Non-GMO Update:
Verification Program Reaching Critical Mass
By Ken Roseboro
The trend toward non-GMO verification expanded dramatically in 2009, with more than 3000 products from 50 brands now enrolled in the Non-GMO Project, a collaborative industry initiative to verify that foods and other consumer products don’t contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In addition, Whole Foods Market, the nation’s leading natural food retailer, announced last June that it would verify its private label products through the Non-GMO Project.
The Non-GMO Project’s Product Verification Program (PVP) represents the nation’s first system designed to scientifically test whether a product has met a set of defined standards for the presence of GMOs. The program is designed to help identify issues of contamination early on and then work with farmers and processors through continuous improvement to prevent future risk. The PVP combines on-site facility audits, document-based review and DNA testing to measure compliance with the standard. For a product to display the Non-GMO seal, it must undergo a process through which any ingredient at risk for genetic contamination—such as corn or soy—has been shown to meet the non-GMO standard through identity preservation measures and testing.
While many companies in the organic industry support the Non-GMO Project, there are some that have questions about how the Non-GMO standard may affect organic farmers and the credibility of the USDA organic seal. No matter what, the GMO threat can’t be ignored, but as the industry continues to rally together, actions can be taken to keep GMOs out of organic.
Continued GMO Threat
The percentage of GMO crops has continued to increase at an alarming rate. In 2009, genetically modified varieties accounted for 91 percent of soybeans, 85 percent of corn, 88 percent of cotton, and, according to industry claims, 95 percent of sugar beets.
Today, GMO contamination is more than just a threat—it’s a reality. A recent contamination incident involving a genetically modified flax variety underscored the challenge of containing GMOs. Last September, an unapproved GM flax variety was discovered in Canadian flax exports to Europe. The GM flax was later discovered in cereals and baking products in some 28 countries, mostly in the European Union, but also in Japan, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Korea and Singapore. The EU reported some 30 incidents of GM flax contamination.
What makes the contamination especially troubling is the fact that the GM flax was developed in the late 1990s but was never grown commercially. In 2001, the Flax Council of Canada asked the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to make the flax illegal to grow, fearing a contamination incident would jeopardize Canada’s flax export market. Those fears have been realized eight years later.
“This is a major international contamination incident that shows how dangerous any GM crop field testing and development is for farmers and consumers,” says Arnold Taylor, an organic flax grower and chair of the Organic Agriculture Protection Fund of the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate.
While the threat is growing, awareness and anti-GMO action is also increasing. Last September, organic supporters scored a victory to stop the spread of genetically modified sugar beets. A federal court ruled that USDA’s approval of Monsanto Company’s “Roundup Ready” sugar beets was unlawful. The court ordered USDA to conduct an assessment of the environmental and economic impacts of the crop on farmers and the environment.
Plaintiffs Center for Food Safety, Organic Seed Alliance, Sierra Club and High Mowing Seeds, represented by Earthjustice and the Center for Food Safety, filed suit in January 2008, alleging USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service failed to adequately assess the environmental, health, and associated economic impacts of allowing Roundup Ready sugar beets to be commercially grown without restriction. The court ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor, proving that when the industry works together it can make an impact.
More Companies Join Non-GMO Project
Working together is what the Non-GMO Project is about and recently many more companies have joined the effort. From July to November 2009, 30 new companies made the commitment to be part of the Non-GMO Project.
In July, nine companies joined, including Kettle Brand Potato Chips, Guayaki, Full of Life Products, Tofurky, Turtle Island Foods, Green Mountain Gringo and Straus Family Creamery. New Chapter and Rainbow Light joined as the first vitamin and supplement companies to enroll products, and EO Products enrolled the first body care items. In August and September, 10 companies joined, including Endangered Species Chocolate, organic baked goods manufacturer Mary’s Gone Crackers, and tofu-maker Pulmone Wildwood. In October and November, 13 companies joined, including Organic Valley, Annie’s Homegrown and Springfield Creamery. With the new additions, the number of companies and brands participating in the Non-GMO Project now exceeds 50, and more continue to join.
Three suppliers of organic grains and ingredients, SK Food International, Grain Place Foods and North Pacific Group, are having their products verified non-GMO. SK Food International enrolled yellow soybeans, soybean meal and flour, soy oil, flaxseed, corn oil, and Crimson Red, blue, white and yellow corn.
“Similar to our organic certification, our Non-GMO Project verification is a way to better serve our customers as a best-value ingredient supplier by ensuring that our ingredients are non-GMO,” says SK Food International’s Aaron Skyberg, a member of the Non-GMO Project technical advisory board and standards committee.
David Vetter, owner of Grain Place Foods, says his decision to participate in the Non-GMO Project was in line with his commitment to sustainable agriculture and protecting organic food production. “We felt like we had to do it. We needed a system to keep GMOs out of our products,” he says. “It was an ethical decision for me more than a business decision.”
Vetter has been concerned about GMOs for many years and believes the Non-GMO Project is the best solution to address the problem. “We have to start somewhere,” he says.
By December 2009, several companies had completed Non-GMO Project verification on some or all of their products. These include Eden Foods, Guayaki, SK Food International, San-J, R.W. Garcia, Lundberg Family Farms, and Whole Foods Market.
According to Megan Westgate, executive director of the Non-GMO Project, several companies, including WholeSoy & Co., R.W. Garcia, and Guayaki, plan to label their verified products with the Non-GMO Project seal in early 2010.
A complete list of companies participating in the Non-GMO Project is available at www.nongmoproject.org.
Enrolled Products Increased from 350 to Nearly 3000
The number of products enrolled in the Non-GMO Project’s Product Verification Program increased from about 350 products in June 2009 to nearly 3000 products by November 2009.
Westgate attributes the rapid growth to several factors. One is recognition. “Most companies in the industry are now familiar with the Project and understand the value of our mission,” she says. “We have made ongoing refinements to cost and process to make this as easy and affordable as possible without compromising the integrity.”
Another big factor was Whole Foods Market’s announcement last June that it would enroll its private-label products in the Project. Then, The New York Times featured an article about the Project on page one of the business section on August 28. In September, Michael Funk, chairman of United Natural Foods International (UNFI), sent a letter to his company’s suppliers encouraging them to participate to in the Project. Funk wrote, “It’s important to UNFI that the products we sell are non-GMO. The best guarantee of this to us is for you to enroll in the Non-GMO Project.”
Whole Foods to Have Private-Label Products Non-GMO Verified
Whole Foods Market had made a non-GMO commitment in its private- label brands several years ago, says Joe Dickson, quality standards coordinator. The problem was that there was no standard to define “non-GMO.” “We care deeply about the GMO issue, but the lack of a uniform industry standard made the work difficult,” Dickson says. “There are so many variables and many ingredients that are very hard to track.”
Three years ago, Dickson heard about the Non-GMO Project and its work to develop a non-GMO standard. Whole Foods decided to join the effort. “It made sense to create an industry-wide standard,” he says. “Everyone has one single point of reference for non-GMO claims.”
Even before enrolling its products in the non-GMO verification, Whole Foods had been a strong supporter of the Non-GMO Project. “The work has been courageous and visionary. An incredible amount of work has been done with very limited resources,” Dickson says.
Need Teamwork and Collaboration
All Whole Foods private-label products, including the company’s “365” and “365 Organic” products, will be Non-GMO Project verified.
The task of verifying these products is significant because Whole Foods has at least 100 private-label manufacturers, and all will participate in the non-GMO verification, Dickson says.
Whole Foods started by putting its 365 Organic Tortilla Chips through the Non-GMO Project’s Product Verification Program as a pilot project to assess the program’s feasibility. By November 2009, Whole Foods began enrolling all its private-label products in the PVP.
Many of Whole Foods’ private-label manufacturers already have non-GMO controls. “One big advantage to the Non-GMO Project is that it respects non-GMO systems already in place,” Dickson says.
Whole Foods has not yet decided when it will start to display the Non-GMO Project Verified seal on its products, but when that does happen, Whole Foods plans to have in-store educational materials to help consumers understand the value of the Non-GMO Project verification.
Dickson echoes what other Non-GMO Project leaders say: that the Project’s success depends on widespread industry participation. “The more suppliers, manufacturers, co-packers and distributors at each level that ask for Non-GMO Project verification, the more downstream companies will get involved. More participation will increase the flow of non-GMO products at all levels of food production. We need teamwork and collaboration within the industry on this issue.”
Westgate says the participation of retailers’ private-label products is the most significant trend in the Non-GMO Project. Texas supermarket chain H.E.B. enrolled its Central Market brand and Michigan supermarket chain Meijer enrolled its Organics line.
“We are currently in conversation with several other significant food retailers, both conventional and natural, and expect to see more and more private-label participation,” Westgate says. “This is exciting because it means that mainstream audiences will be exposed to the non-GMO concept.”
Consumer Education Vital
Consumer education is important to rejection of GM foods and to the success of the Project. The Non-GMO Project is working with natural food retailers to help educate consumers once the Non-GMO Project Verified seal starts appearing on products. Retailers are distributing Frequently Asked Questions sheets and Non-GMO Project Shopping Guides, buttons and stickers to build brand recognition for the Project. Participating companies are starting to put the Project’s logo on their websites and in print ads. The Project’s website features a section where consumers can search for non-GMO verified products by product type, such as baby foods, beverages, personal care products, dairy products, cereals and breakfast foods, etc.
Westgate says the Project is also riding the trend of online social media by participating on Facebook and Twitter. “The social media forums are a great way to educate and share resources, and also to get direct consumer feedback,” Westgate says. “It’s nice to have a place to hear directly from thousands of people about how grateful they are for all the work being done to protect their right to choose non-GMO products.”
Dissenting Voices
While the Non-GMO Project is gaining increasing support in the organic industry, some organic industry members are opposed to a non-GMO label on organic foods and to testing organic seed, grains, and foods for GMOs.
Speaking at a GMO session at the All Things Organic tradeshow last June, Katherine DiMatteo, president of the board of directors of the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) said, “Don’t add a guarantee that we can’t live up to and don’t force organic farmers and processors to live up to a (non-GMO) standard.”
Such a standard, DiMatteo said, will hurt the organic market because consumers may fear that organic products that aren’t labeled non-GMO will be GMO. “A non-GMO labeling standard is not about protecting organic, it’s about driving people away,” she remarked.
Westgate counters by saying that there are some 150 companies, including many organic processors, already making non-GMO claims. “All we are trying to do with the Non-GMO seal is lend credibility and consistency to those claims,” she says.
As for meeting the standard, Westgate says, “There has been a lot of work to develop a standard that the industry can live up to. That is why we have a diverse committee setting the standard and open the standard up to public comment every six months. We have also had a lot of input and leadership from the organic industry in developing the standard.”
Speaking at the same GMO session, Lynn Clarkson, president of Clarkson Grain, argued that organic is a process definition, not one that relies on testing.
He said that adding a GMO testing requirement to organic production could dissuade farmers from converting to organic production. “We want more organic acreage, but adding testing will discourage farmers from organic production," he asserted.
In response to this, Westgate says that the standard was designed to keep most of the burden from falling on the farmers. Testing is done at the seed level or at the processor level, not on the farm.
Also, Westgate points out that if contamination levels are found to be above the action threshold (the percent of GMO allowed by the standard), the farmer and the processor don’t have to just throw out the crop, but instead have the option of blending that supply with another to bring it to acceptable levels.
From there they work with the farmer through a continuous improvement effort to eliminate contamination and lower risk factors. This can be done via efforts such as helping farmers access Non-GMO verified seed or timing the planting to reduce risk for contamination.
Overall, Westgate says that the Non-GMO Project is the best solution to protect the integrity of organics from GMOs. “If we were to allow organics to become contaminated with GMOs, the integrity and value of the organic brand would be damaged. We need to support our organic farmers by giving them verified non-GMO seed to plant and by protecting consumers’ trust in organic products.”
Ken Roseboro is editor and publisher of The Organic & Non-GMO Report, a monthly newsletter focusing on the markets for non-GMO and organic products and “The Non-GMO Sourcebook,” an annual directory of suppliers of non-GMO and organic products. He can be reached at ken@non-gmoreport.com.
