Posts Tagged ‘ GMOs ’

Aspartame and GMOs: What You Really Need to Know About the Science and Health Risks

Coca-Cola claims diet drinks promote weight loss, but studies show that artificial sweeteners actually contribute to weight gain.

In response to a plunge in sales of artificially sweetened sodas last week, Coca-Cola announced plans to roll out an ad campaign to win back popular favor for its aspartame-containing beverage, Diet Coke. (Diet Pepsi, which also contained aspartame, saw its sales fall 6.2 percent in 2012 while regular Pepsi sales fell little more than half that amount.)

The safety of aspartame, which the FDA approved for human consumption in 1981, has long been in dispute, before, during, and after its approval by the FDA. The simmering controversy is notable for the parallels between aspartame’s safety and regulatory history, and that of another controversial industrial food product – genetically modified foods also known as GMOs.

Aspartame, developed by Searle, was approved for public consumption despite the strong concerns of FDA scientists, who were over-ruled by Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr. then the newly appointed FDA Chief—handpicked by Donald Rumsfeld, the former CEO of Searle, and the Secretary of Defense in two Republican administrations. Hayes pushed through the approval, and then returned to the same industry (at Searle’s public relations firm.) Upon aspartame’s approval, Searle gained two things:

1. The ability to market and profit from this product (sold as NutraSweet or Equal)

2. The upper hand in science

Since then, industry sponsored science has sustained the FDA decision, opposing both independent scientific findings, as well as citizen reports of adverse reactions. After a profitable three decades, first for Searle, soon thereafter for Monsanto, which bought Searle in 1985, the vestiges of the former company are now owned by Pfizer. But public confidence in aspartame has steadily eroded. Coca-Cola’s ad campaign seeks to restore that confidence.

Following a similar pattern, the 1992 FDA declaration that GMO seeds and plants were “substantially equivalent” to regular seeds and plants, also occurred despite the concerns of FDA scientists, who were over-ruled by a policy maker (Michael R. Taylor) who came in to the FDA (as Deputy Commissioner of Policy) from industry (Monsanto’s law firm), got GMOs approved, and then returned to the same industry (serving as a Monsanto Vice President for Public Policy.) Note: Taylor is currently Commissioner for Food at the FDA. This time the Searle/Monsanto playbook gave Monsanto three things:

1. The ability to develop, market, and profit from its products

2. The upper hand in science, AND

3. The right to patent its seeds and products and to protect its patents.

With many open questions about the long-range health and environment impacts of GMOs, today over twenty years after FDA approval, public discomfort with GMOs continues to rise. According to a recent New York Times poll, ninety-three percent want GMO foods to be labeled. While industry science supports use, other evidence (and many more concerns not addressed by industry science) continue to emerge. Glyphosate, the key ingredient in Roundup, the Monsanto herbicide, integral to GMO agriculture, increases the proliferation of breast cancer, even at exposures at low concentrations of parts per trillion, 2013 research found. Glyphosate decreases the body’s ability to detoxify from other toxic exposures, thus increasing the potential for diseases arising from other toxic chemicals, a second study found.

According to Dr. Charles Benbrook, a Washington State University professor and researcher, GMO agriculture’s dramatic increases in the use of fungicides and pesticides (principally Roundup) could outstrip earlier scientific projections of safe exposure levels. Based on current use and exposure rates, risk assessment faces a multiplex of testing challenges arising from the likely presence of multiple transgenes, DNA fragments, promoters, regulatory sequences and chemicals from pesticides (active ingredients, metabolites, surfactants, adjuvants…

But how well can the needed risk assessment be conducted (and acted upon) in a climate where science gets mired in debate between independent researchers and pro-industry factions? If we lack the science to inform policy, both environmental risks (like honeybee collapse) and health risks will only become apparent over time. Accurate assessment is further hampered when patent laws permit Monsanto to limit seed access for study. Aspartame is freely available, yet it still took thirty years for concerns over aspartame’s health risks to amplify to levels that would significantly dent sales. We can learn a lot about the risks from GMOs by taking a look at aspartame.

Conflicting Studies
In its ads, and media messaging, Coke plans to tout the benefits of its aspartame-containing soft drinks as a weight loss aid. Its print ad, rolling out in Atlanta and Chicago this week will say that, “diet drinks can help people manage their weight.” Despite Coke’s claim, several studies found that artificial sweeteners fail to promote weight loss, and instead contribute to weight gain.

According to one of the researchers, the San Antonio Heart Study, which studied over 1,100 participants found that, “On average, for each diet soft drink our participants drank per day, they were 65 percent more likely to become overweight during the next seven to eight years, and 41 percent more likely to become obese.”

The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) confirmed these findings when it found that, “Daily consumption of diet drinks was associated with a 36% greater risk for metabolic syndrome and a 67% increased risk for type 2 diabetes.”

One mechanism for weight gain could be that the “Overstimulation of sugar receptors from frequent use of these hyper-intense sweeteners may limit tolerance for more complex tastes,” says Dr. David Ludwig, MD, PhD, a leading Harvard clinician and researcher into the causes and treatment of the obesity epidemic. As a result, less sweet or non-sweet foods may become unpalatable, driving people to avoid healthy foods and eat unhealthy ones.

Given this evidence, Coke’s boast that diet drinks produce weight loss may be a fib, but nowadays, industries wooing the public back to their product, can also bolster their claims with science. Though confusing to a public seeking answers, for every scientific finding, there is often an opposite scientific finding.

For example, a 2012 study published in The Journal of Nutrition concluded that, “There is no evidence that low calorie sweeteners can be claimed to be a cause of higher body weights in adults.”

What explains these opposite findings? Well, the thrust of the JN study is that with so many egregious foods on the nutritional landscape, it’s hard to single out just one. Point taken. Surprisingly, this implied critique of the industrial food system comes from the four study authors, three of whom had “received consulting fees, honoraria, donations, and unrestricted grants from food, beverage, and pharmaceutical companies.”

The Double-Faced Role of Science

If only all science were as unanimously agreed to as is climate science. Despite a lack of political will to address climate change, and public bafflement about how to tackle it, there is no uncertainty in the science.

But that’s harder to locate in other regulatory realms, due to opposing claimants. When assessing the health and safety of products and practices, government regulators default to industry sponsored scientific research. It’s up to independent scientists, (or members of the general public) to uncover evidence of harm— all too often after governmental approval.

Sometimes the shoe winds up on the other foot: Industry sponsored scientists question the safety of their competitors’ products. Exaggerated concerns over artisanal jams, or locally grown lettuce come from the pesticide-ridden ag industry. Drug companies fret that someone will reject pharmaceuticals because they take vitamin C. In such cases, independent scientists, farmers, or regular people counter health concerns with evidence of no to low-harm for non-industrial products.

Beyond aspartame’s benefits (or lack thereof) for weight loss, over the last three decades, public health gatekeepers, reliant on industry research, consistently affirm that aspartame (marketed as NutraSweet and Equal) is safe. This past week, both the FDA and the American Cancer Society were cited in the COMMENT NOW! following Coke’s campaign launch. The American Cancer society noted that: “Most (italics mine) studies using people have found that aspartame is not linked to an increased risk of cancer…”

The same language appears on the ACS on-line information page on aspartame’s cancer risk. “Most (italics mine) studies in people have not found that aspartame use is linked to an increased risk of cancer.”

This is misleading because when scientists consider evidence, they don’t merely count the number of studies, a la the Electoral College, in which a majority vote wins. They evaluate the weight of the evidence, and damning evidence on aspartame goes back to the mid-1960’s. The phrase “most studies” likely refers to the many industry-sponsored studies, but certain significant independent studies find that there are health concerns.

The ACS aspartame web page was created in February 2011, and never revised to include significant 2012 findings on aspartame cancer risks. When this past week, the ACS (and the FDA) weighed in with Coke on the safety of aspartame, both the agency and the premiere cancer organization politely omitted mention of a well-regarded December 2012 Harvard study which found that a daily serving of diet soda increased the risks of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and multiple myeloma in men.

Nor was this the first warning of health risks with aspartame. As is often the case with science, first there were animal studies.

The Animal Studies
As early as 1967 and again in 1971, animal study outcomes provoked questions about aspartame health risks. In 1980, a Public Board of Inquiry (PBOI) convened by the FDA, revoked an earlier approval of aspartame because of a study indicating it caused brain tumors in rats.

More recently, a 2007 study conducted by Dr. Mirando Soffritti, MD, the Scientific Director of the Ramazzini Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences, (located in Bologna, Italy) found high rates of lymphomas, leukemias and other cancers in rats consuming aspartame. As in the Harvard study, this similar constellation of cancers was more pronounced in males.

Soffritti, a prominent and highly regarded international scientist, designed his research to correct design flaws he identified in the original Searle research. Searle scientists followed rats for only two years, which roughly equates to age fifty-three in the human life span. The Ramazzini study used a larger cohort of rats (1,900 vs. 300-700 animals) and followed them throughout their natural life cycle. Soffritti’s rationale for the study design was that:

Cancer is a disease of the third part of life. You have 75 percent of cancer diagnoses for people who are 55 years old or older. So if you truncate the experiments at 110 weeks and the rats are supposed to survive until 150 to 160 weeks, it means you avoid the development of cancer at the time when cancer would be starting to arise.

When independent, international, or even mainstream Harvard scientists find post-approval evidence of health risks from ingredients (like aspartame or GMOs), they are in effect acting as scientific whistleblowers, but scientific whistleblowers all too easily get dismissed or marginalized as cranks or quacks.

Yet over time, the evidence mounts. As aspartame research continues to emerge, the history of aspartame science and its suppression confers key lessons for the scientific assessment of GMOs.

First, GMOs were introduced a decade later than aspartame, and have much less science, and consumer report. Second, GMOs are difficult for independent scientists to study because Monsanto (via patent law) limits access to its seeds. Nevertheless, two animal studies done in Europe, found evidence of tumor growth in mice consuming GMO ingredients. A storm of protest erupted over the study design both for the earlier English study and the recent French study. But while study designs can often be improved, and independent research merits better funding, it’s vital that critiques not end by suffocating all independent research into industrial food products.

A 2009 position paper published by the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, surveyed animal studies on GMO health effects, and found:

  • Immune dysregulation of inflammatory markers associated with increases in asthma, allergy, and inflammation.


  • Functional and structural changes of the liver, which can alter fat and carbohydrate metabolism


  • Intestinal and immune system damage, including proliferative cell growth


  • Changes in the kidney, pancreas and spleen have also been documented


  • Links to infertility and low birth weight


  • Changes in the expression of four hundred genes that “control protein synthesis and modification, cell signaling, cholesterol synthesis, and insulin regulation

This review of animal studies is a strong indicator of areas of health concern entailed by GMO consumption. The Public Trust

What people find so hard to wrap their minds around is this: How can major gatekeeping organizations, trusted by the public, lay claim to scientific validation of product safety while selectively ignoring animal studies and other meaningful science?

First, it’s obvious that institutional loyalties, economic pressures, and reputations make it hard for organizations like the FDA and the ACS to shift their stance on nearly three decades of safety claims.

Second, we, the public allow it. Apart from climate science, in most cases where there is scientific debate, there is complexity. As the breakdown in traditional journalism eats away at traditional scientific reporting, people seek simple answers and lack time for nuanced analysis.

Most of the educated public wants to trust science, without having to evaluate its credibility, and industry takes advantage of that.

“If at the outset, agencies like the FDA confer scientific validation on an industrial food product or ingredient, going forward, industry can more readily maintain the scientific upper hand,” says James S. Turner, Chairman of Citizens for Health, a health and science policy organization.

The studies industry commissions will be cited. Contending studies will be invalidated. Typically corporate funded science has more generous budgets for larger cohorts of participants in a study than independent researchers. This can translate into a seemingly “scientific” basis for rejecting independent research, because “most studies” are funded by industry and support industry claims.

Because it takes time and money to progress up the chain of proof from animal to human studies, it may take decades for independent science to reverse the initial advantage conferred by a government agency like the FDA, the USDA, or the EPA. By then the product or ingredient is in wide use, making its risks “impossible” to accept (even with scientific proof) given that by then millions have been exposed to its dangers. Moreover, there is heavy economic vestment in the use of even a nutritionally valueless ingredient like aspartame. Finally, since our medical treatment and research model focus on treatments of disease, rather than the causes of disease, it will be harder after the fact to ascertain whether a person’s illness was caused by aspartame or GMOs or other exposure to chemicals, like in plastic bottles and containers containing bisphenol-A (BPA), or chemicals used in fracking oil and gas wells, which are becoming more common, or myriad other chemicals or combinations of chemicals.

Soffritti defined the bottom line when he spoke to The New York Times back when his animal study was first published, “If something is a carcinogen in animals, then it should not be added to food, especially if there are so many people that are going to be consuming it.” When it comes to the novel ingredients in the food supply, independent study is a must.



Over 400 Companies Who Aren’t Using GMOs In Their Products

Over 400 Companies Who Aren’t Using GMOs In Their Products

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook:

gmo-project-263x164If you want to keep eating poison food, you can join the ‘scientists’ who keep spewing Monsanto-funded lies. They are telling us that genetically altered crops are good for us and the environment – that they are, in fact, a necessity to feed the world population. They say all of this, even though we seemed to feed the masses just fine without chemical quackery until about 60 years ago, all while dumping millions of tons of unaltered food right into the trash bin. If however, you believe GMOs are toxic, cancer-causing substances, you have another option.
We will always need to fight for what we believe in and ignite change through things like the March Against Monsanto and the upcoming Monsanto Video Revolt(which you should absolutely get involved in, as it’s super easy), but it’s also important to use your dollar not only to vote, but also to keep yourself healthy.
Courtesy of the Non-GMO Project, here is a list of companies who make many or even the majority of all their products without GMOs:
479 Degrees
A. Vogel
Adams Vegetable Oils
Agricor Inc.
Alter Ego
Alverado Street Bakery
Among Friend’s
Amy’s Kitchen
Andalou Naturals
Angie’s Artisan Treats
Ariven Planet
Arrowhead Mills
Artisan Bistro
Artisan Bistro Home Direct
Atlantic Organic
Atlantic Rose
Attune Foods
Autumn Sky wild
Back to Nature
Bainter Extra Virgin Sunfllower Oil
Bakery On Main
Barlean’s Organic Oils
Barney Butter
Basic Food Flavors, Inc.
Beach Bum Foods
Berlin Natural Bakery
Better Bean
Bhakti Chai
Biad Chili Products
Bites of Bliss
Blue Diamond
Blue Print
Bold Organics
Bora Bora
Boulder Canyon Natural Foods
Brad’s Leafy Kale
Brad’s Raw for Paws
Brad’s Raw Chips
Brad’s Raw Crackers
Brad’s Raw Onion Rings
Braga Organic Farms
Brand Aromatics
Bridgewell Resources
Blue Natural
Cabo Chips
Cal-Organic Farms
Cafia Farms
California Olive Ranch
Canfo Natural Products
Canyon Bakehouse
Cape Cod Select
Cave Chick
Central Market Organics
Chappaqua Crunch Granola
Cheweco Organics
Chez Marie, Inc.
ChiaRezza! OMG Foods Inc
Choice Organic Teas
Chosen Foods
CHS Oilseed Processing
Chunks O’ Fruti
Ciao Bella Gelato
Coconut Secret
Cool Cups
Coral LLC
Country Choice Organic
Crispy Cat
cruncha ma•me
Crunch Master
Curtie’s Juice
Dave’s Gourmet
David’s Unforgettables
Desert Essence
Doctor in the Kitchen
Doctor Kracker
Dr. Arenander’s BrainGain & Oral Care
Dr. Bronner’s Magic
Drew’s LLC
Earth Balance
Earth’s Best
Edward & Sons
Eighth Wonder
Emerald Cove
Emile Noel
Emmy’s Organics
Emperor’s Kitchen
Endangered Species Chocolate
Ener-G Foods
Engine 2
Enjoy Life Foods
Essential Living Foods, Inc
Everyday Superfoods
Fairfield Specialty Eggs
Fantastic World Foods
Farm to Table Foods
Farmer’s Market
Farmhouse Culture
Field Day
Field Roast Grain Meat Company
Fillmore Farms
Flamous Organics
Flax USA
Follow Your Heart
Freekeh Foods
Freeline Organic Foods
Fresh & Easy
Fruit Bliss
Fruit Chia
Fry Group Foods
Fungi Perfecti, LLC
Funky Monkey Snacks
Garden Bar
Garden of Eatin’
Garden of Life
Gin Gins
Gingras XO
Giving Nature
GL Soybeans
Global River
Gluten Free Pantry by Glutino
Gnu Foods
Go Raw
GoMacro, Inc
Good Health Natural Foods
Good Karma
Grain Place Foods
Grains of Wellness
Green Gem
Green Island Rice
Green Mountain Gringo
Green Mustache
Grimmway Farms
Growing Naturals
Guiltless Gourmet
Haig’s Delicacies
Hail Merry
Hapi Foods Group Inc.
Happy Baby Pouches
Harvest Bay
Haute Cuisine
Health is Wealth
Health Warrior
Heavenly Organics
Herbal Zap
High Country Kombucha
Hiland Naturals
Hilary’s Eat Well
Hodgson Mill
Home Appetit
House Foods
Houweling’s Tomatoes
Immaculate Baking
Immortality Alchemy
Imperial Gourmet
It Tastes Raaw
Jaali Bean
JaynRoss Creations LLC
Jeff’s Naturals
Jessica’s Natural Foods
Jolly Llama
Keller Crafted Meats
Kettle Foods
KIND Healthy Snacks
Kur Organic Superfoods
La Reina
La Spagnola
La Tolteca
La Tourangelle
Lafiya Foods
Laughing Giraffe Organics
Laurel Hill
Let’s Do
Licious Organics
Lillabee Allergy Friendly Baking
Little Duck Organics
livingNOW gluten-free
Louts Foods
Luna & Larry’s Coconut Bliss
Lundberg Family Farms
Made in Nature
Mamma Chia
Manitoba Harvest
Marconi Naturals
Maria & Ricardo
Marinelli’s True Italian Pasta Sauce
Mariner Biscuit Company
Martha’s All Natural
Marukome USA
Mary’s Chicken
Mary’s Gone Crackers
Mary’s Little Garden
Mary’s Organic Chicken
Mary’s Organic Turkey
Mary’s Pasture Raised Chicken
Maui Maid
Mediterranean Organic
Mediterranean Snacks
Melt Organic
Metabolic Response Modifiers (MRM)
Mighty Mustard
Mighty Rice
Mighty-O Donuts
Mindful Meats
Miracle Noodle
Miso Master
Modesto WholeSoy Co.
Montana Specialty Mills, LLC
Mt Vikos
Muesli Munch
Multiple Organics
My Chi Delights
Naked Coconuts
Naosap Harvest
Napa Valley Naturals
Native Forest Distributed by Edward & Sons
Natural Directions
Natural Habitats
Natural Nectar
Natural Sea
Natural Tides
Natural Vitality
Naturally Splendid Enterprises Ltd
Nature Built
Nature Fed
Nature Way
Nature’s Express
Nature’s Path
Navitas Naturals
Nest Fresh
New Chapter
New England Naturals
New Organics
New York Superfoods
Nexcel Natural Ingredients
Nexcel Soy
Niagara Natural
Nordic Naturals
North Coast
NOW Foods
NOW Healthy Foods
NOW Real Food
NOW Real Tea
Nu Life Market
Numi Organic Tea
Nummy Tum Tum
Nuts About Granola
Oh Baby Foods
Old Wessex
Once Again
One Degree Organic Foods
One World
Organic Baby
Organic Planet
Organic Valley
Oriya Organics
Ozery Bakery
Pacific Natural Foods
Pacific Northwest Farmers
Paisley Tea Co
Palo Root Tea
Pampas Rice / Organic Latin
Pan De Oro
Pastorelli Food Products Inc
Peace Cereal
Peanut Butter & Co.
Peeled Snacks
Peggy’s Premium
PJ’s Organics
Planet Rice
Plum Organics
Popcorn, Indiana
President’s Choice
Pure Country Pork
Pure Eire
Purely Decadent
Purely Elizabeth
Pyure Brands
Qrunch Foods
Quinn Popcorn
R.W. Knudsen
Rainbow Light Nutritional Systems
Red Hat Co-operative Ltd
Righteously Raw
Rigoni di Asiago Honey
Rishi Tea
Rising Moon Organics
ROBE and Riverina Natural Oils LLC
Roots Route 11
Royal Hawaiian Orchards
Rumiano Family Cheese
Ruth’s Foods
RW Garcia
Saffron Road
Sage V Foods
Sainthood Herbs
Salba Smart
Sally’s Smart Foods
Salute Santé!
Santa Cruz Organic
Scratch and Peck
Secret Squirrel
Seven Stars Farm
Silver Hills Sprouted Bakery
Simple Origins
Simply Soy Yogurt
Simply Suzanne
Sir Kensington’s
SK Food
Snyder’s of Hanover
So Delicious Dairy Free
Sol Cuisine
Somersault Snack Co.
Sophie’s Kitchen
Spectrum Ingredients
Stahlbush Island Farms
Stahlbush Island Farms Ingredients
Stark Sisters Granola
Stash Teas
Stiebrs Farms Go-Organic Eggs
Stone Buhr Flour Company
Straus Family Creamery
Stretch Island Fruit Co
Suja Juice
Sun Cups
Sunfood Superfoods
SunRidge Farms
Sunset Kidz
Sunshine Burger
Surf Sweets
Sushi Sonic
Sweet Sass Foods
Sweet Tree
Sweet Leaf
Taste of Nature
Tasty Brand
That’s It.
The Better Chip
The Chia Co
The Fresh Market
The Ginger People
The Pure Wraps
The Republic of Tea
The Scoular Company
The Simply Bar
The Solio Family
Theo Chocolate
Third Street, Inc.
Three Farmers
Tiny But Might
Trace Minerals Research
Traditional Medicinals
Tree of Life
Tropical Traditions
Tru Joy Sweets
Turtle Island Foods
Two Leaves Tea Company
Two Moms in the Raw
Union Market
Upfront Foods
Van’s Natural Foods
Veronica Foods
Vigilant Eats
Watts Brothers
Way Better Snacks
Western Foods
Whole Alternatives
Whole Earth
Whole Harvest
Whole Pantry
Wholesome Chow
Wholesome Sweeteners
WholeSoy & Co.
Wild Veggie
Willamette Valley
Wisdom of the Ancients
XO Baking Co.
Zema’s Madhouse Foods
Ziggy Marley Coco’Mon
Ziggy Marley Hemp Rules
Zing Bars
And there you have it. Over 400 GMO-free companies.
Source: Antony Gucciardi, Natural Society

GMO-free food list

22 Non-GMO Companies - GMO Free Food CompaniesThese brands, at the time of writing, source their ingredients from GMO-free supplies.  If you’re concerned about the very real threat that genetically modified organisms pose to our food supply and ultimate health, please purchase from these companies and contact them to let them know that you support and value their decision to use non-gmo soy, corn, canola and other ingredients. Please enjoy this GMO-free food list and share it.

  • Arrowhead Mills: GMO-free providers of baking mixes and flours found in both natural health food stores and regular supermarkets.
  • Braggs: GMO-free providers of seasonings and liquid products such as; Apple Cider Vinegar, Liquid Aminos, etc. Can be found in both natural health food stores and regular supermarkets.
  • Eden Foods: GMO-free providers of canned goods, noodles, tamari, miso, vinegar and Asian foodstuffs.
  • Natural Choice Foods:  GMO-free roviders of frozen dessert products.
  • Purity Foods: GMO-free makers of spelt-based noodles, snacks and other goodies.
  • Rapunzel: My all-time favorite chocolate company.  They also sell speciality oils.
  • Spectrum Oils: GMO-free manufacturer of speciality oils, cooking oils, salad oils and natural shortening.
  • Genisoy: Uses only certified GMO-free soybeans for their many soy products.
  • Earth’s Best: Baby food manufacturer uses non-GMO ingredients.
  • Healthy Times: Baby food manufacturer uses non-gmo ingredients.
  • Bob’s Red Mill: GMO-free provider of baking mixes and specialty flours.
  • Pamela’s Products: Provider of luscious gluten-free baking mixes sources non-GMO ingredients.
  • Whole Foods Store Brands: Whole foods has made the commitment to sourcing its ingredients from GMO-free sources.
  • Cascadian Farms: Provider of frozen entrees, juices, frozen vegetables and fruit, yogurt and other foods.
  • Imagine Foods: GMO-free provider of soy and rice milk as well as broth and other foods.
  • Muir Glen: Source of canned goods and vegetable juice uses gmo-free foods.
  • Thai Kitchen: Source for coconut milks and Asian ingredients sources gmo-free ingredients.
  • Amy’s Kitchen: GMO-free source of canned soups, chilies, boxed and frozen meals.
  • Nature’s Path: Manufacturer of cereals and snack bars made with ingredients sourced gmo-free.
  • Annie’s Naturals: Manufacturer of BBQ sauce, salad dressings and other condiments sourced from gmo-free ingredients.
  • San J: GMO-free manufacturer of soy sauce, shoyu and tamari.
  • Tradition Miso: Manufacturer of miso pastes that are made from GMO-free ingredients.
  • Barbara’s Bakery: Manufacturer of cookies sources from gmo-free ingredients.
  • Lundberg Family Farms: GMO-free provider of rice and wild rice foods including raw rice, soups and convenience foods.
  • Walkers: Provider of the best shortbread cookies ever as well as other sweet treats.
  • Fantastic Foods: Provider of hummus, falafel, risotto couscous, soup and other mixes with gmo-free ingredients.
  • Vitasoy: Manufacturer of soy-based foods sourced from gmo-free ingredients.
  • Clif: Manufacturer of energy bars sourced from gmo-free foods.
  • Kettle Chips: GMO-free manufacturer of potato and tortilla chips.
  • Que Pasa: Manufacturer of tortilla chips and other Mexican foods sourced from non-gmo ingredients.
  • Garden of Eatin: Manufacturer of chips, salsas and other snack foods.
  • French Meadow Bakery: Manufacturer of bread and baked goods using non-gmo ingredients.
  • White Wave: Manufacturer of soy products including tofu and tempeh using gmo-free soy.
  • Bearitos: Manufacturer of snack foods and dips using gmo-free foods.
  • Chaffin Family Orchards: Is committed to GMO-free foods and sells an assortment of goods including olive oil.
  • Cultures for Health: All starters and products sold at Cultures for Health are GMO-free.
  • Grindstone Bakery: GMO-free provider of wheat- and gluten-free bread.
  • Pure Indian Foods: GMO-free provider of grass-fed ghee.
  • To Your Health: Provider of gmo-free sprouted breads and sprouted flours.
  • Trader Joe’s : GMO-free provider on their personal products. All labels with Trader Joe’s, Jose’s, Ming’s, etc. are GMO-free
  • US Wellness Meats: Provider of pasture- and grass-fed meats free of GMO supplemental feed.
  • Zukay: Provider of live cultured condiments and salsa free from GMO.
  • Wisconsin Healthy Grown Potatoes: GMO-free potatoes.

If you have a question about a certain product or brand that is not listed here, please call the company and ask or contact us. Remember: one of the best ways to raise awareness among the food corporations is to voice your concerns directly to them and boycott companies who continue to source ingredients from genetically modified sources.


Did Monsanto Win Prop 37? Round One in the Food Fight of Our Lives

It was a mighty fight. And it’s far from over.

Between Oct. 7 and Nov. 6, 4.3 million Californians – nearly 47% of those who voted – cast their ballots in favor of what would have become this country’s first law to require mandatory labeling of foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and ban the routine industry practice of marketing GMO-tainted foods as “natural.”

That Monsanto and Big Food’s 4.8 million votes managed to scuttle Prop 37, one of the most widely publicized and closely watched state ballot initiatives of 2012, is almost a footnote to the real story. (As of today, with reports of almost 3 million votes still uncounted, some still question the “official” vote count and whether the No on 37 camp really won at all).

The real story is this. Prop 37, the grassroots-powered California ballot initiative to label genetically engineered foods in California has focused a national spotlight on GMOs, and the serious hazards that transgenics pose to human health and the environment.

It has permanently altered the national debate surrounding food safety, chemical-intensive agriculture, and sustainability.  And it put the consumers’ right-to-know and truth-in-labeling on the table for millions of Americans.

Prop 37 has exposed the dark side of Big Ag and Big Food, and their desperation to keep U.S. consumers in the dark about whether or not our food has been genetically engineered, a fundamental right enjoyed by citizens in over other 60 countries.

This monumental food fight has underscored how dirty money, indentured media, and dirty tricks have polluted our democratic process.

Prop 37 has brought together an unprecedented state and national coalition of more than 3000 organic food retailers and public health, faith and labor, consumer and agriculture, and environmental and political groups, with combined email lists of over 10 million people. The campaign collected almost a million signatures of registered voters to get on the ballot. It mobilized more than 10,000 volunteers and raised more than $8 million, much of that from individual organic consumers and natural health advocates from around the country, not just from California. It spawned new networks like GMO-Free USA and the 30-state Coalition of States for GMO Labeling, alliances that will help raise public awareness and money, and streamline the process of writing state GMO labeling laws.

Prop 37 has awakened a sleeping giant. It has created a statewide and national Movement with the potential to transform the entire U.S. food and farming system, part of a new political awakening in which grassroots forces have begun challenging the power of the corporate and political elite.

Prop 37 may indeed symbolize the “beginning of the end” for agricultural biotechnology and industrial food and farming, a profoundly unhealthy, unsustainable, climate-disrupting system that has dominated American agriculture for the last 60 years.

The real story is this. Prop 37 has created an unstoppable Movement, one that is already preparing for a new fight, on the next battlefield.

Behind Monsanto’s Narrow ‘Victory’

What did Big Ag and Big Food win on Nov. 6? A closer look reveals just how narrow their victory was.

Pre-election poll results revealed that early voters and those who still planned to vote No on 37 supported Prop 37’s basic premise: that consumers should have the right to know what’s in their food.

So why did so many vote No? Because they heard over and over, via $46 million-worth of TV and radio ads, that Prop 37 was poorly written, “made no sense,” included special-interest exemptions, would trigger thousands of lawsuits, and would cost them money at the checkout counter. They were even led to believe, through blatantly fake voter guides mailed to their homes, that the Democratic Party urged them to vote No – even though the California Democratic Party had loudly and publicly endorsed the measure.

Prop 37 showed us yet once again what money can buy. And the No on 37 forces, led by the six largest pesticide and junk food manufacturers in the world, had a seemingly endless supply of cash to pour into their campaign of lies and deceit. Yet all that cash couldn’t convince consumers that they shouldn’t have the fundamental right to know what’s in their food, much less that GMOs are a good idea.

In the end, Monsanto, DuPont, Dow, Pepsi, and Coca-Cola were forced to pretend they were on our side. They ultimately argued through their advertising that sure, consumers should have the right to know, but that Prop 37 was the wrong path to take toward consumer free-choice and truth in labeling.

Big Ag’s strategy? Convince voters that industry respected our right to know, but that they were so concerned about saving consumers money and protecting them from a law they portrayed as ill-conceived, that they just had to rush in with their millions to protect us from ourselves – as if they were the ones who were going to come back with a more consumer-friendly law.

Should we hold our collective breath for Monsanto’s new-and-improved version of Prop 37? A GMO labeling law written by grannies, not trial lawyers? A law that will ensure that meat from animals fed GMOs and shot up with GMO growth hormones must also be labeled? A stricter law, requiring that restaurant food containing GMOs be labeled so consumers can choose to avoid their laboratory-concocted Frankenfoods even when they dine out?

Prop 37 won in most coastal counties, including Los Angeles County and San Francisco, but lost in rural areas – areas the No on 37 campaign began pounding with anti-Prop 37 propaganda on Oct. 1, a week before early voting began. Flush with cash, they outspent us 5 to 1, running ads for almost a month before we were able to respond with our own campaign. Results showed that once we got our message out to those areas, the tide started to turn back in our direction.

The election result numbers shed a great deal of light on how powerful this consumer movement is: With only $8 million to spend, compared with their $46 million, we came within six percentage points of winning. And we are not going away anytime soon.

No Turning Back for the Alternative Food and Farming Movement

Prop 37 was the largest and most successful GMO labeling campaign yet, but it was not the first and it will not be the last.

In the last two years alone, 19 states have made a run at GMO labeling, either through citizens’ initiatives or legislative efforts. We’ve come a long way from the failed push for GMO labeling in Oregon 10 years ago, a campaign that barely made a ripple outside that state. We’ve put GMO labeling on the national map, and we’ve put Monsanto on notice: This movement is stronger than ever, and it’s not going away.

Activists in Washington State have already collected more than half of the signatures they need to put Initiative-522 on the ballot there in 2013. Oregon activists are eying a similar initiative in 2014. Plans are now in the works to restart campaigns in states like Vermont and Connecticut,  where laws don’t provide for citizens ballot initiatives, and reignite legislative those states’s efforts to pass GMO labeling laws. Consumer support in those states is running higher than the national average of 90%, yet previous attempts to pass laws in Vermont and Connecticut  those failed when legislators caved into threats by Monsanto to sue if they passed GMO labeling laws.

Prop 37 may change that, now that legislators have seen just how powerful this movement is – and how vulnerable their political careers may be if they continue to cast their votes against their constituents in favor of corporate lobbyists.

The Organic Consumers Association and our allies will now mobilize our growing base of organic consumers and natural health advocates to educate the public and pass GMO labeling laws across the country. Our narrow loss in California at the hands of dirty money and dirty politics has only strengthened  our resolve and energize our grassroots army.

Prop 37 has fueled Americans growing outrage toward the role of corporate cash and indentured media. In the wake of this bitterly contested battle, food activists will continue to expose companies such as Kellogg’s, General Mills, Coca-Cola, Dean Foods, and Pepsi, who donated millions to quash Prop 37 and who make billions of dollars by deceiving consumers with their so-called “natural” brands, produced with genetic engineering, toxic pesticides, and climate-disrupting chemical fertilizers. We will not rest until consumers understand that so-called “conventional” or “natural” products are a fraud, posing unacceptable risks to public human health and the environment.

We hold out faint hope that our Monsanto-controlled FDA will respond to consumer demand for a national GMO labeling law, even though a GMO labeling petition garnered more signatures than any FDA petition in history. We’re equally skeptical that President Obama will honor his 2007 campaign promise to label GMOs, given his history of pandering to Big Ag and smoothing the way for faster approval of GMO crops. Yet we welcome these national grassroots lobbying efforts for their ability to broaden public awareness and build support for one of the most critical food policy issues of our time. So we’ll keep up the pressure on the Obama administration in their second term.

We are witnessing one of the greatest consumer awakenings in recent times. Consumers are more ready than ever to help us pressure the marketplace for truth and transparency in labeling, especially when it comes to GMO labeling laws. They’re ready to help us promote those companies who are on the right side of consumers, and expose those who aren’t. They’re willing to take on multi-billion companies like Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s who can – and should – support  consumer’s right to know by immediately beginning to implement the voluntary labeling of the thousands of foods in their stores that contain GMOs.

So, go ahead, Monsanto and DuPont. Celebrate while you can. Your dirty money and dirty tricks have knocked us down. But we’re back on our feet, energized and battle-savvy.

Round one in the food fight of our lives is over. But the battle has just begun.