk of cross-contamination from this errant wheat–and the inadequacies of a regulatory system unprepared to ensure that it doesn’t happen again.

Photo by Shutterstock

FDA limited its already minimal environmental review to the local impact of these genetically engineered fish at two isolated locations currently used by AquaBounty—one in Canada and one in Panama—and the agency based it’s finding of “no significant impact” on the U.S. environment largely on the fact that the fish would not be produced or raised in the U.S.

But the internal documents reveal that during the review period, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) was already receiving applications to import AquAdvantage salmon eggs into the U.S. for commercial production.

This raises the question of whether the whole idea of growing the GE salmon in Panama was a regulatory ruse by the company designed to get approval, while their real intent was to sell the eggs to U.S. companies to be grown in U.S. facilities.

Agency documents further revealed that scientists within the FWS questioned the FDA’s ability and authority to review the impact of genetically engineered animals, and that they believed a full Environmental Impact Statement should be conducted before any decision on approval is finalized.

A bipartisan group of Congressmen agree. Today, Reps. Don Young (R-Alaska), Mike Thompson (D-CA) and Jared Huffman (D-CA) introduced the PEGASUS Act, which would prohibit the shipment, sale, transportation, purchase, possession, or release in the wild of GE salmon unless the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service complete a full environmental impact statement and find that it will result in no significant impact to the environment.

The failure to study the impact of U.S. production has grave consequences for our fisheries and the environment. Each year, an estimated two million salmon escape from open-water net pens into the North Atlantic, outcompeting wild populations for resources and straining ecosystems. Research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science found that even a small release of GE fish could lead to the extinction of wild populations, wreaking havoc on the fishing industry and the natural ecosystem.

More than 1.5 million people have commented to FDA opposing the approval of the controversial GE salmon. In addition, the market has already started to reject GE salmon. Supermarkets operating more than 2,500 grocery stores are already planning to avoid the salmon should it come to market.

Naturally, the pesticide and biotech industry players have come out swinging with a host of dire but false predictions that food prices will rise and the sky will fall if people are allowed to know what’s in our food. The latest evidence of desperation comes from a long-time GE apologist, who now claims that labeling GE foods in the U.S. will exacerbate world hunger and poverty. Seriously?

GE’s broken promises

When I got to the end of Robert Paarlberg’s latest pro-GE article in the Wall Street Journal — where he makes the acrobatic leap from labeling GE foods in the U.S. to world hunger — I literally shook my head and said, “Really, Rob?” My tone mirrored that of my 12 year old when he says, “Really, Mom?” if I make a particularly inane or utterly ridiculous (to his mind) comment.

Paarlberg’s reasoning is pretty opaque, but it seems to go like this: if we adopt GE labeling here, then developing country governments (he hypothesizes) would follow our lead, enthusiasm for importing our GE seeds would drop, and (here’s the leap) therefore people will go hungry.

A few quick points to set the record straight:

• No one is waiting for U.S. leadership in labeling. Already 3 billion people in 64 countries have labeling, including numerous countries across Africa, Asia and Latin America. The U.S. is actually a latecomer to GE labeling.
• GE crops do not feed the world’s hungry. Instead, evidence shows us they have continually failed to deliver on industry’s promises of increasing yields, improving nutrition or enabling farmers to weather drought.
• Rather, GE crops fuel the growth engine of the pesticide industry, with virtually 100 percent of GE seeds on the market today designed to either contain an insecticide or to be used with herbicides. This has led to a massive increase in herbicide use and an epidemic of herbicide-resistant “superweeds.”

Food democracy not GE dependency

Paarlberg claims that “the world needs genetically engineered foods.” It would be more accurate to say that the world’s pesticide companies need GE products. That’s why they created them. But the drivers of, and solutions to, world hunger are rather more complex than industry advocates like to acknowledge.

The reality is that people are often hungry because they are poor and cannot — for a variety of political, social and economic reasons — afford the price of food. In addition to establishing equitable economic and trade policies, real solutions to world hunger will arise out of investing in locally appropriate ecological farming practices that integrate grassroots science and farmers’ knowledge — practices that are productive, resilient and profitable.

Indeed, the weight of scientific evidence supports a global shift towards ecological farming. Numerous UN and independent academic reports have concluded that meeting the climate, water, energy and food challenges of the 21^st century can be achieved by investing in agroecology. In contrast, the data show, GE technologies are unlikely to get us where we need to go.

Additionally, agroecological farming can double food production, save our soil, protect biodiversity, reduce dependence on fossil fuels and help farmers adapt to climate change. And organic farming and reliance on traditional seed systems are among the best options available for achieving food security across Africa.

Along with millions of others around the globe — family farmers, rural community leaders, sustainable development experts and scientists — I would argue that what the world actually needs is food democracy. We need ordinary people taking charge of our food systems, getting together to establish the rules, and develop and share creative farming practices. This will enable us to grow and distribute food sustainably, support the livelihoods and protect the health of current and future generations, and safeguard the soil, water and wildlife on which we all depend.

The rider pertains to transgenic crops that have been deregulated by the USDA but then had that approval overturned by a judge — a scenario that has occurred with genetically engineered alfalfa and sugar beets.

In such a situation, the agency “shall” immediately issue permits or a partial deregulation order that would temporarily allow farmers to continue growing and selling the crop until USDA is done re-evaluating its environmental effects, according to the rider.

Why is this such a big deal? The court system is often our last hope, with Congress, the White House, and regulatory agencies deep inside industry’s pocket. Several legal challenges have resulted in court decisions overturning USDA’s approval of new GMO crops, for example, sugar beets.

So the biotech industry, unable to make its case to a judge, figured why not just rewrite the Constitution instead, with the help of a Democratic Senate led by Senator Barbara Mikulski, chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee. Despite Montana Senator Jon Tester’s best attempts to stop the so-called biotech rider, the measure was pushed through. (Industry had tried to get a similar measure passed more than once last year.) Tester minced no words, in an article in today’s POLITICO about this and other industry power grabs such as weakening small farmer protections:

These provisions are giveaways, pure and simple, and will be a boon worth millions of dollars to a handful of the biggest corporations in this country. They deserve no place in this bill. We simply have got to do better on both policy and process.

If President Obama signs the budget deal with this provision, it could have long-lasting and serious consequences. This list of pending petitions to USDA to approve genetically-engineered crops includes new versions of corn, soybean, canola, and cotton. Once these crops get planted, it will be too late to do much about it. That’s why groups such as the Center for Food Safety file lawsuits when USDA turns a blind eye to the potentially harmful environmental consequences of these unique crops.

Here is how Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety described the situation:

In this hidden backroom deal, Senator Mikulski turned her back on consumer, environmental, and farmer protection in favor of corporate welfare for biotech companies such as Monsanto. This abuse of power is not the kind of leadership the public has come to expect from Senator Mikulski or the Democrat Majority in the Senate.

The biotech industry, with the help of Congress, is attempting an end-run of the judicial system. Since judges can’t get be bought off, just go to your friends in Congress instead.

Unfortunately, most of the mainstream media has not picked up on this unprecedented Big Biotech power grab, and in the case of NPR, has even spread misinformation about the rider’s effects:

But a closer look at the language of the provision suggests it may not be granting the USDA any powers it doesn’t already have.

“It’s not clear that this provision radically changes the powers USDA has under the law,” Greg Jaffe, director of the Biotechnology Project at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, tells The Salt.

This interpretation was echoed, unsurprisingly, by the biotech industry, in Capital Express:

“It doesn’t require the USDA to do anything it wouldn’t otherwise have the authority to do,” said Karen Batra, communications director for the Biotechnology Industry Organization. “The language is there to protect farmers who have already made planting decisions.”

But as Kimbrell of the Center for Food Safety explains, the new language makes what is currently discretionary or optional on USDA’s part, mandatory, a huge difference:

The word “shall” forces the USDA to continue allowing biotech crop cultivation even if its commercialization was overturned. They’ve taken away the discretion of the secretary of agriculture. Its real not-so-hidden purpose is to take away the ability to effectively vacate the approval of a crop that’s been approved illegally.

If there is any good news, it’s that the continuing resolution the provision hitched a ride on is only valid for six months. But industry seems confident it can make the workaround permanent. Likely what will follow is a protracted court battle over the policy’s constitutionality; remember that whole separation of powers thing? Still, any such legal challenge will likely take years to be resolved. Even USDA thinks the provision is unconstititional. Secretary Vilsack’s office told POLITICO that he has asked the Office of General Council to review the language, “as it appears to pre-empt judicial review of a deregulatory action which may make the provision unenforceable.”

Meanwhile, the grassroots movement continues to grow to demand labeling of foods containing genetically-engineered ingredients. While important, we cannot let labeling distract us from pro-biotech policies at the other end of production. The fewer GMO crops that are allowed to be planted in the first place, the fewer end-products containing GMOs.

If the biotech industry can so easily override our court system, which is our last resort in stopping these dangerous crops from being planted, we will have no place left to turn. And Monsanto will have completed its hostile takeover of the U.S. government.

As we recently reported, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration is in the final stages of approving genetically engineered salmon for human consumption. If approved, it would be the first-ever genetically engineered animal allowed to enter the U.S. food supply. To make matters worse, the FDA has stated that it will likely not require genetically engineered fish to be labeled, providing consumers no way of avoiding it at the market. Without a label, consumers wouldn’t even be able to “vote with their wallets” for natural fish over the genetically engineered option.

Now for the good news: Through the Campaign for GE-Free Seafood, we’re identifying companies that have policies to not sell genetically engineered seafood, providing a way for consumers to safely buy seafood without unknowingly purchasing genetically engineered fish.

As part of our campaign, we’ve asked the nation’s top grocery stores to commit to not selling genetically engineered seafood and we are already seeing amazing results. Some of the biggest grocery stores in the U.S. have stated that they will not sell genetically engineered seafood, including Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s, Aldi, Marsh Supermarkets and PCC Natural Markets.

This is huge news. These stores represent a significant portion of the U.S. market and, by agreeing to not sell genetically engineered seafood, they are showing their staunch support for consumers’ rights. But our work is not done yet.

There are still many grocery stores–including Walmart, Costco and Safeway–that may soon be selling unlabeled genetically engineered fish to their customers. It’s essential that, as consumers, we speak up for our right to know what foods we feed our families by encouraging these stores to not carry genetically engineered seafood.

Don’t see your favorite grocery store on the list of signers? Click here to sign a petition to other grocery stores and make it clear that consumers do not want genetically engineered salmon or other genetically engineered seafood in their neighborhood markets.

Our campaign is just ramping up, so be sure to check out our website at www.gefreeseafood.org for updates as we continue to add more stores, restaurants and chefs to the list. And take action today to tell your favorite grocery stores you don’t want to purchase genetically engineered seafood by asking them to Sign the Pledge for GE-Free Seafood.

Thanks to our partners: Alaska Marine Conservation Council, Alliance for Natural Health USA, American Anti-Vivisection Society, Animal Welfare Institute, Cascadia Wildlands, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Environmental Health, Center for Food Safety, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Food Democracy Now!, Food & Water Watch, Global Alliance Against Industrial Aquaculture, Gloucester fishermen’s Wives Association, Go Wild Campaign, Healthy Child Healthy World, Humane Society of the United States, Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Institute for Responsible Technology, Mangrove Action Project, Massachusetts Fishermen’s Partnership, National Family Farm Coalition, National Organic Coalition, Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance, Organic Consumers Association, Sierra Club, Waikiki Hawaiian Civic  Club, Wild Salmon First.

And thanks to the stores for taking a lead on this important issue. Here’s to a future with real seafood and a safe, sustainable food system.

Dr. Vandana Shiva is an environmental activist who has spent the last 30 years battling against pesticides and GMOs.  Among her many accolades, she has both sued and been sued by Monsanto. Beyond pointing fingers and litigation, she has proactively worked to preserve the heirloom seeds of India by starting Navdanya, an organic farm that grows over 1500 rice varieties alone.

We spent an evening with Dr. Shiva and two days at her farm.  Her passion, as well as that of the head seed saver (Bija Devi), were palatable and inspiring.  Watch the video to hear about their mission:

Last month, Ronnie Cummins, director of the Organic Consumers Association and one of the leaders of the GMO labeling effort, recently published an article about how “representatives of Wal-Mart, General Mills, Pepsi-Frito Lay, Mars, Coca-Cola and others” met with the FDA on January 11 “to lobby for a mandatory federal GMO labeling law.”

The story was then picked up by Tom Laskawy at Grist, who reported that at the meeting, a Walmart representative said the retail giant would no longer oppose GMO labeling and that “[o]ther food company executives agreed, saying that the fight had become too expensive, especially given the prospect of more state-level initiatives.”

The story kicked into high-gear when the New York Times’ Stephanie Strom covered it last week, adding a few new details, such as the meeting being attended by “20 major food companies” as well as two GMO labeling advocates: Gary Hirshberg, co-chair of the Just Label It federal campaign, and Charles Benbrook, professor at Washington State University. The Times story gave the impression that the meeting is something to celebrate. After all, if Walmart comes to the table, that’s a big deal.

But missing from both of these accounts is the ominous potential downside of federal GMO labeling: a sneaky legal concept known as preemption. Most advocates don’t find out about it before it’s too late.

Preemption simply means that a higher law trumps a lower law: so federal trumps state, and state trumps local. But in practice, it’s industry’s way of ensuring uniformity and stopping grassroots efforts. How I do know this? From years of experience of seeing it happen in various public health issues. It’s such a huge problem that the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation funded an entire project called “Preemption and Movement Building in Public Health” to educate advocates about how to handle it.

Here is the pattern: a grassroots effort builds over time to enact local or state laws (such as gun control, indoor-smoking laws, or restricting alcohol sales), and industry fights these efforts for years, until they can no longer win. At that point, industry lobbyists turn around and either get their own weak bill passed, or work with advocates to pass a compromise version. In exchange, this law will preempt or prevent any state or city from passing a different or stronger law. Forever.

No industry likes to deal with 50 different state laws, or even a handful of expensive state-level battles. We recently saw this exact scenario play out in the food movement, with menu labeling in chain restaurants. For decades, the restaurant industry successfully fought federal efforts to require calorie counts and other basic nutrition information on menus. Then over the last few years, numerous states and cities started enacting their own laws, much to industry’s dismay. Enter the compromise struck between the leading proponent of  menu labeling, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, and the restaurant industry: federally-required menu labeling for calories only, in exchange for all state and local laws being preempted, past and future. (See this document labeled “compromise endorsements” for the bill’s supporters, which include the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a leader of the No on Prop 37 campaign on GMO labeling in California.)

Now, almost three years after passage, we still don’t have federal menu labeling as the final regulations are stalled at FDA, while certain industry members fight it. We also no longer see states or cities taking up the issue, figuring the feds took care of it. See what I mean about stopping a grassroots movement in its tracks? Public health lawyer Mark Pertschuk noted: “the rapidly growing grassroots movement for meaningful menu labeling may never recover.” He also cites the irony of this 2009 memo from President Obama opposing preemption in all federal rule-making. The memo correctly notes: “Throughout our history, state and local governments have frequently protected health, safety, and the environment more aggressively than has the national government.”

Amen to that. I am not opposed to federal labeling on GMO food. I agree this is where the problem must ultimately be solved. However, any federal standard must set a floor and not a ceiling, and not hand preemption over to industry. The role of the federal government is to set minimum standards, while still allowing states to go further. This, however, is not the end-game that Walmart et al. have in mind.

I asked Dave Murphy, founder of Food Democracy Now! and leader of the grassroots GMO labeling efforts about this issue. He told me it was a huge concern among movement leaders: “Ultimately the conversation represents a seismic shift in where we were four years ago on GMO labeling. But we know that anything coming out of Washington D.C. will be a weaker standard, which would not be good for either farmers or consumers. The goal is to make sure that a federal law doesn’t undermine state efforts.”

As Cummins noted about the meeting: “We should be wary of any compromise deal at the federal level, one that would preempt the passage of meaningful state GMO labeling laws that have real teeth.”

Very wary indeed.

This post originally appeared on Appetite for Profit.

Image credit: Shutterstock.