Playing online casino Malaysia through Alibaba33 online casino Malaysia can be a fun and rewarding experience for those who enjoy playing games for fun. trusted online casino malaysia alibaba33Bet on your favourite slots, live, sporting events and win big! If you enjoy sports, slots like Mega888 ewallet Alibaba33 online casino Malaysia has something for you.

Viagra Malaysia treat erectile dysfunction with the original ED treatment that has helped men feel confident in bed for decades. We’ll connect you with a licensed viagra malaysia healthcare provider to evaluate if our prescription ED treatments could be right for you, including super-affordable generic Viagra viagramalaysiaofficial Viagra is an oral ED medication that works by suppressing an enzyme in the body called PDE5.

Tag: GMO labeling - Organic Lifestyle Magazine Tag: GMO labeling - Organic Lifestyle Magazine

Genetically Modified Salmon Sold As Sushi In Canada, Coming to the U.S. Soon.

The Cornucopia Institute reports that GMO salmon is being sold as sushi and sashimi in Canada. AquaBounty Technologies is a Massachusetts-based biotechnology company that produces genetically modified fish called “AquAdvantage,” that they say is “The World’s Most Sustainable Salmon.”

AquaBounty is the first and only company selling genetically engineered salmon. Scientists inserted a growth-hormone gene from Chinook salmon and genetic regulatory elements from the ocean pout into Atlantic salmon.

Although AquaBounty, the makers of engineered fast-growing salmon, have refused to tell the public where their product is being sold, their CEO recently bragged to investors that it is being used in the Canadian buyer’s “high-end sashimi lines, not their frozen prepared foods.” Consumers must continue to be wary of the origin of their food: know your farmer!” – The Cornucopia Institute

Ron Stotish, AquaBounty’s CEO, told investors last Thursday that they have sold 4.5 tonnes of it in Canada so far this year, and that,

The people who bought our fish were very happy with it. They put it in their high-end sashimi lines, not their frozen prepared foods.”

Related: How to Avoid GMOs in 2018 – And Everything Else You Should Know About Genetic Engineering

In Canada, GM fish does not have to be labeled as such. Consequently, customers may not know if the salmon they ordered is genetically modified.

AquaAdvantage Salmon is engineered to grow at twice the rate of regular salmon while consuming up to 2 percent less feed than regular farmed salmon.

This is an untenable situation. The fact that, once again, the company has let slip a piece of information to investors — but is information Canadian consumers need and don’t have — exposes how much it is that Canadians need labelling.” – Lucy Sharratt of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network

Recommended: How to Heal Your Gut

The FDA has approved AquAdvantage salmon for human consumption, but wild salmon is big business for Alaska, so Senator Lisa Murkowski and other Alaskan officials in Congress got the FDA to block AquAdvantage imports until new GMO labeling regulations are in effect for food labels.  Senator Lisa Murkowski introduced the amendment prohibiting the import of the GM eggs needed to produce AquaBounty’s salmon, and she co-sponsored legislation mandating the labeling of genetically engineered salmon.




GMO Labeling Causes Consumers To Trust Bioengineered Foods

For a month before President Obama signed the first federal GMO labeling law in 2016 Vermont’s own labeling law took effect. The labels implemented in Vermont were clear and concise and informed customers of products “produced with genetic engineering” or “partially produced using genetic engineering.” Two years after that program, researchers at the University of Vermont found that those labels made consumers more likely to trust GMOs. Researchers examined more than 7,800 surveys of Vermonters and their attitudes towards GMOs and saw opposition to genetically modified foods dropped 19% after the labeling law took effect. The research doesn’t provide sales numbers, but people reported they were more likely to trust in GMOs. What does this mean, and will we see that same shift in attitudes when the federal labeling law is finalized at the end of July?

Related: Monsanto’s Name To Be Retired – Bayer Aims To Erase Sordid History

Just Gimme A Reason

Why do labels make consumers more likely to feel positively towards GMOs? There isn’t a definitive answer to that question, but the study of from the University of Vermont points to the control that labeling gives consumers.

A choice is important in the modern world, and the staunch opposition to GMO labeling by biotech companies has served to make many people suspicious of their intentions and frustrated with the lack of transparency. The Vermont labeling did nothing to indicate that GMOs are safer, yet allowing people a choice improved attitudes towards GMOs by nearly 20 percent. For today’s consumer, the ability to opt out of a service is crucial.

Related: GMO Rice Approved While Other GMO Grasses Cannot Be Contained

Label Confusion

How will that dynamic play out with the federal labeling law legally required to be finalized by July 29?

To begin with, there are differences in the way labeling will be implemented. Labels in Vermont were simple and concise. In contrast, national labels will be a single sentence, a standardized icon, or a QR code. The labels are likely to look something like this:

Companies are also able to label their products as “bioengineered” as opposed to genetically modified or GMO, an option that could confuse consumers. Plans are not finalized yet, but there is also the possibility that highly refined sugars and oils made from genetically modified corn, soybeans, and sugar beets, will not require the GMO label. What began as a clear indication of food with genetically modified ingredients in a single state has evolved into a tentative nationwide plan that significantly muddies the waters of the GMO issue.

Loopholes proposed by the Trump administration could exempt more than 10,000 – or one out of six – genetically modified foods from a new GMO disclosure law.” – New analysis by EWG.

Related: How to Avoid GMOs in 2018 – And Everything Else You Should Know About Genetic Engineering

So Bored

Confusing labels likely won’t matter much. The world seems to have moved on from the debate over the problems caused by GMOs. Allowing people the choice to opt out of these products has the potential to calm public anxiety more than years campaigning and safety studies from Monsanto ever could. In fact, GMOs are in the best position, politically, they’ve been in years due to the positive press from the step forward in labeling, the disappearance of the Monsanto name, and a public focused on more immediate political issues.

Is this the point where the public expresses approval for GMOs? Or do we say nothing and achieve the same thing?

Sources:



GMO Labeling Bill Passes Senate – Did Whole Foods Sell Us Out?

On Thursday, July 7th, the senate voted 63-30 to approved a bipartisan compromise bill for a federal labeling of food made with genetically modified organisms. The bill is moving to the House of Representatives next.

Proponents of the bill say the law will be good for consumers, allowing shoppers to know what they’re getting, and the bill will provide a national standard for labeling.

There are three labeling options. Companies can label the food product as genetically modified or they can use a symbol that denotes GMOs, an on-pack symbol, the bar code, or the unreadable QR product code. When companies choose to label only through the QR code (and we guess that’s what most will do), the customer is expected to scan the barcode with their smartphones or call an 800 number.

Critics are quick to point out that this law will wipe out existing labeling laws like Vermont’s current legislation that does require clear and conscious GMO labeling. Also, this bill could exempt certain genetically modified foods from any kind of GMO labeling.

Proponents of labeling insisted that nothing short of text on packages would do. Some, including Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont and erstwhile presidential candidate, also raised concerns over the definition in the bill for determining which foods would require labels, a sign that if the bill becomes law, legal challenges will almost certainly follow.” – New York Times

For example, if a biotech product is genetically engineered with items ‘found in nature,’ (such as bacteria), then it can be passed as a natural food product. Other GMOs, which cannot yet be detected by current technology, would also pass as whole foods under the new law. This would include foods made with non in vitro recombinant DNA techniques.”Natural News

The USDA Secretary would also have the power to determine what concentration of GMO ingredients would fall under the labeling law, so it’s not unlikely consumers may ingest GMOs even after verifying that the QR bar Code says no GMO.

Even if the customer has a phone and a QR bar code app, and wants to take the time to scan the product, more often than not, cell phones don’t work at all or the internet is extremely slow inside a grocery store. Some grocery stores don’t even allow cell phones (This is true for Dekalb Farmer’s Market in Decatur Georgia. Be sure to check them out if you haven’t).

The law will not go into effect for two years if it does make it all the way to be signed into law. Consumers will have to wait, and no other states will be able to legislate labeling in the meantime.

Is Whole Foods in Cahoots With Monsanto?

Walter Robb, the CEO of Whole Foods backs the new bill, saying:

The alternative is that Vermont goes into effect and then there’s a number of other states behind that, it makes it difficult for manufacturers to be able to label and label to that different standard…

And I think the way she’s put the bill together, which is to give manufacturers choices, is I think the marketplace and the customers will take it from here… so obviously, I think she’s done a great piece of work… we are already are out there further with our commitment to full transparency by 2018. We’re not gonna… we’re looking at how these two live with each other, but we’re already past that, but I think in this day and age, to come together, to create some sort of a reasonable standard that manufacturers can… and gives the customer a lot more information is a pretty good thing.”

Whole Foods backed the bill. As Walter made clear, Whole Foods is looking out for their food manufacturers first and foremost. Whole Foods has helped champion the idea of food transparency, but the company would not get behind previous, more conscious legislation to label GMO foods. This bill’s ambiguous text leaves a lot to be interpreted, and it is clear this is a bill written by the food companies in an attempt to appease the public without actually affecting GMO sales.

Conclusion

If the bill passes into law, is it a step in the right direction? Maybe. It depends on how the legislation plays out. The bill, as it is now, leaves so much up for interpretation. The harder the public pushes for transparency, the more likely the bill will get better for consumers along the way, or get replaced by something better. Regardless, the best way to avoid GMOs is to avoid buying processed, manufactured food. Stick to the produce section in grocery stores (whole produce GMOs are very rare), visit your local farmer’s markets and get to know the farmers (not the guys who buy food from distributors and pretend to be farmers, get to know the actual farmers). And grow your own food! It’ll be interesting to see what happens with labeling whole produce if the bill passes and more foods do get genetically modified.

Related Reading:
Sources:



Will the DARK Act Ever Die? What Can We Do?

If we ever wanted to see the end of a piece of legislation, it would be the DARK Act. If you are not familiar with it, this legislation is aimed at taking away our right to know what we are eating. States will not be able to legislate GMO labeling. The DARK Act completely blocks efforts to label genetically modified foods.

What it’s really all about is big business, corruption, and empty biotech promises and lies.

Big Business

This may seem a little off topic, but this fact about big business is really interesting. According to the Small Business Administration, as of 2010, the United States was home to 27.9 million small businesses and only 18,500 large businesses. In this case, a large business is defined as a business employing 500 or more employees. Yes, that’s right; 99.7% of the businesses in the United States are small businesses with 500 or fewer employees. So how and why do these few businesses carry so much weight and influence?

Corruption?

What else could it be other than corruption and payoffs? Why would our elected officials, whose sworn duty is to serve the people they represent, be so hell bent on ignoring the rights and wishes of the American people? Why do they want federal legislation that denies the rights of Americans to know what they are eating and what they are feeding their children?

Do they really think biotech is the answer to world hunger when other countries are seeing through the propaganda and lies and realizing that genetically modified crops are not the panacea they are purported to be. In addition, they are contaminating other crops (heirloom, organic, indigenous) as containment is impossible. (Who can control the wind and the birds?)

According to the Center for Food Safety, here are the results of recent polls of the American people:

When

Who Conducted the Poll?

Pro Mandatory

Labeling

11/23/15

The Mellman Group, Inc.

89%

6/9/2014

Consumer Reports

92%

07/27/13

New York Times

93%

2/25/11

MSNBC

96%

10/10

Reuters and NPR

93%

9/17/10

Washington Post

95%

9/21/10 KSTP – St. Paul/Minneapolis 95%

Biotech

They keep telling us genetically modified foods are safe, that fear of them is unscientific and frankly stupid. We know better.

Common sense tells us that growing and eating a food genetically modified to kill life (insects, infection, microbes), or modified to be able to withstand being drenched in chemicals designed to kill, not to mentiona all of the other agricultural poisons (that we end up eating) is not smart. Add to that the fact that the chemicals used to grow these plants are destroying farmlands, and it is a no brainer.

We don’t even need the studies showing us that GMOs cause cancer and reproductive failure in lab animals to know this is a bad, bad idea. And yes, these studies do exist. And yes, the biotech companies know they exist. That’s why they do short term studies to “prove” their products are safe and pretend the long-term studies that reveal the real and present dangers don’t exist.

What Can We Do?

On March 1, 2016, the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry again revived the DARK Act by voting on legislation, which is now headed to the full Senate. The bipartisan vote was 14-6 in favor.

This piece of legislation “…directs the Agriculture Secretary, in coordination with other federal agencies, to engage in a consumer education and outreach effort. Information will be science-based and related to environmental, nutritional, economic, and humanitarian benefits of agricultural biotechnology.”

While vague, its purpose is to strike down any attempts by individual states to require GMO labeling for food sold in their state. It claims biotech foods are safe and that this is simply an expensive marketing issue. (With a clear message that the American people are deranged and uninformed).

Tell your elected officials how you feel. Tell them that you don’t care that the World Health Organization claims GMOs are safe or that the Senate committee thinks they are safe. You still deserve the right to choose. We don’t need to be in the dark. Turn on the light. Label GMOs.

Related Reading:
Sources:



Campbell’s Changes Stance on GMO Labeling

Campbell Company announced their support for GMO labeling, federal legislation for a single mandatory labeling standard for both GMO-free and GMO-containing foods, in a press release dated January 7, 2016.

Campbell wants us to view them in a particular light. This one:

Campbell (NYSE:CPB) is driven and inspired by our Purpose, “Real food that matters for life’s moments.” The company makes a range of high-quality soups and simple meals, beverages, snacks and packaged fresh foods. For generations, people have trusted Campbell to provide authentic, flavorful and readily available foods and beverages that connect them to each other, to warm memories, and to what’s important today. Led by its iconic Campbell’s brand, the company’s portfolio includes Pepperidge Farm, Bolthouse Farms, Arnott’s, V8, Swanson, Pace, Prego, Plum, Royal Dansk, Kjeldsens and Garden Fresh Gourmet. Founded in 1869, Campbell has a heritage of giving back and acting as a good steward of the planet’s natural resources…” – BusinessWire news release.

Campbell states that their earlier opposition (to the tune of $982,888.00) was an effort to defeat fragmented state-by-state labeling laws, not consumers’ right to know what is in their food.

Why One Federally Mandated Label Law?

Campbell has also removed artificial flavors, coloring, and preservatives as well as “additional added” MSG for its condensed soups for kids…

The reality is that state-by-state laws could be a major problem and expense for Campbell or for any manufacturer.

All the fuss about higher costs to the consumer if GMOs were labeled is a smokescreen, an excuse to keep the consumer in the dark about what they are eating. But if a manufacturer had to label a product 50 different ways and ensure shipments were sent to the right state with the right label, then we are talking about a major expense.

If standards were set in place and all manufacturers had to alter their labels once, this change makes sense. Keep in mind, some of the manufacturers who are complaining about this possibility already have different labels for their European markets and/or different formulas for their products that meet European standards.

Campbell’s President and CEO, Denise Morrison, makes a good point regarding state laws when she uses Vermont as an example. The new law in Vermont only pertains to products regulated by the FDA, not the USDA. Their original variety SpaghettiO’s falls under the FDA regulations and therefore requires a GMO label. Their SpaghettiO’s meatballs does not. Due to the fact that it contains meat, it is regulated by the USDA and is therefore not bound by Vermont’s new law. These products sit side by side on many grocery shelves. Both contain GMOs, but only one is labeled.

Our Right To Know

Campbell wants to be sure we understand that they still support GMO technology.

Campbell continues to recognize that GMOs are safe, as the science indicates that foods derived from crops grown using genetically modified seeds are not nutritionally different from other foods. The company also believes technology will play a crucial role in feeding the world.” – BusinessWire news release.

They are conceding to our right to know because 92% of Americans support GMO labeling.

There you have it. They are now pushing for labeling, not because it is the right thing to do, not because it is logical, moral, and just. Not to protect our health. They are backing labeling because of overwhelming pressure from consumers, consumers whose well-justified fears the company continues to discount.

The best news is that they state they will go ahead with new labels even if a federal solution is not reached in a timely manner.

Other Changes by Campbell

Campbell has also removed artificial flavors, coloring, and preservatives as well as “additional added” MSG for its condensed soups for kids and the company plans to remove

…artificial colors and flavors from nearly all of its North American products by the end of fiscal 2018. Additionally, Campbell plans to move away from using high fructose corn syrup in certain products, including the complete line of Pepperidge Farm fresh breads by the end of fiscal 2017, as well as most new products launching in fiscal 2016 in its Americas Simple Meals and Beverages portfolio.” – Campbell Website Press

Why not all products? Why not now? Why not remove all MSG because is has been proven dangerous?

Is it not condescending and self-serving to say they are taking out these ingredients from kid’s soups so the recipes are simplified for parents rather than admitting parents are right in choosing non-toxic products for their children?

Conclusion

We want to applaud every decision they have made to remove toxic ingredients from their products and to label those that remain. But we can’t help feeling it’s a little bit late. We wish Campbell and other giant food companies would stand up for clean, healthy food. Not for the sake of profits. Not to fit in a niche. Because it is the right thing to do!

The real takeaway from this story is the power of public opinion and a reminder that we do vote with our dollars. Every time we buy a product with artificial flavors, colors, preservatives, MSG, HFCS, trans fats, or GMOs we are supporting the use of these products in processed foods. We are voting FOR toxic food. Every time we purchase whole, fresh, organic, foods, we are voting AGAINST toxic foods. Let’s applaud the 92% of Americans who want to know what they are eating for this victory and keep up the momentum.

Recommended Reading:
Sources:



Genetically Modified Salmon Is On Its Way To Your Store

If you enjoy salmon, eat your fill now. The Food and Drug Administration has announced approval for the first genetically modified animal for consumption, and it’s the Atlantic salmon…and the Pacific-Chinook salmon…and the ocean pout, a creature also known for inspiring a synthetic contribution to less-fattening ice cream, all rolled up into one sentient creation.

The possibility of a genetically engineered salmon is not an unfamiliar one, as biotech company AquaBounty has been attempting to bring the Frankenfish to the public for twenty years. The fish is said to be advantageous because it grows at twice the rate of a regular salmon and requires 75% less food. The company is not planning on letting consumers know that the fish is genetically modified, claiming that as “…the first and only, labeling is a dangerous decision. We’d like to label it as a premium product, but we’ll probably introduce it as Atlantic salmon.” It’s ironic that they use the word dangers in conjunction with actual labeling, as the health and environmental dangers of this fish don;t seem to concern  AquaBounty or the FDA.

Safety Concerns Over the Next Step in GMOs

The debate over the GM salmon from AquaBounty (officially referred to as the AquaAdvantage) has been going on for quite some time, although the approval from the FDA has shifted abstract concepts into something very real and potentially scary. Food and Water Watch and the Consumer’s Union have both expressed concerns about the fish and its impact on health and the environmental threat of a possible escape. Like all GMOs, the salmon has been labeled safe to eat by the FDA. That alone is suspect when you consider the amount of countries worldwide who are banning GMOs, but there are also concerns regarding allergies and how the mix of different fish genetics combined into one fish will affect people. Consumer’s Union has been claiming that the research used to make the decision to approve the salmon suffers from inadequate analysis and a sample size that is too small.

But What if Gets Loose?

Meanwhile, Food and Water Watch is viewing the AquaAvantage from a different angle, and seeing a different problem – escape. The salmon are grown in land-based, contained tanks in Canada and Panama that are sealed completely off and all fish grown for food, as opposed to breeding, are sterile. Or at least they are sterile by FDA standards, which require 95% sterility. Setting aside the questions of what and where exactly the fish for breeding are kept (or if there is even a need for breeding fish when they’re potentially raised in a lab), the FDA maintains that even if the fish were to escape, they would be unable to thrive and establish themselves. Even if the fish aren’t able to sustain a population out in the natural environment, isn’t it naive to assume there won’t be other consequences? Wild salmon that come in contact with farmed salmon have registered a population drop of more than half due to parasites and disease. At what point does the desire for cheap salmon outweigh the increasing delicate needs of the actual wild salmon providing the genes for the Frankenfish? Despite claims that the potential of escape is highly unlikely, Food and Water Watch remains committed to making sure that GMO salmon does not reach the marketplace.

More Care is Needed in Introducing GM Meats

The marketplace at the moment has a slightly different view from the FDA. Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s have been critical of the AquaAdvantage and have publicly pledged not to sell the salmon. Other retailers like Safeway and Kroger also have no plans to stock the product. The criticism from consumer and environmental groups, as well as the lack of support from stores, have the potential to stop the forward march (swim, really) of the GMO salmon. Anything can happen within the two-year period from approval to market. If you oppose GM salmon, now is the time for your voice to be heard.

Extensive research occurs when new varieties of conventional foods like fruits and vegetables are introduced. A newly developed type of apple, for instance, takes an average of 15 years. A salmon spliced together from three different fish and altered at the base genetic level is a huge step in the food system and should not have any room for groups to claim inadequate analysis. The consequences of unleashing the Frankenfish could permanently damage the oceanic ecosystem or even play out like a science fiction movie. Do we want to be the at the mercy of our own ill-advised creation because the population is looking for cheaper salmon? At the very least we should be able to know what we’re being sold.

Recommended Reading:
Sources:



Grocery Manufacturers Association – Leading opponents of GMO labeling

The Grocery Manufacturers Association is one of the largest organizations representing the food industry. As of 2013, they had over 300 member businesses in food and beverage production as well as biotech and seed companies.

The Grocery Manufacturers Association is one of the leading opponents of GMO labeling. They have poured millions of dollars into defeating bills to label GMOs introduced in various states and are big supporters of the DARK Act, a bill made to make labeling GMOs illegal at the federal level. In the 2012 ballot initiative in California (Proposition 37) and 2013 ballot initiative in Washington (Proposition 522), the Grocery Manufacturers Association and its members donated over 54 million dollars, just to fight labeling.

This organization spends millions of dollars a year lobbying at the federal and state level, primarily to fight GMO labeling. In 2014, they poured money into fighting the GMO labeling initiatives in Colorado (Proposition 92) and Oregon (Proposition 105). The GMA spent big dollars convincing the public that labeling GMOs will increase overall food prices. Unfortunately, their efforts have been successful, though by a narrow margin. Of the 68 companies and organizations listed that funded opposition to these four propositions, only seven were not members of the Grocery Manufacturers Association as of 2013. These 7 organizations are identified.

Full List of Right To Know Opponents

No. Donor
No On 37
No on 522
No on 92
No on 105
1
Monsanto Co.
$8,112,867
$5,374,411
$5,958,750
$4,755,878
2
Dupont
$5,400,000
$3,880,159
$4,928,150
$3,000,000
3
PepsiCo
$2,485,400
$2,352,966
$2,350,000
$1,650,000
4
Grocery Manufacturers Association
$2,002,000
$11,000,000**
$169,190
$106,600
5
Kraft Foods
$2,000,500
$870,000
$1,030,000
6
BASF Plant Science

(Non-Member)

$2,000,000
$500,000
7
Bayer CropScience
$2,000,000
$591,654
8
DOW Agrosciences
$2,000,000
$591,654
$1,157,150
$306,500
9
Syngenta Corporation
$2,000,000
10
Coca-Cola North America
$1,690,500
$1,520,351
$1,170,000
$1,108,000
11
Nestle USA
$1,461,600
$1,528,206
12
General Mills
$1,230,300
$869,271
$695,000
$820,000
13
ConAgra Foods
$1,176,700
$828,251
$350,000
$250,000
14
Kellogg’s Company
$790,700
$322,050
$500,000
250,000
15
Smithfield Foods
$683,900
$250,000
16
Delmonte Foods
$674,100
$125,677
17
Campbell Soup Company
$598,000
$384,888
18
Smucker Company
$555,000
$349,978
$295,000
$345,000
19
Hershey Company
$518,900
$360,450
$320,000
$380,000
20
Biotechnology Industry Organization

(Non-Member)

$502,000
11,200
$108,000
21
Heinz Company
$500,000
22
Mars Inc.
$498,350
23
Hormel Foods
$467,900
$76,803
$85,000
85,000
24
Unilever
$467,100
25
Bimbo Bakeries
$422,900
$137,460
$230,000
270,000
26
Bumble Bee Foods
$420,600
$52,365
$45,000
$50,000
27
Ocean Spray Cranberries
$409,100
$80,295
$35,000
80,000
28
Council for Biotechnology Information

(Non-Member)

$375,000
$12,827
29
Sara Lee Corporation

(Non-Member)

$343,600
30
Abbott Nutrition
$334,500
$185,025
$160,000
$190,000
31
Pinnacle Foods Group
$266,100
$175,425
32
Dean Foods
$253,950
$174,553
33
Cargill
$250,000
$143,133
$111,000
$135,000
34
Bunge North America
$248,600
$137,896
35
Rich Products Corporation
$248,300
$34,911
$30,000
36
McCormick & Company
$248,200
$148,369
$130,000
37
Flowers Foods
$182,100
$205,099
$250,000
38
Mondelez International
$181,000
$210,336
$720,000
39
Dole Packaged Foods
$175,000
40
Knouse Foods
$167,600
$20,946
$20,000
$25,000
41
Welch Foods
$167,000
$41,893
$30,000
$35,000
42
Land O’Lakes
$153,300
$144,878
$760,000
$900,000
43
Sunny Delight Beverages
$139,700
$30,547
$25,000
$25,000
44
Wrigley Jr. Company
$123,350
45
Tree Top Inc.
$110,600
46
Clement Pappas & Co.
$100,000
$30,547
47
Hilshire Brands Company
$85,900
$282,775
48
Hero North America

(Non-Member)

$80,800
49
Mead Johnson Nutrition Company
$80,000
$50,000
$50,000
50
Faribault Foods
$76,000
51
Solae Inc.
$62,500
52
Goya Foods
$56,700
53
McCain Foods USA
$53,400
54
Godiva Chocolatier
$42,700
55
B&G Foods
$40,000
56
Clorox Company
$39,700
$17,455
57
Bruce Foods
$38,500
$4,364
58
C.H. Guenther & Son
$24,700
59
Morton Salt
$21,400
60
Reily Foods Company
$18,400
61
Inventure Foods
$15,600
62
Hirzel Canning Company
$15,000
63
Idahoan Foods
$10,000
64
Sargento Foods

(Non-Member)

$10,000
65
Snack Foods Association

(Non-Member)

$10,000
66
Shearer’s Foods
$36,656
$30,000
$35,000
67
Niagara Bottling
$10,000
68
Michael Foods
$30,000

**GMA member donations included in list

Grocery Manufacturers Association The Leading opponents of GMO labeling

In 2013, the Grocery Manufacturers Association took down the publicly available list of members from their website. The 2013 membership directory is archived online and available here.

The Food and Water Watch, a consumer advocacy group, listed the 2012 Board of Directors of the Grocery Manufacturers Association and the amount of money each group contributed. These companies are some of the biggest opponents of GMO labeling. Additionally, these companies are supporting the GMA’s lawsuit against the State of Vermont. In a democratic process the people of Vermont have spoken, and they want GMOs labeled, the GMA is suing to subvert the results of this democratic process. These companies spend big dollars blocking your right to know, not just through the GMA but by direct campaign donations as well.

In these matters, money talks. However, there was a good reason that the Grocery Manufacturers Association no longer publicizes their list of members; it is becoming increasingly expensive to ignore the will of the people. The companies are obviously worried about damage to their image from blocking your right to know what is in your food. If we don’t vote with our dollars, organizations like Monsanto, the GMA, Pepsi, and other companies will vote with our dollars for us, and not with any regard to our wishes.

Recommended Reading:
Sources:

http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/GMA_Profile1.pdf#_ga=1.199922478.1015463669.1441382848