Whole Foods will label non-GMO private label products + Tillamook editorials

[Guest guest]

" News Update from The Campaign " <newsupdate

 

 

Whole Foods will label non-GMO private label products +

Tillamook editorials

 

 

Fri, 8 Apr 2005 08:15:38 -0700

 

 

 

News Update From The Campaign

----------------

 

 

 

Dear News Update Subscribers,

 

This week Whole Foods Market had their annual shareholders meeting.

There

was a shareholder motion to require Whole Foods to label their

private-label

products as non-GMO since they have removed genetically engineered

ingredients from these items.

 

The company had originally opposed the motion and it did fail to pass.

However, to the surprise of many, Whole Foods Chairman and Chief

Executive

Officer John Mackey then announced that the company would go ahead and

label

their private-label products non-GMO anyway.

 

We are very pleased by this decision of Whole Foods Market, the

nation's

largest natural foods grocery chain.

 

While many of the leading natural food brands already label their

products

with " No GMOs " or " Not Genetically Engineered " or " No Bioengineered

Ingredients, " etc., there are many that do not.

 

This new corporate policy of Whole Foods to label their private-label

products as non-GMO puts increased pressure on all natural food

manufacturers to move in this direction. And it raises overall

awareness

about the issue of genetically engineered foods with consumers.

 

Voluntary labeling of non-GMO products does not have the impact that

mandatory labeling will have on products that do contain GMOs. But this

is

definitely a step in the right direction.

 

Posted below are two articles and a press release from Trillium Asset

Management on this development at Whole Foods Market.

 

TILLAMOOK BATTLE OF THE EDITORIALS

 

We recently reported that Tillamook County Creamery had decided to

remove

rBGH, otherwise know as recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone, from their

products. However, they have indicated they will not label their

products as

non-GMO. Perhaps Tillamook will reconsider their decision to not label

their

products as non-GMO after they see the popularity of Whole Foods

Market's

decision to label their private-label products as non-GMO?

 

In addition to the three items posted below about Whole Foods Market, I

posted two follow-up opinion editorial articles about the Tillamook

decision

to go non-GMO.

 

Both opinion articles ran in The Oregonian. The first opinion editorial

(posted last below) is titled " Contriving a controversy concerning

Tillamook's milk. " This opinion piece was written by Alex Avery and

Terry

Witt. These two people are both very pro-biotech. Alex Avery's father

is

Dennis Avery who actually wrote a book titled " Saving the Planet With

Pesticides and Plastic. "

 

The brilliant response to the Alex Avery article titled " Falsities,

half-truths and

smears marred essay on Tillamook milk " was written by Rick North of

Oregon

Physicians for Social Responsibility. Rick heads up their Campaign for

Safe

Food and was very instrumental in getting Tillamook to discontinue

using

milk from cows that are injected with rBGH.

 

I encourage all of you to read Rick North's response to Alex Avery

article.

Not only does it point out the misinformation in Avery's article, it

reminds

us of the value and power of grassroots activism. Great job, Rick!

 

Craig Winters

President

The Campaign

PO Box 55699

Seattle, WA 98155

Tel: 425-771-4049

E-mail: label

Web Site: http://www.thecampaign.org

 

***************************************************************

 

Whole Foods will label non-GMO products

 

Natural Foods Merchandiser

Lisa Everitt

4/6/2005 7:22:45 PM

 

Whole Foods Market Inc. will identify its private-label products as

containing no genetically modified organisms, the company said.

 

The initiative was announced at Whole Foods' annual shareholders'

meeting

April 4 in New York.

 

A coalition of six socially responsible investment firms had placed on

the

annual meeting proxy ballot a motion to require Whole Foods to label

GMOs in

the house-branded products it sells. The firms, which together own $21

million in Whole Foods shares, said adding the label statement would

leverage Whole Foods' clout with both manufacturers and consumers to

raise

awareness of the issue.

 

Beth Williamson, a shareholder advocate with Green Century Capital

Management in Boston, said this year's ballot measure was a rehash of

an

initiative originally brought to Whole Foods' shareholders in 2002 by

Trillium Asset Management. After that measure failed to win approval,

Whole

Foods agreed informally to source " GE-avoidant " ingredients and tag its

private-label products accordingly, but did not follow through, she

said.

 

While this week's proxy measure failed, Whole Foods Chairman and Chief

Executive Officer John Mackey said the company intends to move forward

on a

review of the ingredients in its private-label products. Mackey did not

give

a timeline for the changes.

 

" He was very adamant that this was something his leadership team had

decided

on, " said Williamson, who said she talked to Mackey after the meeting.

 

Whole Foods does not give interviews to the trade press.

 

But the supermarket's Web site said, " Our goal at Whole Foods Market is

for

all our own company branded products to be created from non-genetically

engineered ingredients and processes. . Whole Foods Market will label

any

Whole Foods Market branded products that are verified to be created

only

from non-genetically engineered ingredients and processes. "

 

Whole Foods brand certified organic products, which must be GMO-free to

earn

certification, will all be labeled as non-GMO, the company said.

 

Another Texas grocer, H-E-B's Central Market, has begun labeling its

house-brand products as GE-free, Williamson said.

 

***************************************************************

 

Whole Foods agrees to beef up labeling

Tuesday, April 05, 2005

Austin Business Journal

A coalition of shareholders is applauding Whole Foods Market Inc.'s

adoption

of a policy to mark its private-label foods to indicate they aren't

made

with genetically altered seeds.

 

Whole Foods' board of directors authorized the policy Monday during the

company's annual shareholders meeting in New York City. The action was

prompted by a resolution from company stockholders.

 

In 2001, Whole Foods (Nasdaq: WFMI) said ingredients for its

private-label

brands would come only from seeds that aren't genetically engineered.

The

natural and organic foods retailer is based in Austin.

 

However, that information hasn't been printed on product labels or

packaging. That spurred a group of Whole Foods shareholders to begin

pressing for more explicit labeling.

 

" Whole Foods customers are exactly the demographic that wants to see

this

information on product labels, and we're confident that this additional

information will enhance sales, " says Shelley Alpern, director of

social

research and advocacy at Trillium Asset Management Corp., a " socially

responsible " investment firm that spearheaded the proposal.

 

The shareholder group that filed the proposal also included Portfolio

21,

Progressive Investment Management, Green Century Capital Management,

the

General Board of Pensions and Health Benefits of the United Methodist

Church, and Jennifer Clark of Austin. Their combined holdings in Whole

Foods

total more than 200,000 shares.

 

According to the proponents, Whole Foods Chairman and CEO John Mackey

said

in announcing the change: " If Whole Foods doesn't do this, who will? "

 

Noting the potential for legal challenges regarding the new labeling,

Mackey

said they would be " worth fighting, " according to the advocates.

 

Whole Foods hasn't specified a timetable for the new labeling.

 

***************************************************************

 

Whole Foods to Label on Genetically Engineered Foods

At the prompting of a shareholder proposal, Whole Foods announced at

its

annual stockholder meeting yesterday that it would add language to its

private label products indicating that they are sourced from

non-genetically

engineered seed.

 

April 5 2005

Trillium Asset Management Corporation

 

WHOLE FOODS SHAREHOLDERS APPLAUD COMPANY'S NEW POLICY TO LABEL ON

GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS

 

Prompted by a shareholder resolution, Whole Foods Market (NASDAQ: WFMI)

announced yesterday a new policy of labeling its private label foods to

indicate that they are not sourced from genetically engineered seed.

 

The proponents of shareholder proposal congratulated the company

yesterday.

The resolution called for labeling of Whole Foods' private label

products

with respect of genetically engineered ingredients. The change was

announced

at Whole Foods' annual stockholder meeting in New York City.

 

In October 2001, Whole Foods and Wild Oats (NASDAQ: OATS)

simultaneously

announced that their private label brands' ingredients would be sourced

exclusively from non-genetically engineered seed. This information has

not

been conveyed on product labels or packaging, however, where consumers

are

most likely to seek information about ingredients. This prompted a

group of

Whole Foods shareholders to begin pressing for explicit product labels

that

state that genetically engineered foods were deliberately avoided.

 

" We are enormously pleased with this development and applaud Whole

Foods for

continuing to take leadership on the issue of genetically engineered

foods, "

said Shelley Alpern, Director of Social Research & Advocacy at Trillium

Asset Management, the proposal's lead proponent. " Whole Foods customers

are

exactly the demographic that wants to see this information on product

labels, and we're confident that this additional information will

enhance

sales. "

 

The shareholder group that filed the proposal included Portfolio 21,

Progressive Investment Management, Green Century Capital Management,

the

General Board of Pensions and Health Benefits of the United Methodist

Church, and Jennifer Clark of Austin, Texas. Their combined holdings in

Whole Foods are over 200,000 shares currently worth $20.3 million.

 

In announcing the change, CEO John Mackey asked, " If Whole Foods

doesn't do

this, who will? " Noting the possibility that labeling could invite

legal

actions, Mackey stated that they would be " worth fighting. " The

uncertainty

stems from the Food & Drug Administration's failure to provide final

guidelines for labels on genetically engineered foods. The shareholders

had

argued, however, that careful and accurate wording on Whole Foods' part

could insulate the company from legal action.

 

The shareholder proponents were overwhelmingly positive in their

reactions

to the policy change.

 

Indigo Teiwes of Progressive Investment Management stated, " Improving

transparency, increasing consumer education, and realizing the full

benefit

of the company's market advantage resulting from this decision is a

strategic business move. Given increasing consumer concerns about

genetically engineered foods, Whole Foods is taking advantage of a

natural

opportunity to enhance its market share. "

 

" As an industry leader, whose growth is driven by increasing consumer

concern of the purity and safety of food, Whole Foods deserves to be

celebrated for its commitment to bringing the topic of genetic

engineering

to the forefront, " said Beth Williamson Green Century Capital

Management.

 

Vidette Bullock Mixon of the General Board of Pension and Health

Benefits

The United Methodist Church commended Whole Foods for its commitment to

identify genetically engineered ingredients in its products. " This

action

is consistent with the Social Principles of the Church, which affirm

the

public's right to be informed about the content of the foods they are

eating. "

 

The Center for Rural Affairs released a statement that read, " It's our

hope

that this will bring new opportunities to family farmers in niche

markets

for non-GMO crops. We applaud Whole Foods for taking another step to

provide opportunities for America's family farmers. "

 

Whole Foods did not specify a timeframe for the changes. The company

stated

that additional information and updates would be available on its web

site.

 

####

 

CONTACT:

Shelley Alpern, Trillium Asset Management, 617.970.8944

Beth Williamson, Green Century Capital Management, 617.426.2503

 

***************************************************************

 

NOTICE: THIS GREAT OPINION PIECE WAS WRITTEN IN RESPONSE TO THE

PRO-BIOTECH

ARTICLE POSTED BELOW IT

 

Falsities, half-truths and smears marred essay on Tillamook milk

Thursday, March 31, 2005

 

IN MY OPINION Rick North and Dr. Martin Donohoe

 

A recent op-ed piece by Alex Avery and Terry Witt ( " Contriving a

controversy

concerning Tillamook's milk, " March 25) questioned the legitimacy of

Oregon

Physicians for Social Responsibility's campaign to discontinue

recombinant

bovine growth hormone -- rBGH or rBST -- in dairy products.

 

Our organization, which prides itself on sound science, has intensively

researched the scientific data and historical/political information on

rBGH.

 

We discovered a deeply disturbing web of undue corporate influence in

the

Food and Drug Administration, where several of the agency's own

scientists

questioned the validity of the data and safety of rBGH. We learned why

rBGH

has been banned in most industrialized nations of the world and we saw

how

Monsanto, rBGH's sole manufacturer, intimidated many who opposed it.

 

Last week's op-ed was more than an attempt to silence the continuing

controversy about the safety of this drug. It was an assault on citizen

participation in democracy, on activism itself.

 

Our dictionary defines an activist as someone who takes " positive,

direct

action to achieve an end. " In the past few years, the meaning of this

word

has been turned on its head to imply a negative, self-serving person.

The

prevailing definition disparages citizens who question corporate power

or

official government policy. It's illuminating to track those people

criticizing activism and recognize their tactics.

 

One such tactic is the half-truth. Their op-ed gave the impression that

our

campaign had targeted Tillamook County Creamery with thousands of

complaints

and was wholly responsible for its decision. Actually, Tillamook had

received comments about rBGH and had begun discussions about banning it

before our campaign had even started. In the past year, we have asked

consumers to urge Tillamook and other dairies to stop using the

hormone.

However, the thousands of comments we helped generate in the 10 days

leading

up to the membership vote were thanking Tillamook for its previous

rBGH-free

decision.

 

The op-ed also contained numerous totally false statements. One

example:

rBGH doesn't harm cows? Monsanto's own package insert lists more than a

dozen harmful medical conditions that rBGH increases, including painful

mastitis, foot disorders and reduced pregnancy rates. It's no wonder

both

the Humane Society of the United States and the Humane Farming

Association

have condemned rBGH.

 

Monsanto has funded, directly or indirectly, both Avery's Hudson

Institute

and Witt's Oregonians for Food and Shelter. In fact, Monsanto has a

representative sitting on the board of Witt's group.

 

Activists are more than just watchdogs. They have produced some of this

nation's greatest accomplishments. Without them, 10-year-old children

would

still be working 12 hours a day in coal mines and sweatshops. Blacks

would

still be barred from schools, hotels and swimming pools. Women would

still

be denied the right to vote. In Oregon, activist William Steel

spearheaded a

17-year struggle that led to the creation in 1902 of Crater Lake

National

Park. Activist Richard Chambers led the three-year battle for the 1971

Bottle Bill that became a nationwide model.

 

It is the right and responsibility of citizens to question government

policy

and challenge abuses of corporate power. When activism is attacked or

neglected, democracy itself is in peril.

 

Avery and Witt got one thing right -- we are activists. And we're proud

of

it.

 

Rick North of Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility is project

director for its Campaign for Safe Food. Dr. Martin Donohoe, a

physician, is

the campaign's chief science adviser.

 

***************************************************************

 

NOTICE: THIS ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN BY PRO-BIOTECH SUPPORTERS

 

Contriving a controversy concerning Tillamook's milk

Friday, March 25, 2005

 

ALEX AVERY and TERRY WITT

 

Oregon has witnessed a prime-time assault by activist wolves in

consumer

clothes, with the Tillamook County Creamery Association, one of the

state's

best food ambassadors, as the victim. While private groups or companies

should, of course, have the right to respond to their customers'

concerns as

they see fit, there is plenty of evidence that the recent Tillamook

controversy was contrived.

 

At issue was the use of recombinant bovine somatotropin -- or rbST --

the

FDA-approved cow productivity supplement. Tillamook says it received

" thousands " of complaints from " concerned consumers " demanding its

farmers

stop using rbST.

 

Sold by Monsanto Co. and marketed as Posilac, rbST is a genetically

engineered carbon copy of a cow's natural milk-production hormone, bST.

Farmers use it because it helps increase milk production without

additional

feed, water and associated animal wastes. The supplement also cuts

costs,

important for many family farmers in today's tight market.

 

Sadly, activists have been attacking rbST for more than a decade,

alleging a

range of human health and animal welfare scares. But that's all they

are,

scares.

 

Using rbST doesn't change the milk one bit. So say the scientists with

the

Food and Drug Administration. All cows produce bST naturally, and the

milk

from supplemented cows is indistinguishable from milk from

non-supplemented

cows. The urban myth that your daughter will go into puberty at the age

of 8

by drinking milk from supplemented cows is just that, a myth.

 

Another baseless scare is that rbST harms cows. The scientific, animal

welfare and medical evidence supporting the use of this product is

overwhelming and comprehensive, explaining why the FDA approved rbST

more

than 10 years ago.

 

Having failed to hoodwink the FDA, anti-biotech activists have switched

to

directly attacking companies. Over the past year, the Tillamook

Creamery,

the second largest cheese producer in the United States, has been the

target. Rick North of Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility led

the

campaign. With the help of an army of fellow activists -- many backed

by

organic food companies -- they inundated Tillamook with so-called

" consumer

complaints. "

 

It worked. Hours after Tillamook caved, North sent out an e-mail

bragging

about their newest victim. Anyone can verify all of this with a simple

Web

search under the terms " Tillamook, " " rbST " and " action alert. "

 

North wrote, " If ever there was a demonstration that this genetically

engineered hormone has nothing to offer but increased disease rates in

cows

and health risks to consumers, this was it. " Isn't it interesting that

these

activists believe a few thousand fear-driven complaints are " proof " of

disease and health risks that years of actual scientific research have

failed to identify?

 

North even admitted that his group never really cared about which way

the

Tillamook vote went, writing: " It's funny. But regarding what Oregon

PSR

will do now, it really didn't make any difference which way Tillamook

voted.

We'll just keep developing our grass roots efforts and continue to

educate

the public so they can make well-informed decisions about buying dairy

products. In many ways, we're just getting started. "

 

The vast majority of consumers care about fresh, safe, nutritious,

affordable dairy products. Without prompting, consumers rarely, if

ever,

mention farm production issues such as rbST -- unless they are the

target of

a fear-based propaganda campaign.

 

As long as companies allow themselves to be coerced by social

activists,

their demands will continue.

 

Alex Avery is director of research at the Hudson Institute's Center for

Global Food Issues in Churchville, Va. Terry Witt is executive director

of

Oregonians for Food and Shelter in Salem

 

 

 

--------------------