The Sweetener Story: It's Not Which Type, But How Much
CRA
While Prop 37 did not pass, the failure to disclose the presence of GMOs in foods that are marketed as ‘natural’ is still generating a steady stream of civil litigation, with Goldfish Crackers the latest brand to be targeted in a class action lawsuit over genetically engineered ingredients.
In a complaint filed in a US district court in Colorado last week, plaintiff Sonya Bolerjack alleged that Pepperidge Farm (owned by Campbell Soup) had “mistakenly or misleadingly represented that its Cheddar Goldfish crackers are ‘Natural’ when in fact, they are not, because they contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the form of soy and/or soy derivatives.”
Bolerjack, who is represented by law firm Howard w. Rubinstein, alleges that “genetically modified soy products contain genes and/or DNA that would not normally be in them, and are thus not natural.”
Seeking to represent a nationwide class of consumers who purchased the crackers since November 2008, Bolerjack alleges violation of Colorado’s Consumer Protection Act, breach of express warranty and negligent misrepresentation, and seeks damages and a jury trial.
A spokeswoman for Pepperidge Farm told FoodNavigator-USA: "We don't comment on the specifics of pending litigation but we are confident in the accuracy of our labels and stand behind our products."
Attorney: I would still expect enterprising plaintiff lawyers to bring lawsuits for all-natural claims made with GMO ingredients
Justin Prochnow, an attorney in the Denver office of law firm Greenberg Traurig, said the action proved that food companies remained vulnerable to lawsuits over the use of GMOs, regardless of the defeat of Californian GMO labelling initiative Proposition 37 .
He added: "I am sure the close margin will only encourage proponents to renew efforts next go-around, perhaps with some changes to the private right of action provisions which seem to be the real sticking point for many opponents.
"Lest you think that issue is tabled for now, I would still expect enterprising plaintiff lawyers to bring lawsuits for all-natural claims made with GMO ingredients."
NPA: Having a patchwork of different state laws on GMO labeling is not in industry's best interests
Indeed, few industry sources FoodNavigator-USA spoke to at the Supply Side West trade show last week expect the GMO labeling issue to go away, with several predicting more copy-cat proposals in other states.
Speaking at an election special session at the show last Thursday, Natural Products Association president John Shaw said this would be bad news, adding: "Having a patchwork of different state laws that address the GMO issue is not in the industry's best interests."
Should such a scenario emerge, a federal solution may have to be developed in order to ensure that labeling is consistent across all states and that some of the problematic aspects of Prop 37 are addressed such as the 'natural' definition and the bounty hunter clauses, added Council for Responsible Nutrition government relations VP Mike Greene.
Just Label It: Federal GE foods labeling must now be the focus
Meanwhile, Proposition 37 backers including Food Democracy Now, Green America, Institute for Responsible Technology, Foodbabe, Nature's Path and Nutiva have vowed to renew efforts to force food companies to label products containing genetically engineered ingredients with a new ‘GMO inside’ initiative.
Consumer advocacy groups are also collecting signatures for a GMO labeling measure on Washington’s 2013 ballot, and say they will continue to urge the Food and Drug Administration to take action at a federal level.
Just Label It Campaign Director David Bancroft said: “Federal GE foods labeling must now be the focus.”
Prop 37 supporters back new ‘GMO inside’
Alisa Gravitz, CEO of Green America , added: "Corporations may have misled voters in California about GMOs, but they can't change the fact that over 90% of Americans support the labeling of foods with genetically engineered ingredients.
"The GMO Inside campaign will make it possible for all Americans to find GMOs in the food products in their homes and communities, label them, and switch to non-GMO foods instead."
John W. Roulac, CEO and founder of organic superfood brand Nutiva , said: "GMO Inside was created to catapult the energy from the fight for Prop 37 to the next level."
Sambazon: We’ll continue to fight for the right of Americans to know what is in our food
Ryan Black, CEO of Californian organic juices and supplements maker Sambazon , told FoodNavigator-USA: “It’s a major disappointment that Prop 37 didn’t pass, but the fight for food label transparency isn’t over."
He added: “The Yes on 37 campaign was unfortunately outspent by huge agri-business conglomerates and corporations that launched an onslaught of misleading advertising.
“However, it was inspiring to see so many industry leaders unite to stir grassroots support for food label transparency… We’ll continue to fight for the fundamental right of all Americans to know what is in our food.”
Click here to read more about the Prop 37 vote.
17 comments (Comments are now closed)
WRONG Mike
You are wrong on just about every point you made Mike. First the poll was 93% want GMO labeling. Not banning of GMO, just labeled. You can see the poll results here by ABC: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97567&page=1#.UK1HMMXO3Cc
The reason the vote was NO, was because of the 46 million dollars spent by agri-business scaring uninformed voters by stretching the truth on certain issues and the policing of small business and being able to bring lawsuits for violators. This is NOT the GMO issue, it is more the way the proposition was written. Several recent studies have shown that GMO's cause tumors and sterility in rats. Not little tumors, massive and numerous tumors. Another study found the poison implanted into GMO to deter pests in fetuses of pregnant women. Excuse me, why is everyone not alarmed by all this?
It is also true that most countries Ban or require labeling of GMO's. I can't say every, but I can say every large country but us does. Europe doesn't even allow it to be grown or sold there. Personally, I WANT to know what is in the food I eat and feed my children and if it has been genetically modified, I want it right in front of me so I can put it back on the shelf!
Report abuse
Posted by Mary Lee
21 November 2012 | 22h38
Response
EVERY OTHER NATION bans or requires labeling of GMO ingredients. I doubt that very much.
One quote has the 'Yes for Prop 37' saying 90% of Americans want GMO labeling. Wow, that is quite the favorable percentage. I highly question that number. If that many, why did Prop 37 fail. And don't use the excuse of big business spreading false information. If 90% say they want it, Prop 37 should have passed with a breeze.
Hey Jesse, because GMO is not labeled means that people don't know what it is? They can't do thier research without it on the label. What makes you think they will if it is on the label? I guess the pro Prop 37 group did not do a very good job in educating those in California.
As for ice cream 'having' to put nutrition labeling on thier container cause it informs us of how bad it is? In case you have not noticed, all food packages display nutrition panels and have since 1993. Ice cream is not bad for you, unless you decide to eat a whole carton in one sitting.
I read one article that stated that GMO will no doubt someday be added to labeling. I agree, someday it will. Whether I feel it needs to be is another matter.
Report abuse
Posted by Mike
19 November 2012 | 13h47
Shills for GMO and GE foods still replicating! Yes on 37 ballots still being counted!
Thanks to recently improving cloning, GMO and GE techniques, formerly "Natural" or "All Natural" and increasingly toxic persons of lower-than-average intelligence (and willing to work covertly, overtly and on the cheap for less-than-helpful-corporate-bottom-line-versus-human-health-and-well-being causes) are popping up everywhere, including in comment sites like this... Vote are still being counted in California, apparently with enough of them out there to re-"flip" this back to a YES on 37 success.
Report abuse
Posted by peter white
17 November 2012 | 20h52
Hey "Cracker Lawsuit"
I guess you haven't done your research regarding the fact that EVERY OTHER NATION either bands GMOs all together, or REQUIRES STRICT LABELING due to the distressing findings during lab tests. I'm not saying "science" is a bad thing, but choosing to make a quick buck over public safety... well that I have a problem with.
Report abuse
Posted by Connie
16 November 2012 | 00h55
The Right About Commonsense
Many want to state "If you don't want to purchase GMO's then don't, etc....." The FACT of the matter is many are NOT aware of the dangers of consuming GMO's and people NEED to know and have a RIGHT to know. If you disagree then YOU go right ahead and continue eating Genetically Engineered food. But we will continue to fight and help ensure the food companies are held accountable for PROPER labeling PERIOD
Report abuse
Posted by Shelia
16 November 2012 | 00h03
Wouldn't it be great...
Wouldn't it be great if manufacturers that don't use GMO's would just start labeling? Maybe if they knew we would purchase their products over those that aren't labeled they would! It's a start anyway! Vote with your dollars!
Report abuse
Posted by Cynkay
15 November 2012 | 23h20
Good!!!! Cause they are lying to the public
You can't say a product is Natural when it is not and secondly most people don't know what a GMO is cause we CAN'T LABEL THEM GMO products. It's all about informing people. Ice cream has to put the nutrition facts on their container cause it informs us "how bad it is" but we all know it's bad for us. Labeling gets the public to start investigating what a GMO is and that's something the junk food companies / bread companies don't want. Look up on youtube a film called David vs Monsanto.
Report abuse
Posted by Jesse
15 November 2012 | 23h09
Change the Lawsuit Part
If you take the meaty bone away from trial lawyers and resubmit this bill, you will get an overwhelming yes response in the ballot box.
Report abuse
Posted by jsusnme
15 November 2012 | 22h58
Laurel
This is the part I do not understand with all this. You all already have the FREE CHOICE you so desperately want. It is called organic. Anything else assume it contains GMO.
If you don't like products being label natural or something similar because you assume it is made with GMO ingredients, why do you care? You are consuming organic.
Report abuse
Posted by Mike
13 November 2012 | 21h26
Cracker Lawsuit
Golly, gee, another lawsuit over the possible use of GMO ingredients being labeled natural. How do you know this? Did you test it or are you assuming it? And people have evidently been harmed by this since 2008? If this has not been tested, then this is a good example of one of those lawsuits listed in Prop 37 that you don't actually have to prove actual harm or distress.
Prop 37 failed because people finally figured out it was more than just 'add it to the label'.
For Charles below, you hit it on the head. People do not realize how science has made our lives easier.
As for the lawsuit above, I am guessing that Sonya has to pay for another trip to some island getaway or those student loans she defaulted on.
There was one comment in the article that I agree with, the federal agencies need to step forward and create labeling laws that make sense. Otherwise, we are going to be swamped with more of these lawsuits which really do nothing more than raise the cost of producing goods.
Report abuse
Posted by Mike
13 November 2012 | 20h50
Would anyone think Goldfish-shaped crackers were natural?
Would anyone think Goldfish-shaped crackers were natural?
Report abuse
Posted by Andy
13 November 2012 | 17h21
There's More To Consider...
We should remember that were there is gmo soy, there is RoundUp. Not only does RoundUp choke the nutrients out of weeds, and subsequently the crop itself, it has created a micro organism never before seen in science. This organism appears to be responsible for infertility and spontaneous abortions in animals that eat the crops. And we eat the crops and the animals. Google "Don Huber" and read his letters to USDA head Vilsack. Seriously folks, this isn't just all about "natural".
Report abuse
Posted by Lori
13 November 2012 | 17h10
gmo is NOT natural
simply, to get patents they say the GMO food is NEW and NOVEL and unlike anything nature produces.
so if they want to say that to get a patent, it wipes out claims of natural.
and I dont see nature producing Bt in every cell of a plant or RR or 24D resistance till it was soaked and mutated as so many weeds now have done.
the agribiz spent multimillions and misrepresented a lot, to try and push their agnda yet again,
what about the UNcounted votes?
stinks as does ALL GMO crop products.
we dont want no stinking GMOs :-)
and we want ALL GM containing products labelled so we have FREE CHOICE to purchase or NOT!
Report abuse
Posted by Laurel
13 November 2012 | 15h52
"I told you so" - the newest food industry whine?
No matter what we, the people, want or try to do to protect our interests, the industry apologists will find fault. "It's not about protecting human health, it;s all about getting rich from lawsuits". Really?
The food apologists' criticism is all about protecting economic growth at any cost whatsoever. It's not about reality, truth or protecting the public or environmental safety.
Yes, the public will continue to sue, because it's the only means we have at our disposal to potentially protect ourselves and force change to safeguard the environment. If the states have to change one by one and that causes the food industry headaches, so be it. If they don't like this, how could they avoid being tied in knots? Oh, what about - I don't know - maybe uniform, truthful GMO labeling? Has anybody thought of that?
Report abuse
Posted by Jennifer Christiano
12 November 2012 | 23h27
What's natural anyway?
I wouldn't have voted for Prop 37, for any number of reasons, but I do have a pet peeve about the use of the word "natural". Unless and until it is rigorously defined, I'd love to see it banned from labels and, indeed, from advertising.
The word is routinely used to reassure us, but the reassurance is phony because natural and good are hardly the same thing.
I occasionally drink decaffeinated coffee. I'm told it's better for me, but it's not the way coffee is naturally. I like to bake bread, but the flour I use is milled. I use very little salt, but when I do use salt, it is iodized to help me avoid goiter. Milk is pasteurized to avoid bacterial contamination.
But for sure, if we decide that treating GMO food is automatically not natural, by any sane reasoning we would have to also consider not natural any food with novel genes. For example, bananas have fifty percent more chromosomes than wild bananas, which is why they don't have annoying seeds. Rio Red grapefruit have been mutated using gamma rays. I see in a garden catalog that you can buy a tree which will bear three different kinds of fruit.
If we don;t know what it means, natural on a label tells us nothing.
Report abuse
Posted by Charles M. Rader
12 November 2012 | 23h23
Wait--they aren't made from actual goldfish?
Holy crackers Batman! Let's get to the lawsuit mobile right away.
And y'all wonder why we didn't believe that Prop37 wasn't about lawsuits?
Sigh.
Report abuse
Posted by Mary
12 November 2012 | 21h15
Write a better bill next time!
Yes, the large campaign against Prop 37 certainly was a big factor in its defeat, but also involved was the poorly-written bill. My opinion about Prop 37 was formed long before either side started their dis-information campaigns. It was formed when I read the wording of the actual bill. The special exclusions, the fact that it tried to slip in a provision not related to GMO and the wording that would have inevitably resulted in large numbers of baseless lawsuits are what swayed me. Any future attempt at forcing GMO labeling should start with a well-written bill.
Report abuse
Posted by Mike
12 November 2012 | 16h32
Read all comments (17)