The wall of opposition to labeling foods that contain genetically modified organisms is crumbling. After Campbell Soup created the first crack in January by agreeing to slap labels on its soup cans saying they contain GMOs, it was only a matter of time before more fissures would appear.

U.S. health regulators are facing a lawsuit from a coalition of environmental organizations seeking to overturn the government's landmark approval of a type of genetically engineered salmon to be farmed for human consumption.

By Michael Hansen, senior scientist at Consumers Reports

TIME AND again, national surveys indicate that upwards of 90 percent of consumers want foods produced using genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to be labeled as such — in fact, a recent Consumer Reports survey placed the number at 92 percent. Of course, the right of everyone to know what they are eating is largely self-evident. But, from a scientific standpoint, is genetically engineered food really different enough to warrant a special label?

The U.S. Department of Agriculture said this week (March 23) it will allow farmers to plant a new strain of genetically modified (GMO) corn created by Monsanto to be tolerant of the weed killers dicamba and glufosinate without government oversight, a step likely to expand the use of these chemical herbicides.

When Vermont passed a law in 2014 that required all genetically engineered food sold in the state to be labeled by July 1, 2016, it likely had no idea it would force disclosure beyond its own borders.

When communities come together to build back soil and replace harsh chemicals with biology, they are very successful and create lasting solutions.

It’s been a heady time for advocates of genetically modified food labeling like Oakland’s Gary Ruskin.

Working out of the Rockridge studio apartment he shares with his daughter, Ruskin is co-director of the consumer group U.S. Right to Know. Back in 2012, he was campaign manager for the California GMO labeling ballot initiative, Proposition 37, which ultimately didn’t pass. But in recent weeks, the landscape has shifted dramatically in his movement’s favor.

First, the Senate blocked a controversial measure that would have prevented states from passing initiatives like Prop. 37, such as the GMO labeling law due to roll out July 1 in Vermont. Days later, General Mills announced it would voluntarily add GMO labels to all of its products; fellow industrial food giants Mars, Kellogg Co. and Conagra quickly followed suit, even though those companies have spent millions to fight such labeling.

“Their coalition is fracturing,” Ruskin said. “The customer is always right, and it’s time for the food industry to recognize that.”

If we act, we can stop the Big Six from becoming the Titanic Three.

As ETC first warned in May[i] last year and again in February[ii] this year, the pressure of two mergers among the Big Six Gene Giants would make a third merger inevitable. In the last few days the business media have reported that Monsanto is in separate talks with Bayer and BASF – the two German giants among agricultural input companies. While anti-competition regulators are fussing about the hook up of DuPont with Dow and of Syngenta with Chem China, Monsanto urgently needs to make a match. They hope that if regulators let the other two deals go through, they won’t be able to deny Monsanto a chance to even the score.

Boulder County Commissioners direct staff to develop a plan for transitioning county-owned agricultural land away from growing genetically engineered crops

The commissioners deliberated their decision after considering a vast body of public comments and a recommendation from the open space citizen advisory committee on whether to continue allowing GE crops on a portion of county-owned agricultural lands.

Boulder County authorities have decided to stop allowing genetically engineered crops to be grown on county-owned farmland.