Whole Foods is delaying a policy that would have required its suppliers to label genetically modified organism (GMO)-containing products on its store shelves by September of this year. In a letter that was apparently sent to suppliers last week, according to the New Food Economy, the grocery store chain announced it would be postponing the September 1, 2018 deadline, first announced five years ago. Whole Foods cites upcoming U. S. Department of Agriculture standards as the reason behind the change and has not yet provided a new deadline. Here's what you need to know about changes to GMO labeling at Whole Foods:

What is the definition of a GMO?

The dictionary definition of a genetically modified organism is "an organism whose genome has been altered by the techniques of genetic engineering so that its DNA contains one or more genes not normally found there." Whole Foods draws a slightly harder line on that definition on its website, saying, "Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), also referred to as products of genetic engineering, are organisms whose genetic makeup (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally." However, the USDA has weighed in with its own definition (more on that below). Whether or not GMO foods pose any risk to consumers, many concerned shoppers are demanding transparency on the use of genetically modified ingredients in their food.

Sioux Falls, SD (KSFY) A Sioux Falls woman hosted a local March Against Monsanto Saturday, joining more than 428 other cities around the globe holding similar informational protests.

She says the goal of the march is to raise public awareness about Monsanto's corporate farming and business practices while also fighting for better labeling laws that identify GMO products.

“They are dumping thousands of gallons of chemicals on our food every year and people are getting sick," Sioux Falls March Against Monsanto Organizer Diane Wilson said.

Some farmers transition to organic production to earn premium prices. Others switch to make their farms more sustainable. But for some farmers, transitioning to organic is a necessary way to protect their family’s health—and even save their lives.

Blaine Schmaltz, who farms in Rugby, North Dakota, is a good example. One day in 1993, Schmaltz was spraying an herbicide on his field. He stopped to check the level in the sprayer tank. While looking inside, he lost control of his legs and passed out. He was later hospitalized for several months with asthma, muscle aches and pains, and insomnia. A doctor diagnosed him with “occupational asthma.”

“The doctor told me to leave agriculture,” Schmaltz says. “He said, ‘if you don’t, you probably won’t live 10 years.’”

While recovering, Schmaltz read about organic farming and decided to transition because he wanted to continue farming. The next spring he started the transition, and over time his symptoms disappeared. Today, Schmaltz continues to grow certified organic wheat, beans, flax, and other specialty grains.

“I didn’t switch to organic farming for the money or a utopian dream,” he says. “I did it for myself and my family in order to stay in agriculture.”

After more than 40 years of widespread use, new scientific tests show formulated weedkillers have higher rates of toxicity to human cells

US government researchers have uncovered evidence that some popular weedkilling products, like Monsanto’s widely-used Roundup, are potentially more toxic to human cells than their active ingredient is by itself.

These “formulated” weedkillers are commonly used in agriculture, leaving residues in food and water, as well as public spaces such as golf courses, parks and children’s playgrounds.

The tests are part of the US National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) first-ever examination of herbicide formulations made with the active ingredient glyphosate, but that also include other chemicals. While regulators have previously required extensive testing of glyphosate in isolation, government scientists have not fully examined the toxicity of the more complex products sold to consumers, farmers and others.

Monsanto introduced its glyphosate-based Roundup brand in 1974. But it is only now, after more than 40 years of widespread use, that the government is investigating the toxicity of “glyphosate-based herbicides” on human cells.

Avoiding toxic pesticides, seeing fathers get cancer or die, and protecting their children are big motivations for farmers to switch to organic

Some farmers transition to organic production to earn premium prices paid for organic crops. Others switch to make their farms more sustainable. But for some farmers transitioning to organic is a necessity to save their health—and even their lives.

Blaine Schmaltz, who farms in Rugby, North Dakota, is a good example. One day in September 1993, Schmaltz was spraying an herbicide on his field. He stopped to check the level in the sprayer tank. Looking inside, he started to feel lame and then passed out. He was later hospitalized for several months with asthma, muscle aches and pains, and insomnia. A doctor diagnosed him as having “occupational asthma.”

“The doctor told me to leave agriculture,” Schmaltz says. “He said, ‘if you don’t you probably won’t live 10 years.’ ”

While recovering, Schmaltz read about organic farming and decided to transition because he wanted to continue farming. The next spring he started the transition, and over time found it was the right choice. His symptoms disappeared.

Rules propose options which discriminate against low-income, elderly, and minorities; could allow for many GMO foods to go unlabeled

WASHINGTON, DC — Today, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) released the long-awaited proposed regulations for the mandatory disclosure of foods produced using genetic engineering (GE or GMO), which it calls "Bioengineered foods." The regulations come out of a 2016 law signed by President Obama prohibiting existing state GE labeling laws, such as Vermont's, that required on-package GE labeling, and instead created a federal "disclosure," program, which, for the first time, creates a nationwide standard of required GE disclosure. There now will be a 60 day public comment period. The 2016 law requires that USDA issue the final rules by July 29, 2018.

Public comments will be particularly important because the proposal presents a range of alternatives for public comments and makes few decisions, leaving considerable unknowns about its outcome. For example, instead of requiring clear, on-package labeling in the form of text or a symbol, USDA proposes to allow manufacturers to instead choose to use "QR codes," which are encoded images on a package that must be scanned and are intended to substitute for clear, on-package labeling. Real-time access to the information behind the QR code image requires a smartphone and a reliable broadband connection, technologies often lacking in rural areas. As a result, this labeling option would discriminate against more than 100 million Americans who do not have access to this technology. Last fall, CFS forced the public disclosure of USDA's study on the efficacy of this labeling, which showed it would not provide adequate disclosure to millions of Americans.

The FDA has been testing food samples for traces of glyphosate for two years, but the agency has not yet released any official results

US government scientists have detected a weedkiller linked to cancer in an array of commonly consumed foods, emails obtained through a freedom of information request show.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been testing food samples for residues of glyphosate, the active ingredient in hundreds of widely used herbicide products, for two years, but has not yet released any official results.

(.....)

Along with glyphosate, the agency has been trying to measure residues of the herbicides 2,4-D and dicamba because of projected increased use of these weedkillers on new genetically engineered crops. The FDA spokesman said that the agency has “expanded capacity” for testing foods for those herbicides this year.

While we may not yet know exactly how genetically modified foods affect our health, many of us have taken the preemptive steps to avoid them in our diet. We’ve learned from the negative effects of pesticides and antibiotics on our bodies, so we know better than to trust the medical assessments of big ag experiments. Besides, why would we tempt fate when we know for sure that organic, non-GMO vegetables (still readily available) won’t cause such issues?

The good news is that, despite all the press on GMOs, there aren’t a lot of crops that are actually genetically modified. The bad news is that, for people who eat a lot of processed food, those few crops are in a huge percentage of food products (as opposed to whole food).

Unfortunately, the U.S. government elected not to legally obligate manufacturers to label our foods when they have GMOs in them. Well, when others won’t take responsibility for what they are doing, when the authorities drop the ball, the onus falls on us to avoid becoming the victims of their misdeeds. We know what foods to avoid:

In 2018, we are witnessing an intensification in consumer investment in organic and natural foods, the result of a momentum in both consumer and industry engagement.

Since 1996, The Hartman Group has documented the evolving organic and natural marketplace through the food culture lens. This report, Organic & Natural 2018, extends previous work on consumer aspirations,

attitudes, and behaviors related to organic and natural food and the transformation occurring in today’s marketplace.

In 2018, we are witnessing an intensification in consumer investment in organic and natural foods, the result of a momentum in both consumer and industry engagement.

Organic and natural product versions have become available in more brands, categories, retailers, and restaurants, appearing at compressed price premiums. Consumers are trying more, buying more, and strengthening their positive beliefs about organic and natural foods.

Consumer awareness and concern around GMOs has intensified. Here’s a sampling of the pros and cons of GMOs from the consumer’s perspective in response to this question: Is AVOIDING genetically modified foods (GMOs) and ingredients important to you?.

Resources:

Report: Organic & Natural 2018