Whole Foods to Require Labels for all Genetically Modified Food within 5 years

[sailingaway]

Whole Foods Market, the grocery chain, announced on Friday that it would require all foods sold in its stores that contain genetically modified ingredients to be labeled as such within five years.

The company is the first retailer in the country to require the labeling, and its executives received a standing ovation when they made the announcement at the Natural Products Expo West, a trade conference being held this week in Anaheim, Calif. The show closes on Sunday.

A.C. Gallo, president of Whole Foods, said the move came in response to consumer demand.

Labels now used on Whole Foods products disclose when a product has been verified as free of genetically engineered ingredients by the Non-GMO Project, a nonprofit certification organization.

“We’ve seen how our customers have responded to the products we do have labeled,” Mr. Gallo said. “Some of our manufacturers say they’ve seen a 15 percent increase in sales of products they have labeled” as certified by the group.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/09/business/grocery-chain-to-require-labels-for-genetically-modified-food.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[presence]

Nice.

[jllundqu]

We'll see how it's executed...

Here's to hoping!

[mad cow]

I have no problem with this as long as they leave government coercion out of it.They can insist that every supplier to their stores have either 9.837 oz,purple packaging or 18.329 oz. yellow boxes if they want.

Let the market decide,just leave the hammer of government force out of the decision.

[sailingaway]

We'll see how it's executed...

Here's to hoping!

Yeah, Whole Foods ultimately came out against the prop to do it in CA, I believe, but they had a ton of flack over it, given who goes there. I want to know what is in my food, too, so when they actually implement this I will start shopping there.

[dannno]

Yeah, Whole Foods ultimately came out against the prop to do it in CA, I believe, but they had a ton of flack over it, given who goes there.

Are you sure about that? I remember seeing signs supporting the prop in their stores. I wouldn't support that prop in a free society, but with Monsanto bearing down on our food supply using the Fed Gov I'll throw any monkey wrench in their machine that I can.

[sailingaway]

Are you sure about that? I remember seeing signs supporting the prop in their stores. I wouldn't support that prop in a free society, but with Monsanto bearing down on our food supply using the Fed Gov I'll throw any monkey wrench in their machine that I can.

I'm actually not certain. I remember them being in favor of 'labeling' but then near the end I heard they had changed their position. I didn't see it, I heard that second hand. But given the CEO is libertarian I thought it plausible, some here feel the same and in a true free market where FDA and Ag depts didn't have Monsanto legal eagles stacking the deck as their new heads, I might feel the same. Maybe it was as false as those commercials faking agency approvals that didn't exist.

[CaptUSA]

Mackey is the man!

[thoughtomator]

Why should this take 5 years? Why not in 1 year?

[sailingaway]

Why should this take 5 years? Why not in 1 year?

that was actually my thought. Someone might beat him to the requirement and get all the traffic. I literally would shop somewhere where I knew that was labeled.

[parocks]

I'll pay extra for no gmo

[axiomata]

Why should this take 5 years? Why not in 1 year?

because unlike the federal government, whole foods realizes such a requirement is a real burden on many smaller suppliers and they do not want to lose them or run them out of business

[familydog]

Good for them.

Meanwhile, half the population without access to a Whole Foods grocery store must continue to be poisoned by big-agra and their government lackeys.

[presence]

Are you sure about that? I remember seeing signs supporting the prop in their stores. I wouldn't support that prop in a free society, but with Monsanto bearing down on our food supply using the Fed Gov I'll throw any monkey wrench in their machine that I can.

Slippery socialist slope.

[dannno]

Slippery socialist slope.

Both sides of the slope are slippery.

[opal]

wold be even better if whole foods had a store somewhere near me

[sailingaway]

wold be even better if whole foods had a store somewhere near me

Now they are going to do it other 'healthy' stores will, to compete. I'm looking at you, Trader Joe's....

[Zippyjuan]

Are you sure about that? I remember seeing signs supporting the prop in their stores. I wouldn't support that prop in a free society, but with Monsanto bearing down on our food supply using the Fed Gov I'll throw any monkey wrench in their machine that I can.

Whole Foods liked part of the proposition and disliked other parts. They were for it, then against it, and once again in favor.
http://www.calwatchdog.com/2012/10/30/whole-foods-suffers-second-thoughts-on-prop-37/

Whole Foods suffers second thoughts on Prop. 37


Oct. 30, 2012

By Wayne Lusvardi

The campaign over Proposition 37 isn’t as simple as it might seem at first glance. On the Nov. 6 ballot, the Genetically Engineered Labeling Initiative would mandate that genetically modified foods be given special labels.

Whole Foods Market, the giant health-foods store, originally backed the initiative. But since then it has taken two giant steps backwards from its original support. In particular, in an “Update” announcement, it has come out against the handling of the enforcement of Proposition 37 by “private plaintiff attorneys pursuing civil litigation”:

“The people of California’s best interests will not be properly represented as the enforcement of Proposition 37 will not be handled in partnership with the California Attorney General’s Office to ensure objective guidance and impartial oversight, but instead by private plaintiff attorneys pursuing civil litigation. Manufacturers could be compelled to label products with ‘May be Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering’ even if it is not the case to avoid costly litigation and protect themselves. This could result in consumers receiving inaccurate information, which is contrary to the intent of the proposition itself.”

Proposition 37 was written by Jim Wheaton, a trial lawyer. According to the California Attorney General’s Office Annual Summaries of Private Settlements (see summary at link), Wheaton assisted in writing previous ballot measures that have shaken down businesses for $500 million over the last 20 years. One of the provisions of Prop. 37 would allow lawyers to sue small neighborhood grocers and family farmers if the wording used on food labels was not compliant. No harm would have to be proved.

Difference in Standards as Trade Barrier?

Whole Foods added that there are differences between Prop. 37’s standard of 0.5 percent of single micro-ingredients to qualify a product as genetically engineered and the 0.9 percent international standard, which is weaker. Whole Foods wrote:

“There are differences between standards under Proposition 37 and other standards and labeling programs, which could create labeling challenges and consumer confusion.”

Whole Foods further clarified that backing off its full support for Prop. 37 was based on “feedback and further evaluation of the proposition.”

What Whole Foods might be hinting at is lawsuits, brought by international food producers, that claim California’s new standard establishes a trade barrier against imported genetically altered foods, violating free trade agreements supervised by the World Trade Organization. Prop. 37 apparently would affect any food that has a genetically engineered ingredient that amounts to a half percent of the total ingredients in a food product.

Proposition 37 Throws Monkey Wrench into Food Regulation

Whole Foods continues its support of Prop. 37 on its website. The company “advocates for consumers’ right to know how food is produced.” Maybe instead it also should advocate the “right to know” how California’s laws are produced, something few citizens understand.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration already regulates genetically modified foods and has powers to recall products, seize products, stop manufacturing by court order and impose criminal fines and jail time.

The Food and Drug Branch of the California Department of Public Health wields similar powers.

What Prop. 37 does is let third-party lawyers in on the enforcement action to shake down businesses. That reminds me of what radical environmental activist Edward Abbey once said:

“There is science, logic, reason; there is thought verified by experience. 
And then there is California.”

John Mackey, co-founder and co-CEO of Whole Foods, is a self-professed libertarian. So it is odd seeing his company advocate greater government regulation. Perhaps Whole Foods’ second thoughts are his conscience poking him.

[mad cow]

Proposition 37 was written by Jim Wheaton, a trial lawyer. According to the California Attorney General’s Office Annual Summaries of Private Settlements (see summary at link), Wheaton assisted in writing previous ballot measures that have shaken down businesses for $500 million over the last 20 years. One of the provisions of Prop. 37 would allow lawyers to sue small neighborhood grocers and family farmers if the wording used on food labels was not compliant. No harm would have to be proved.


Perhaps Whole Foods should take the initiative of buying and labeling their products as GMO free and suffer the consequences of any potential lawsuits rather than trying to pass this burden off on their suppliers.

[puppetmaster]

Yeah, Whole Foods ultimately came out against the prop to do it in CA, I believe, but they had a ton of flack over it, given who goes there. I want to know what is in my food, too, so when they actually implement this I will start shopping there.

They supported proposition 37.

[HigherVision]

Am I the only libertarian who doesn't give a shit about 'GMO'?

[thoughtomator]

because unlike the federal government, whole foods realizes such a requirement is a real burden on many smaller suppliers and they do not want to lose them or run them out of business

Really? Putting the letters "GMO" on GMO products is a real burden? Not in the business world.

When government gets involved it layers on bureaucracy, paperwork, and obscure and inconsistent rule-making, creating massive complexity out of the simplest issue. But this is private action and the government is not involved, and therefore sticking three letters on a label should not be a significant burden at all.

[MRK]

that was actually my thought. Someone might beat him to the requirement and get all the traffic. I literally would shop somewhere where I knew that was labeled.

Because whole foods doesnt package and supply the food, their suppliers and do and the suppliers' suppliers do and the supplier's supplier's farmers do.

It takes time to implement these things throughout a supply chain and verify them and make sure its effective and not hackneyed.

You would not believe how many incompetent people there are in so many businesses. People dont handle change well.

It's easy to sit back and ponder a perfect solution to any problem, but implementing it across 1000 more interdependent connections is orders of magnitude more difficult.

[MRK]

Really? Putting the letters "GMO" on GMO products is a real burden? Not in the business world.

When government gets involved it layers on bureaucracy, paperwork, and obscure and inconsistent rule-making, creating massive complexity out of the simplest issue. But this is private action and the government is not involved, and therefore sticking three letters on a label should not be a significant burden at all.

I agree that it is much simpler without government intervention to implement these controls.

But you have to realize how complicated ensuring 100% compliance across a global food chain actually would be. Whole Foods doesnt want to lose credibility by rolling out this program and it turning out that one of their farmers in Kazakhstan is using a GMO crop. You can't just snap your fingers and expect the market to correct inefficiencies in the supply chain. Many people make a living correcting those inefficiencies and believe me it is not instantaneous.