sustainablepulse--2020-07-30--New Report Shows Africa’s Green Revolution is “Failing On Its Own Terms”

Fourteen years ago , the Bill and Melinda Gates and Rockefeller foundations launched the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa ( AGRA ) with the goal of bringing Africa its own Green Revolution in agricultural productivity .
Armed with high-yield commercial seeds , fertilizers and pesticides , AGRA eventually set the goal to double productivity and incomes by 2020 for 30 million small-scale farming households while reducing food insecurity by half in 20 countries .
According to a new report from a broad-based civil society alliance , based partly on my new background paper , AGRA is “ failing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been no productivity surge .
Many climate-resilient , nutritious crops have been displaced by the expansion in supported crops such as maize .
Even where maize production has increased , incomes and food security have scarcely improved for AGRA ’ s supposed beneficiaries , small-scale farming households .
The number of undernourished in AGRA ’ s 13 focus countries has increased 30 % during the organization ’ s well-funded Green Revolution campaign .
“ The results of the study are devastating for AGRA and the prophets of the Green Revolution , ” says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung , which funded the research and on July 10 published “ False Promises : The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa ( AGRA ) .
” As I document in my background paper , “ Failing Africa ’ s Farmers : An Impact Assessment of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa , ” AGRA has received nearly $ 1 billion in contributions , the vast majority from the Gates Foundation but with significant contributions from donor governments , including from the United States , United Kingdom , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made over $ 500 million in grants to promote its vision of a “ modernized ” African agriculture freed from its limited technology and low yields .
The campaign has been fortified with large financial outlays by African governments , much of it in the form of subsidies to farmers to buy the seeds and fertilizers AGRA promotes .
These subsidy programs have been estimated to provide as much as $ 1 billion per year in direct support for such technology adoption .
AGRA has been controversial from the start .
Many farmers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the initiative , pointing to negative environmental and social impacts of the first Green Revolution in Asia and Latin America .
Since AGRA ’ s founding , scientists and world leaders have gained growing awareness of the limitations of input-intensive agricultural systems , particularly to mitigate and adapt to climate change .
The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2019 documented the many ways industrialized agriculture contributes to climate change , calling for profound changes to both mitigate and help farmers adapt to climate disruptions .
Surprisingly , as AGRA reaches its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has published no overall evaluation of the impacts of its programs on the number of smallholder households reached , the improvements in their yields and household incomes or their food security , nor does it make reference to its goals or progress in achieving them .
Neither has the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation , which has provided two-thirds of AGRA ’ s funding .
This lack of accountability represents a serious oversight problem for a program that has both consumed so much in the way of resources and driven the region ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of technology-driven , input-intensive agricultural development .
Our research seeks to fill that accountability gap .
Unfortunately , AGRA declined our request to provide data from its own internal monitoring and evaluation of progress .
In the absence of data on AGRA ’ s direct beneficiaries , we use national-level data from 13 AGRA countries through 2018 on production , yield and area harvested for most of the region ’ s important food crops to assess the extent to which Green Revolution programs are significantly raising productivity .
We also examine data on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are signs that smallholder farmers ’ incomes and food security are improving across the region at levels commensurate with AGRA ’ s goals of improved farmer welfare .
We found no evidence that productivity , incomes or food security were increasing significantly for smallholder households .
Specifically , we found : • Little evidence AGRA was reaching a significant number of farmers .
Its last progress report says only that AGRA had trained 5.3 million farmers in modern practices with “ 1.86 million farmers using ” such practices .
This is vague and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doubling productivity and incomes for seven million farmers directly and another 21 million indirectly .
• No evidence of significant increases in smallholder incomes or food security .
For AGRA countries as a whole , there has been a 30 % increase in the number of people suffering extreme hunger since AGRA began , a condition affecting 130 million people in AGRA countries .
Kenya , home to AGRA ’ s headquarters , saw an increase in the share of its people suffering undernourishment in the AGRA years .
• No evidence of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a whole , yields are up only 18 % over 12 years for AGRA ’ s 13 countries .
Even maize , heavily promoted by Green Revolution programs , showed just 29 % yield growth , well short of AGRA ’ s goal of doubling productivity , which would be a 100 % increase .
• Where technology adoption has taken place , input subsidies provided by African governments seem far more influential than AGRA ’ s programs .
It is difficult to find evidence that AGRA ’ s programs would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such large subsidies from African governments .
• Even where production increased , as in Zambia , a near-tripling of maize production did not result in reductions in rural poverty or hunger .
Small-scale farmers were not benefiting ; poverty and hunger remained staggeringly high with 78 % of rural Zambians in extreme poverty .
• Green Revolution incentives for priority crops such as maize drove land into maize and out of more nutritious and climate-resilient traditional crops such as millet and sorghum , eroding food security and nutrition for poor farmers .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ falling 21 % in the AGRA years .
• No signs of “ sustainable intensification , ” the goal of sustainably increasing production on existing farmland .
Environmental impacts are negative , including acidification of soils under monoculture cultivation with fossil-fuel-based fertilizers .
Production increases have come more from farmers bringing new land under cultivation — “ extensification ” — than from productivity increases .
Both trends have implications for climate change mitigation and adaptation .
Rwanda , widely considered an AGRA success story thanks to rising maize production and yields , illustrates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ improvements across staple crops have been weak , while the number of undernourished has increased 15 % in the AGRA years .
Rwanda ’ s former Agriculture Minister , Agnes Kalibata , now heads AGRA and was recently named to lead a planned U.N. World Food Summit in 2021 .
“ AGRA ’ s questionable approach can not provide the necessary impetus for the U.N .
Summit on Food Systems , ” says Stig Tanzmann , agricultural expert at Bread for the World and one of the report ’ s authors .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other low-cost , low-input approaches , which have shown far better short and long-term prospects than high-input Green Revolution practices .
One University of Essex study surveyed nearly 300 large ecological agriculture projects across more than 50 poor countries and documented an average 79 % increase in productivity with decreasing costs and rising incomes .
Such results far surpass AGRA ’ s .
“ In view of the results of the study , the German government must change course consistently and use agroecology and the human right to food as a compass for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bassermann , agricultural expert from the development organization INKOTA , a co-author of the report and one of the organizations asking the German government to withdraw from AGRA .
“ AGRA is a vicious circle that drives small-scale food producers further and further into poverty , destroying their natural resources , ” says Mutinta Nketani , an agricultural specialist from PELUM Zambia and author of the report ’ s case study on Zambia .
As the report makes clear , as AGRA reaches its 2020 deadline , it is time for African governments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The report recommends that : • Donor governments withdraw their funding from AGRA and shift it to programs that help smallholder farmers , particularly women , develop climate-resilient ecologically sustainable farming practices such as agroecology , which is increasingly recognized and supported by FAO and the international donor community .
• African governments withdraw from AGRA and other Green Revolution programs , including input-subsidy programs , and transition their agricultural development programs toward a more robust array of policies that respond to smallholder farmers ’ expressed needs .
As former FAO Director @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We need to promote a transformative change in the way that we produce and consume food .
We need to put forward sustainable food systems that offer healthy and nutritious food , and also preserve the environment .
Agroecology can offer several contributions to this process.
” The study “ False Promises : The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa ( AGRA ) ” can be downloaded here .
It is published by : Biba ( Kenya ) , Bread for the World ( Germany ) , FIAN Germany , Forum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , INKOTA ( Germany ) , IRPAD ( Mali ) , PELUM Zambia , Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung ( Germany and South Africa ) , Tabio ( Tanzania ) and TOAM ( Tanzania ) .
Timothy A.
Wise ’ s working paper , published by Tufts University ’ s Global Development and Environment Institute , is available here .

Fourteen years ago, the Bill and Melinda Gates and Rockefeller foundations launched the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) with the goal of bringing Africa its own Green Revolution in agricultural productivity. Armed with high-yield commercial seeds, fertilizers and pesticides, AGRA eventually set the goal to double productivity and incomes by 2020 for 30 million small-scale farming households while reducing food insecurity by half in 20 countries.
According to a new report from a broad-based civil society alliance, based partly on my new background paper, AGRA is “failing on its own terms.” There has been no productivity surge. Many climate-resilient, nutritious crops have been displaced by the expansion in supported crops such as maize. Even where maize production has increased, incomes and food security have scarcely improved for AGRA’s supposed beneficiaries, small-scale farming households. The number of undernourished in AGRA’s 13 focus countries has increased 30% during the organization’s well-funded Green Revolution campaign.
“The results of the study are devastating for AGRA and the prophets of the Green Revolution,” says Jan Urhahn, agricultural expert at the Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung, which funded the research and on July 10 published “False Promises: The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA).”
A Record of Failure
As I document in my background paper, “Failing Africa’s Farmers: An Impact Assessment of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa,” AGRA has received nearly $1 billion in contributions, the vast majority from the Gates Foundation but with significant contributions from donor governments, including from the United States, United Kingdom, Germany and other countries. AGRA has made over $500 million in grants to promote its vision of a “modernized” African agriculture freed from its limited technology and low yields. The campaign has been fortified with large financial outlays by African governments, much of it in the form of subsidies to farmers to buy the seeds and fertilizers AGRA promotes. These subsidy programs have been estimated to provide as much as $1 billion per year in direct support for such technology adoption.
AGRA has been controversial from the start. Many farmers’ groups on the continent actively opposed the initiative, pointing to negative environmental and social impacts of the first Green Revolution in Asia and Latin America. Since AGRA’s founding, scientists and world leaders have gained growing awareness of the limitations of input-intensive agricultural systems, particularly to mitigate and adapt to climate change. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2019 documented the many ways industrialized agriculture contributes to climate change, calling for profound changes to both mitigate and help farmers adapt to climate disruptions.
Surprisingly, as AGRA reaches its self-declared deadline of 2020, the organization has published no overall evaluation of the impacts of its programs on the number of smallholder households reached, the improvements in their yields and household incomes or their food security, nor does it make reference to its goals or progress in achieving them. Neither has the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has provided two-thirds of AGRA’s funding. This lack of accountability represents a serious oversight problem for a program that has both consumed so much in the way of resources and driven the region’s agricultural development policies with its narrative of technology-driven, input-intensive agricultural development.
Our research seeks to fill that accountability gap. Unfortunately, AGRA declined our request to provide data from its own internal monitoring and evaluation of progress. In the absence of data on AGRA’s direct beneficiaries, we use national-level data from 13 AGRA countries through 2018 on production, yield and area harvested for most of the region’s important food crops to assess the extent to which Green Revolution programs are significantly raising productivity. We also examine data on poverty and hunger to gauge whether there are signs that smallholder farmers’ incomes and food security are improving across the region at levels commensurate with AGRA’s goals of improved farmer welfare.
We found no evidence that productivity, incomes or food security were increasing significantly for smallholder households. Specifically, we found:
Little evidence AGRA was reaching a significant number of farmers. Its last progress report says only that AGRA had trained 5.3 million farmers in modern practices with “1.86 million farmers using” such practices. This is vague and far short of the stated goal of doubling productivity and incomes for seven million farmers directly and another 21 million indirectly.
No evidence of significant increases in smallholder incomes or food security. For AGRA countries as a whole, there has been a 30% increase in the number of people suffering extreme hunger since AGRA began, a condition affecting 130 million people in AGRA countries. Kenya, home to AGRA’s headquarters, saw an increase in the share of its people suffering undernourishment in the AGRA years.
No evidence of large productivity increases. For staple crops as a whole, yields are up only 18% over 12 years for AGRA’s 13 countries. Even maize, heavily promoted by Green Revolution programs, showed just 29% yield growth, well short of AGRA’s goal of doubling productivity, which would be a 100% increase.
Where technology adoption has taken place, input subsidies provided by African governments seem far more influential than AGRA’s programs. It is difficult to find evidence that AGRA’s programs would have any significant impacts in the absence of such large subsidies from African governments.
Even where production increased, as in Zambia, a near-tripling of maize production did not result in reductions in rural poverty or hunger. Small-scale farmers were not benefiting; poverty and hunger remained staggeringly high with 78% of rural Zambians in extreme poverty.
Green Revolution incentives for priority crops such as maize drove land into maize and out of more nutritious and climate-resilient traditional crops such as millet and sorghum, eroding food security and nutrition for poor farmers. Millet production declined 24% with yields falling 21% in the AGRA years.
No signs of “sustainable intensification,” the goal of sustainably increasing production on existing farmland. Environmental impacts are negative, including acidification of soils under monoculture cultivation with fossil-fuel-based fertilizers. Production increases have come more from farmers bringing new land under cultivation — “extensification” — than from productivity increases. Both trends have implications for climate change mitigation and adaptation.
Rwanda: “Africa’s Hungry Poster Child”
Rwanda, widely considered an AGRA success story thanks to rising maize production and yields, illustrates AGRA’s failings. Overall productivity improvements across staple crops have been weak, while the number of undernourished has increased 15% in the AGRA years. Rwanda’s former Agriculture Minister, Agnes Kalibata, now heads AGRA and was recently named to lead a planned U.N. World Food Summit in 2021.
“AGRA’s questionable approach cannot provide the necessary impetus for the U.N. Summit on Food Systems,” says Stig Tanzmann, agricultural expert at Bread for the World and one of the report’s authors.
That summit should instead actively consider agroecology and other low-cost, low-input approaches, which have shown far better short and long-term prospects than high-input Green Revolution practices. One University of Essex study surveyed nearly 300 large ecological agriculture projects across more than 50 poor countries and documented an average 79% increase in productivity with decreasing costs and rising incomes. Such results far surpass AGRA’s.
“In view of the results of the study, the German government must change course consistently and use agroecology and the human right to food as a compass for its policy,” according to Lena Bassermann, agricultural expert from the development organization INKOTA, a co-author of the report and one of the organizations asking the German government to withdraw from AGRA.
“AGRA is a vicious circle that drives small-scale food producers further and further into poverty, destroying their natural resources,” says Mutinta Nketani, an agricultural specialist from PELUM Zambia and author of the report’s case study on Zambia.
As the report makes clear, as AGRA reaches its 2020 deadline, it is time for African governments and the donor community to change course. The report recommends that:
Donor governments withdraw their funding from AGRA and shift it to programs that help smallholder farmers, particularly women, develop climate-resilient ecologically sustainable farming practices such as agroecology, which is increasingly recognized and supported by FAO and the international donor community.
African governments withdraw from AGRA and other Green Revolution programs, including input-subsidy programs, and transition their agricultural development programs toward a more robust array of policies that respond to smallholder farmers’ expressed needs.
As former FAO Director General Jose Graziano da Silva indicated, “We need to promote a transformative change in the way that we produce and consume food. We need to put forward sustainable food systems that offer healthy and nutritious food, and also preserve the environment. Agroecology can offer several contributions to this process.”
The study “False Promises: The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA)” can be downloaded here. It is published by: Biba (Kenya), Bread for the World (Germany), FIAN Germany, Forum on the Environment and Development (Germany), INKOTA (Germany), IRPAD (Mali), PELUM Zambia, Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung (Germany and South Africa), Tabio (Tanzania) and TOAM (Tanzania). Timothy A. Wise’s working paper, published by Tufts University’s Global Development and Environment Institute, is available here.
Pour lire en français, cliquez ici.


sustainablepulse--2020-07-30--Expert Groups Sue USDA over New Murky GMO Labeling Rules

The Center for Food Safety ( CFS ) has filed a lawsuit in a U.S. federal court against the U.S. Department of Agriculture ( USDA ) challenging the USDA ’ s new rules on GMO labeling of genetically engineered ( GE ) or GMO foods , which they now call “ bioengineered foods.
” The final regulations , issued in 2019 , include provisions which will leave the majority of GMO-derived foods unlabeled ; discriminate against tens of millions of Americans ; prohibit the use of the widely known terms “ GMO ” and “ GE ” ; and prohibit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
CFS is representing a coalition of food labeling nonprofits and retailers , including the Natural Grocers , operating 157 stores in 20 states , and Puget Consumers Co-op , the nation ’ s largest community-owned food market .
“ This case is about ensuring meaningful food labeling , the public ’ s right to know how their food is produced , and retailers ’ rights to provide it to them , ” said George Kimbrell , CFS legal director and counsel in the case .
“ The American public successfully won GE @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fight , but the Trump rules fall far short of what consumers reasonably expect and the law requires.
” CFS ’ s lawsuit makes a number of arguments .
First , the case challenges USDA ’ s unprecedented allowance of electronic or digital disclosure on packaging , also known as “ QR code ” or “ smartphone ” labeling , without requiring additional on-package labeling .
USDA allowed this despite Congress requiring the agency to first study whether digital disclosure would provide meaningful information to consumers .
In 2018 , CFS successfully sued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it showed conclusively that QR codes would fail .
But in this final rule USDA went ahead with it anyway .
“ Requiring a smartphone discriminates against at least 20 percent of the American adult population—primarily poor , elderly , rural , and minority populations—who have lower percentages of smartphone ownership , or live in areas in which grocery stores do not have internet bandwidth , ” said Caroline Gordon of Rural Vermont , a plaintiff in the case .
Especially during the current COVID-19 pandemic , many Americans are visiting grocery stores @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus and purchasing more items during each visit .
Requiring a shopper to scan every single item they purchase would not only place an undue burden on the shopper , but would increase a shopper ’ s exposure risk to a deadly virus .
Second , CFS is challenging USDA ’ s labeling language restrictions .
When on-package text is used , the rules limit it to only “ bioengineered , ” despite the law allowing use of similar terms .
But for 25 years , every aspect of the issue—science , policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GE ) or genetically modified ( GMO ) .
“ Retailers and shoppers have relied on the term GMO for more than a decade to identify and avoid GMO foods , ” said Mark Squire , co-founder of Good Earth Natural Foods , a plaintiff .
“ Banning the use of this term and replacing it with a term nobody has ever heard of is misleading and will create massive confusion in the marketplace.
” “ At Natural Grocers , we believe in meaningful transparency .
This means providing our shoppers with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ produced with genetic engineering , ” said Alan Lewis , Vice President Advocacy & Governmental Affairs of Natural Grocers , a plaintiff .
“ Our rights and those of our customers are damaged by the USDA ’ s unlawful bioengineered labeling rule.
” Third , the case challenges USDA ’ s severe restriction on which foods are covered and require disclosure .
The vast majority of GE foods ( by some estimates over 70 % ) are not whole foods , but highly processed foods with GE ingredients , like sodas and oils @ @ @ @ @ @ @ excluded these “ highly refined ” products , unless the GE material was “ detectable.
” “ A disclosure law that exempts 70 % of the foods it is supposed to disclose is not a meaningful disclosure law : it is a fraud and allows producers to keep their GMO ingredients secret , ” said Tara Cook Littman of Citizens for GMO Labeling , a plaintiff .
Fourth , the exclusive rules restrict retailers and producers from voluntarily providing more meaningful information to consumers , such as using the terms GE and GMO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ derived from bioengineering ” and only in certain circumstances .
The federal law preempted state disclosure laws that used the normal GE/GMO terms and properly required the labeling of all GE foods , so voluntary additional disclosure under the federal rules is imperative .
“ PCC believes that our members and shoppers have a right to transparency about the food they eat , and that retailers and manufacturers have a fundamental 1st Amendment right to provide truthful information to customers .
The USDA rules unlawfully restrict that protected speech and do not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consumers deserve , ” said Aimee Simpson , Director of Advocacy & Product Sustainability for PCC Community Markets , a plaintiff .
The lawsuit seeks to have the court declare the regulations unlawful and nullify them , and then return the issue to USDA with orders to fix the unlawful portions of the rules .
The 2019 rules implement a 2016 federal law that for the first time required the labeling of GE foods .
Congress passed the federal law after several states ( Vermont , Connecticut , Maine ) passed GE labeling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do the same .
The labeling is required to be implemented by food manufacturers in January 2022 .

The Center for Food Safety (CFS) has filed a lawsuit in a U.S. federal court against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) challenging the USDA’s new rules on GMO labeling of genetically engineered (GE) or GMO foods, which they now call “bioengineered foods.”
The final regulations, issued in 2019, include provisions which will leave the majority of GMO-derived foods unlabeled; discriminate against tens of millions of Americans; prohibit the use of the widely known terms “GMO” and “GE”; and prohibit retailers from providing more information to consumers. CFS is representing a coalition of food labeling nonprofits and retailers, including the Natural Grocers, operating 157 stores in 20 states, and Puget Consumers Co-op, the nation’s largest community-owned food market.
“This case is about ensuring meaningful food labeling, the public’s right to know how their food is produced, and retailers’ rights to provide it to them,” said George Kimbrell, CFS legal director and counsel in the case. “The American public successfully won GE food labeling after more than a two-decade fight, but the Trump rules fall far short of what consumers reasonably expect and the law requires.”
CFS’s lawsuit makes a number of arguments. First, the case challenges USDA’s unprecedented allowance of electronic or digital disclosure on packaging, also known as “QR code” or “smartphone” labeling, without requiring additional on-package labeling. USDA allowed this despite Congress requiring the agency to first study whether digital disclosure would provide meaningful information to consumers. In 2018, CFS successfully sued USDA to release the study, and it showed conclusively that QR codes would fail. But in this final rule USDA went ahead with it anyway.
“Requiring a smartphone discriminates against at least 20 percent of the American adult population—primarily poor, elderly, rural, and minority populations—who have lower percentages of smartphone ownership, or live in areas in which grocery stores do not have internet bandwidth,” said Caroline Gordon of Rural Vermont, a plaintiff in the case.
Especially during the current COVID-19 pandemic, many Americans are visiting grocery stores less frequently to avoid exposure to the virus and purchasing more items during each visit. Requiring a shopper to scan every single item they purchase would not only place an undue burden on the shopper, but would increase a shopper’s exposure risk to a deadly virus.
Second, CFS is challenging USDA’s labeling language restrictions. When on-package text is used, the rules limit it to only “bioengineered,” despite the law allowing use of similar terms. But for 25 years, every aspect of the issue—science, policy, and marketplace—has used genetically engineered (GE) or genetically modified (GMO).
“Retailers and shoppers have relied on the term GMO for more than a decade to identify and avoid GMO foods,” said Mark Squire, co-founder of Good Earth Natural Foods, a plaintiff. “Banning the use of this term and replacing it with a term nobody has ever heard of is misleading and will create massive confusion in the marketplace.”
“At Natural Grocers, we believe in meaningful transparency. This means providing our shoppers with the information they deserve and demand about foods produced with genetic engineering,” said Alan Lewis, Vice President Advocacy & Governmental Affairs of Natural Grocers, a plaintiff. “Our rights and those of our customers are damaged by the USDA’s unlawful bioengineered labeling rule.”
Third, the case challenges USDA’s severe restriction on which foods are covered and require disclosure. The vast majority of GE foods (by some estimates over 70%) are not whole foods, but highly processed foods with GE ingredients, like sodas and oils. Yet in the final rule USDA excluded these “highly refined” products, unless the GE material was “detectable.”
“A disclosure law that exempts 70% of the foods it is supposed to disclose is not a meaningful disclosure law: it is a fraud and allows producers to keep their GMO ingredients secret,” said Tara Cook Littman of Citizens for GMO Labeling, a plaintiff.
Fourth, the exclusive rules restrict retailers and producers from voluntarily providing more meaningful information to consumers, such as using the terms GE and GMO. The only voluntary labeling allowed is “derived from bioengineering” and only in certain circumstances. The federal law preempted state disclosure laws that used the normal GE/GMO terms and properly required the labeling of all GE foods, so voluntary additional disclosure under the federal rules is imperative.
“PCC believes that our members and shoppers have a right to transparency about the food they eat, and that retailers and manufacturers have a fundamental 1st Amendment right to provide truthful information to customers. The USDA rules unlawfully restrict that protected speech and do not provide the transparency on GMO foods that consumers deserve,” said Aimee Simpson, Director of Advocacy & Product Sustainability for PCC Community Markets, a plaintiff.
The lawsuit seeks to have the court declare the regulations unlawful and nullify them, and then return the issue to USDA with orders to fix the unlawful portions of the rules.
The 2019 rules implement a 2016 federal law that for the first time required the labeling of GE foods. Congress passed the federal law after several states (Vermont, Connecticut, Maine) passed GE labeling laws, with numerous other states poised to do the same. The labeling is required to be implemented by food manufacturers in January 2022.


sustainablepulse--2020-08-11--Glyphosate Levels in Children and Adults Drop Dramatically After One Week of Eating Organic

A peer-reviewed study published today in the journal Environmental Research found that levels of the pesticide glyphosate in participants ’ bodies dropped an average of 70 % after six days on an organic diet .
The study is one of the first to examine how an organic diet affects exposure to glyphosate , the active ingredient in Bayer ’ s weedkiller Roundup , the most widely used weedkiller worldwide .
It also indicates that for the general population , the food they eat is a primary way they are exposed to this pesticide .
The study , Organic Diet Intervention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Children and Adults , reaffirms previous research and , along with a companion study from 2019 , represents the most comprehensive scientific analysis showing that an organic diet rapidly and dramatically reduces exposure to toxic pesticides , including glyphosate , organophosphates , pyrethroids , neonicotinoids and 2,4-D. Organic farming prohibits the use of these and over 900 other toxic pesticides allowed in non-organic farming .
“ It ’ s striking that levels of this toxic pesticide dropped so dramatically after less than a week .
Given our results and related studies on how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we could expect to see similar reductions in glyphosate levels in most Americans if they switched to an organic diet , ” said study co-author Kendra Klein , PhD , senior staff scientist at Friends of the Earth .
“ That ’ s the good news .
The bad news is that most of us are eating glyphosate-laden food continuously , resulting in daily doses of the chemical from breakfast through dinner.
” While the study sample is small , the findings are statistically significant and offer important new data indicating more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Researchers found glyphosate in 100 percent of the participants , including children as young as four , and found that the average level of glyphosate in children was approximately five times higher than in adults .
Participants were four racially diverse families from Minneapolis , Minnesota ; Atlanta , Georgia ; Baltimore , Maryland ; and Oakland , California .
Urine samples were collected from parents and children eating their typical diet of conventional food for six days , and again during a controlled diet of all organic food for six days .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ study found a 77 % reduction in the main chemical that this pesticide breaks down to in our bodies , AMPA ( aminomethyl phosphonic acid ) .
Use of glyphosate skyrocketed after genetically engineered Roundup Ready ® corn , soy , canola and cotton were introduced in the 1990s , with the market dominated by Monsanto , which was acquired by Bayer in 2018 .
Glyphosate is also used extensively in school and park landscaping and home gardens .
While this study did not look at the health impacts of glyphosate , research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Roundup® to a range of health problems .
Glyphosate is classified as a probable human carcinogen by the World Health Organization and has been linked to high rates of kidney disease in farming communities and to shortened pregnancy in a cohort of women in the Midwest .
Other research has linked glyphosate and its formulations to endocrine disruption , DNA damage , decreased sperm function , disruption of the gut microbiome , and fatty liver disease .
In the environment , glyphosate has been linked to the decimation of Monarch butterfly populations and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court cases in 2019 linked plaintiffs ’ non-Hodgkin ’ s lymphoma to use of Roundup , resulting in over $ 180 million in punitive damages for Bayer .
This summer , Bayer negotiated a $ 10.9 billion settlement with an additional 95,000 cases , while 30,000 more are still pending .
Since the 1990s , the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has facilitated increased dietary exposure to glyphosate by raising the legal threshold for residues of glyphosate up to 300 times previous levels for certain foods .
The chemical is also increasingly being used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beans just before harvest to uniformly desiccate crops , a use that has been shown to lead to high levels of glyphosate residue on food .
“ We all have the right to food that is free of toxic pesticides , ” said Klein , “ but our federal regulatory system is broken and is not protecting us .
We urgently need our elected leaders to make healthy organic food the norm for everyone by passing policies that support farmers to shift from pesticide-intensive to organic farming.
” “ During the coronavirus pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have become ever more clear , ” said Sharyle Patton , Director of the Commonweal Biomonitoring Resources Center and co-author of the study .
“ Research shows that communities of color are at higher risk of serious complications and death from coronavirus as a result of already suffering from higher rates of diet-related diseases .
Now more than ever , we need public policies that ensure that all communities have access to healthy , organic food .
”

A peer-reviewed study published today in the journal Environmental Research found that levels of the pesticide glyphosate in participants’ bodies dropped an average of 70% after six days on an organic diet. The study is one of the first to examine how an organic diet affects exposure to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Bayer’s weedkiller Roundup, the most widely used weedkiller worldwide. It also indicates that for the general population, the food they eat is a primary way they are exposed to this pesticide.
The study, Organic Diet Intervention Significantly Reduces Urinary Glyphosate Levels in U.S. Children and Adults, reaffirms previous research and, along with a companion study from 2019, represents the most comprehensive scientific analysis showing that an organic diet rapidly and dramatically reduces exposure to toxic pesticides, including glyphosate, organophosphates, pyrethroids, neonicotinoids and 2,4-D. Organic farming prohibits the use of these and over 900 other toxic pesticides allowed in non-organic farming.
“It’s striking that levels of this toxic pesticide dropped so dramatically after less than a week. Given our results and related studies on how an organic diet rapidly reduces pesticide exposure, we could expect to see similar reductions in glyphosate levels in most Americans if they switched to an organic diet,” said study co-author Kendra Klein, PhD, senior staff scientist at Friends of the Earth. “That’s the good news. The bad news is that most of us are eating glyphosate-laden food continuously, resulting in daily doses of the chemical from breakfast through dinner.”
Glyphosate Box Glyphosate Residue Free Certification for Food Brands – Click Here Test Your Food and Water at Home for Glyphosate – Click Here Test Your Hair for Glyphosate and other Pesticides – Click Here to Find Our Your Long-Term Exposure
While the study sample is small, the findings are statistically significant and offer important new data indicating more widespread glyphosate exposure than previous studies. Researchers found glyphosate in 100 percent of the participants, including children as young as four, and found that the average level of glyphosate in children was approximately five times higher than in adults.
Participants were four racially diverse families from Minneapolis, Minnesota; Atlanta, Georgia; Baltimore, Maryland; and Oakland, California. Urine samples were collected from parents and children eating their typical diet of conventional food for six days, and again during a controlled diet of all organic food for six days. In addition to glyphosate reductions, the study found a 77% reduction in the main chemical that this pesticide breaks down to in our bodies, AMPA (aminomethyl phosphonic acid).
Use of glyphosate skyrocketed after genetically engineered Roundup Ready ® corn, soy, canola and cotton were introduced in the 1990s, with the market dominated by Monsanto, which was acquired by Bayer in 2018. Glyphosate is also used extensively in school and park landscaping and home gardens.
While this study did not look at the health impacts of glyphosate, research has linked the chemical and formulations like Roundup® to a range of health problems. Glyphosate is classified as a probable human carcinogen by the World Health Organization and has been linked to high rates of kidney disease in farming communities and to shortened pregnancy in a cohort of women in the Midwest. Other research has linked glyphosate and its formulations to endocrine disruption, DNA damage, decreased sperm function, disruption of the gut microbiome, and fatty liver disease. In the environment, glyphosate has been linked to the decimation of Monarch butterfly populations and bee declines.
A series of high-profile court cases in 2019 linked plaintiffs’ non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma to use of Roundup, resulting in over $180 million in punitive damages for Bayer. This summer, Bayer negotiated a $10.9 billion settlement with an additional 95,000 cases, while 30,000 more are still pending.
Since the 1990s, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has facilitated increased dietary exposure to glyphosate by raising the legal threshold for residues of glyphosate up to 300 times previous levels for certain foods. The chemical is also increasingly being used on foods like wheat, oats and beans just before harvest to uniformly desiccate crops, a use that has been shown to lead to high levels of glyphosate residue on food.
“We all have the right to food that is free of toxic pesticides,” said Klein, “but our federal regulatory system is broken and is not protecting us. We urgently need our elected leaders to make healthy organic food the norm for everyone by passing policies that support farmers to shift from pesticide-intensive to organic farming.”
“During the coronavirus pandemic, the inequities of our food system have become ever more clear,” said Sharyle Patton, Director of the Commonweal Biomonitoring Resources Center and co-author of the study. “Research shows that communities of color are at higher risk of serious complications and death from coronavirus as a result of already suffering from higher rates of diet-related diseases. Now more than ever, we need public policies that ensure that all communities have access to healthy, organic food.”


sustainablepulse--2020-08-15--Argentinian City Discovers Strong Link Between Glyphosate Exposure and Asthma

A new study from Argentina , which used the methodological criteria of the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood ( ISAAC ) , has identified a relationship between environmental and residential exposure to glyphosate and the high prevalence of asthma in the small city of Monte Maíz in Argentina .
This study has a very unusual story , as it was started at the request of a group of citizens , led by the Mayor of Monte Maíz , due to their concerns about previously rare diseases becoming more prevalent in the city .
The citizen group requested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their local population from a research team at the Division of Medical Sciences of the National University of Córdoba ( UNC ) , in which the researchers evaluated the health of the entire population through a door to door survey covering every household , alongside detailed environmental analysis .
The study was carried out in order to determine if there had been an increase in the prevalence of cancers , reproductive , endocrine and immunological problems , and asthma linked to a greater exposure to pesticides .
The objective was to analyze the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ factor for the above-mentioned diseases and to correlate environmental factors in order to develop a causality hypothesis .
The same researchers that carried out the asthma study have already peer-review published their results showing that both reproductive disorders and cancer rates in Monte Maíz have increased , which was correlated with the high exposure to glyphosate and other pesticides of the city ’ s inhabitants .
Asthma is the most commonly occurring chronic childhood disease in the world .
According to the Global Asthma Report 2014 ( GAR 2014 ) , 14 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 8.6 % of young adults experience asthma .
Childhood asthma is particularly prevalent in Latin America , and the International Study on Asthma and Allergic Diseases in Children ( ISAAC ) has identified environmental contamination as a key factor in the region ’ s elevated rates of the disease .
In Argentina , asthma is a serious health problem , causing more than 400 deaths and 15,000 hospitalizations annually .
As elsewhere in South America , rates of pesticide application have increased dramatically in Argentina since the mid 1990s .
Genetically-modified crops ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million hectares in 2013 and 318,000 tons of pesticides were applied within the country ’ s borders , including 250,000 tons of glyphosate , in a region where about 12 million people reside .
Doctors in the region reported a shift in the morbidity and mortality profile of rural populations .
Along with other conditions , wheezing and asthma are now frequently detected .
This new study revelealed that at least 975,000 kilos of pesticides per year are applied in fields surrounding Monte Maíz , and concentrations found inside the city were several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Glyphosate was detected in 100 % of grain dust samples and its concentration was 20 times higher than other pesticides .
The researchers continued ; “ Contamination with glyphosate in particular and with pesticides in general is predominant in the town .
The burden of residential exposure to glyphosate is 13.5 times greater than the average burden of the national population , and within the city this burden seems to be even greater in certain areas where the grain dust impregnated with glyphosate is carried by the wind .
Interestingly the researchers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the soil and grain dust found in children ’ s playgrounds in Monte Maíz , 2792 parts per billion ( ppb ) and 505 ppb respectively .
The overall asthma prevalence , in GAR 2014 , for people 18-45 years-old is recorded at 8.6 % , with Argentina coming in slightly below average .
However , in Monte Maíz the asthma prevalence in this age group was more than double the average .
In the 13-14 year old age group the prevalence of asthma was 39.9 % , compared to the 13.6 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group in 3 other Argentinian cities .
Confounding variables such as smoking , premature birth and direct occupational pesticide exposure were not linked to this comparably high asthma rate in the city the researchers found , after analyzing the data using a range of accepted statistical methods .
The conclusion of the study ’ s authors was that “ the findings suggest a link between environmental exposure to glyphosate , and to a lesser extent , other pesticides , with high asthma prevalence .
”

A new study from Argentina, which used the methodological criteria of the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC), has identified a relationship between environmental and residential exposure to glyphosate and the high prevalence of asthma in the small city of Monte Maíz in Argentina.
This study has a very unusual story, as it was started at the request of a group of citizens, led by the Mayor of Monte Maíz, due to their concerns about previously rare diseases becoming more prevalent in the city. The citizen group requested an evaluation of the health status of their local population from a research team at the Division of Medical Sciences of the National University of Córdoba (UNC), in which the researchers evaluated the health of the entire population through a door to door survey covering every household, alongside detailed environmental analysis.
The study was carried out in order to determine if there had been an increase in the prevalence of cancers, reproductive, endocrine and immunological problems, and asthma linked to a greater exposure to pesticides. The objective was to analyze the environmental exposure to pesticides as a risk factor for the above-mentioned diseases and to correlate environmental factors in order to develop a causality hypothesis.
The same researchers that carried out the asthma study have already peer-review published their results showing that both reproductive disorders and cancer rates in Monte Maíz have increased, which was correlated with the high exposure to glyphosate and other pesticides of the city’s inhabitants.
Asthma, Monte Maíz and Glyphosate
Asthma is the most commonly occurring chronic childhood disease in the world. According to the Global Asthma Report 2014 (GAR 2014), 14% of the world’s children and 8.6% of young adults experience asthma. Childhood asthma is particularly prevalent in Latin America, and the International Study on Asthma and Allergic Diseases in Children (ISAAC) has identified environmental contamination as a key factor in the region’s elevated rates of the disease.
In Argentina, asthma is a serious health problem, causing more than 400 deaths and 15,000 hospitalizations annually. As elsewhere in South America, rates of pesticide application have increased dramatically in Argentina since the mid 1990s. Genetically-modified crops (GMOs) covered an area of 25 million hectares in 2013 and 318,000 tons of pesticides were applied within the country’s borders, including 250,000 tons of glyphosate, in a region where about 12 million people reside. Doctors in the region reported a shift in the morbidity and mortality profile of rural populations. Along with other conditions, wheezing and asthma are now frequently detected.
Glyphosate Box Glyphosate Residue Free Certification for Food Brands – Click Here Test Your Food and Water at Home for Glyphosate – Click Here Test Your Hair for Glyphosate and other Pesticides – Click Here to Find Our Your Long-Term Exposure
This new study revelealed that at least 975,000 kilos of pesticides per year are applied in fields surrounding Monte Maíz, and concentrations found inside the city were several times higher than in the cultivated fields. Glyphosate was detected in 100% of grain dust samples and its concentration was 20 times higher than other pesticides.
The researchers continued; “Contamination with glyphosate in particular and with pesticides in general is predominant in the town. The burden of residential exposure to glyphosate is 13.5 times greater than the average burden of the national population, and within the city this burden seems to be even greater in certain areas where the grain dust impregnated with glyphosate is carried by the wind.
Interestingly the researchers discovered particularly high levels of glyphosate in the soil and grain dust found in children’s playgrounds in Monte Maíz, 2792 parts per billion (ppb) and 505 ppb respectively.
The overall asthma prevalence, in GAR 2014, for people 18-45 years-old is recorded at 8.6%, with Argentina coming in slightly below average. However, in Monte Maíz the asthma prevalence in this age group was more than double the average. In the 13-14 year old age group the prevalence of asthma was 39.9%, compared to the 13.6% that ISAAC detected in this same age group in 3 other Argentinian cities.
Confounding variables such as smoking, premature birth and direct occupational pesticide exposure were not linked to this comparably high asthma rate in the city the researchers found, after analyzing the data using a range of accepted statistical methods.
The conclusion of the study’s authors was that “the findings suggest a link between environmental exposure to glyphosate, and to a lesser extent, other pesticides, with high asthma prevalence.”


sustainablepulse--2020-08-21--Florida Approves Release of 750 Million GM Mosquitoes amidst Public Outcry

The Florida Keys Mosquito Control District ( FKMCD ) approved Tuesday the first-ever U.S. release of genetically modified mosquitoes .
Despite public outcry and scientific dispute over the human health and environment risks posed by this field trial , the approval permits the release of 750 million GM mosquitoes over a two-year period in Monroe County , Florida , which may begin in 2021 .
Florida Keys Mosquito Control Board members have received more than 2,000 comments from Florida residents opposing the release of GM mosquitoes .
Despite encouragement from the public , the Board members also rejected the proposal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballot , which would have asked Monroe County residents to vote on whether to accept or reject the GM mosquito trial .
In 2016 , voters in the proposed release site in Key Haven , Florida , voted to reject the GM mosquito trial .
Neither the FKMCD nor Oxitec has publicly announced where or when the releases will occur .
Documents submitted by Oxitec did not include details about an environmental impact statement ( EIS ) .
“ With all the urgent crises facing our nation and the State of Florida — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate change — the administration has used tax dollars and government resources for a Jurassic Park experiment .
Now the Monroe County Mosquito Control District has given the final permission needed .
What could possibly go wrong ?
We don ’ t know , because EPA unlawfully refused to seriously analyze environmental risks , now without further review of the risks , the experiment can proceed , ” said Jaydee Hanson , Policy Director for the International Center for Technology Assessment and Center for Food Safety .
“ The Mosquito Control Board has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a vendor that ’ s products are risky and untrustworthy .
FKMCD wants to proceed with an experiment that may be damaging to public and environmental health and our local economy , ” said Barry Wray , Executive Director of the Florida Keys Environmental Coalition .
“ We need true solutions to benefit our community and ecosystems.
” At Tuesday ’ s meeting , community members and national organizations critiqued Oxitec ’ s application for failing to address important environmental risks and potential negative health impacts .
Community members asked the FKMCD to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out the lack of data demonstrating that Oxitec ’ s mosquitoes will be safe and effective , the likelihood that biting females will be released , thus putting humans and animals at risk , and the lack of free and prior informed consent of people living in the area .
“ The release of genetically engineered mosquitoes will needlessly put Floridians , the environment and endangered species at risk in the midst of a pandemic , ” said Dana Perls , food and technology Program Manager at Friends of the Earth .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s profits , not about the pressing need to address mosquito-borne diseases.
” “ The Mosquito Control Board is not equipped to manage this process .
Why have they not acquired the appropriate amount of insurance as well as performance and maintenance bonds ?
” said Ed Russo , President , Florida Keys Environmental Coalition .
“ Their evasive answers and lack of management skills are an indictment of their unprofessionalism and arrogance which speaks loudly of an unprepared regulatory process.
” Although the FKMDC is focused on reducing mosquito-borne diseases , scientists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could create hybrid wild mosquitoes which could worsen the spread of mosquito-borne diseases and which may be more resistant to insecticides than the original wild mosquitoes .
As highlighted by a public panel of experts speaking on the topic , GE mosquitoes could pose significant threats to sensitive ecosystems in the Florida Keys .
A recent field study in Brazil by researchers from the Powell lab at Yale University confirmed that the mosquito ’ s engineered genes had spread into wild populations of mosquitoes .
Recently a group of scholars from the University @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this experiment on scientific and ethical concerns .

The Florida Keys Mosquito Control District (FKMCD) approved Tuesday the first-ever U.S. release of genetically modified mosquitoes. Despite public outcry and scientific dispute over the human health and environment risks posed by this field trial, the approval permits the release of 750 million GM mosquitoes over a two-year period in Monroe County, Florida, which may begin in 2021.
Florida Keys Mosquito Control Board members have received more than 2,000 comments from Florida residents opposing the release of GM mosquitoes. Despite encouragement from the public, the Board members also rejected the proposal for a referendum on November’s ballot, which would have asked Monroe County residents to vote on whether to accept or reject the GM mosquito trial. In 2016, voters in the proposed release site in Key Haven, Florida, voted to reject the GM mosquito trial.
Neither the FKMCD nor Oxitec has publicly announced where or when the releases will occur. Documents submitted by Oxitec did not include details about an environmental impact statement (EIS).
“With all the urgent crises facing our nation and the State of Florida — the Covid-19 pandemic, racial injustice, climate change — the administration has used tax dollars and government resources for a Jurassic Park experiment. Now the Monroe County Mosquito Control District has given the final permission needed. What could possibly go wrong? We don’t know, because EPA unlawfully refused to seriously analyze environmental risks, now without further review of the risks, the experiment can proceed,” said Jaydee Hanson, Policy Director for the International Center for Technology Assessment and Center for Food Safety.
“The Mosquito Control Board has an obligation to our community, not a vendor that’s products are risky and untrustworthy. FKMCD wants to proceed with an experiment that may be damaging to public and environmental health and our local economy,” said Barry Wray, Executive Director of the Florida Keys Environmental Coalition. “We need true solutions to benefit our community and ecosystems.”
At Tuesday’s meeting, community members and national organizations critiqued Oxitec’s application for failing to address important environmental risks and potential negative health impacts. Community members asked the FKMCD to reject the field trial application, pointing out the lack of data demonstrating that Oxitec’s mosquitoes will be safe and effective, the likelihood that biting females will be released, thus putting humans and animals at risk, and the lack of free and prior informed consent of people living in the area.
“The release of genetically engineered mosquitoes will needlessly put Floridians, the environment and endangered species at risk in the midst of a pandemic,” said Dana Perls, food and technology Program Manager at Friends of the Earth. “This approval is about maximizing Oxitec’s profits, not about the pressing need to address mosquito-borne diseases.”
“The Mosquito Control Board is not equipped to manage this process. Why have they not acquired the appropriate amount of insurance as well as performance and maintenance bonds?” said Ed Russo, President, Florida Keys Environmental Coalition. “Their evasive answers and lack of management skills are an indictment of their unprofessionalism and arrogance which speaks loudly of an unprepared regulatory process.”
Although the FKMDC is focused on reducing mosquito-borne diseases, scientists have raised major concerns that GM mosquitoes could create hybrid wild mosquitoes which could worsen the spread of mosquito-borne diseases and which may be more resistant to insecticides than the original wild mosquitoes.
As highlighted by a public panel of experts speaking on the topic, GE mosquitoes could pose significant threats to sensitive ecosystems in the Florida Keys. A recent field study in Brazil by researchers from the Powell lab at Yale University confirmed that the mosquito’s engineered genes had spread into wild populations of mosquitoes. Recently a group of scholars from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign questioned proceeding with this experiment on scientific and ethical concerns.


sustainablepulse--2020-08-20--‘Our Mission Now Is to Bring the Benefits of Bone Broth Back into The American Diet’ – Justin Mares

Sustainable Pulse interview with Justin Mares , Founder at Kettle & Fire , on the only Glyphosate Residue Free certified bone broth brand on the market .
Where did the idea for Kettle & Fire come from , as bone broth sounds like an old-fashioned kind of food , does it not ?
Great question !
I started Kettle & Fire with my brother in 2015 .
At the time I was doing a lot of CrossFit and had been Paleo for 5+ years .
While doing CrossFit , a lot of people at my gym were talking about bone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to improve their gut health and help with faster recoveries .
I was traveling every 1-2 weeks at the time , and due to all my travel was having a hard time making bone broth at home… yet couldn ’ t find a brand in stores ( or online ) that was made with organic ingredients or using grass-fed bones .
Around the same time , my brother Nick tore his ACL and MCL playing soccer , and was looking for foods that could help him recover faster post-surgery .
When I recommend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he also couldn ’ t find a high-quality source near where we grew up in Philadelphia .
So , we decided to start Kettle & Fire – the first bone broth made with 100 % grass-fed , grass-finished bones and organic ingredients .
Our mission now is to bring the benefits of bone broth back into the American diet , and make the old fashioned cool again .
Does bone broth have any specific health benefits that we should all be aware of ?
Absolutely .
Bones contain an abundance of minerals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , many of which are found in bone broth as proteins ( like collagen and gelatin ) .
Though the exact nutritional content varies based on the bones used , cooking time , and cooking method , most bone broth ( including Kettle & Fire ’ s ) is loaded with collagen , gelatin , glycine and other amino acids .
Collagen makes up about 30 % of the protein in your body , and is the main component in your cartilage , joints , tendons and skin .
Collagen and gelatin have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and skin health , as have the other amino acids present in bone broth .
I can go way deeper , but Chris Kresser does a fantastic job outlining all the various benefits of bone broth in this article .
Kettle & Fire is leading the bone broth sector on the idea of sourcing grass-fed and organic ingredients – can you tell us why this is important to you personally and also to your customers ?
We find grass-fed and organic ingredients are important for a few reasons .
First , they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ animals contain better Omega-3 to Omega-6 fatty acid ratios than conventionally raised beef .
Raising animals on pasture is also better for the animals , and better for the environment : when cattle eat grass the way they are supposed to , they are healthier , happier and more nutritious .
Secondly , we believe that organic and grass-fed is critical to create the most nutrient-dense product possible .
Unfortunately , our current agriculture system is highly extractive and uses toxic pesticides ( like glyphosate ) and chemicals to maximize output while harming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and planet in its system .
Though it has flaws , we believe that organic practices result in FAR improved human , animal and environmental health , which is why we support and purchase from organic and grass-fed farms and ranches .
What are your best-selling products and why do you think your customers particularly choose them the most ?
Our best selling products are our beef and chicken bone broth .
I believe consumers choose these products because they are delicious , but also because we use incredibly high sourcing standards for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broth , we use only bones from 100 % grass-fed , grass-finished cattle .
And our chickens are 100 % organically raised and with access to pasture .
What kind of testing do you do on your products to make sure they are safe and healthy for your customers ?
We do all kinds of testing around amino acid concentration , heavy metals and the like .
We also recently went through the process of ensuring our products are all certified glyphosate residue free , to give our consumers extra peace of mind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in our bone broths and soups is sourced with the highest integrity and is free of toxic glyphosate residue .
Our partner The Detox Project certifies your products as Glyphosate Residue Free certified – why is glyphosate ( the active ingredient in weedkillers such as Roundup ) an important issue ?
Glyphosate is an incredibly important issue : 250 m pounds of glyphosate is used in the USA , every year .
That ’ s hundreds of millions of pounds of harmful chemicals applied to crops in the USA .
A chemical that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disrupt hormones , and increase susceptibility to cancer.. on top of damaging the lining and populations of your gut bacteria .
Kettle & Fire wrote more about the dangers of glyphosate in a recent blog post .
Do you believe the bone broth market will continue to grow and if so , what will set the top players apart from the rest ?
I am very hopeful that bone broth continues to grow .
All signs point towards bone broth continuing to grow as more and more people wake up to the idea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amino acids in their diet in order to improve their health .
I believe the bone broth category – and really all categories that promote eating real food sourced with integrity – will continue to grow over the decades as American ’ s begin to understand the link between the food they eat and their health .
As the market continues to grow , I believe the top players will separate themselves from the rest by virtue of their ingredient sourcing practices .
As well as taste , of course 🙂

Sustainable Pulse interview with Justin Mares, Founder at Kettle & Fire, on the only Glyphosate Residue Free certified bone broth brand on the market.
Where did the idea for Kettle & Fire come from, as bone broth sounds like an old-fashioned kind of food, does it not?
Great question! I started Kettle & Fire with my brother in 2015. At the time I was doing a lot of CrossFit and had been Paleo for 5+ years. While doing CrossFit, a lot of people at my gym were talking about bone broth and how they were using it to improve their gut health and help with faster recoveries. I was traveling every 1-2 weeks at the time, and due to all my travel was having a hard time making bone broth at home… yet couldn’t find a brand in stores (or online) that was made with organic ingredients or using grass-fed bones.
Around the same time, my brother Nick tore his ACL and MCL playing soccer, and was looking for foods that could help him recover faster post-surgery. When I recommend he look into bone broth for recovery, he also couldn’t find a high-quality source near where we grew up in Philadelphia. So, we decided to start Kettle & Fire – the first bone broth made with 100% grass-fed, grass-finished bones and organic ingredients. Our mission now is to bring the benefits of bone broth back into the American diet, and make the old fashioned cool again.
Does bone broth have any specific health benefits that we should all be aware of?
Absolutely. Bones contain an abundance of minerals as well as 17 different amino acids, many of which are found in bone broth as proteins (like collagen and gelatin). Though the exact nutritional content varies based on the bones used, cooking time, and cooking method, most bone broth (including Kettle & Fire’s) is loaded with collagen, gelatin, glycine and other amino acids.
Collagen makes up about 30% of the protein in your body, and is the main component in your cartilage, joints, tendons and skin. Collagen and gelatin have been shown to improve gut, joint and skin health, as have the other amino acids present in bone broth.
I can go way deeper, but Chris Kresser does a fantastic job outlining all the various benefits of bone broth in this article.
Kettle & Fire is leading the bone broth sector on the idea of sourcing grass-fed and organic ingredients – can you tell us why this is important to you personally and also to your customers?
We find grass-fed and organic ingredients are important for a few reasons. First, they’re better for human health: grass-fed animals contain better Omega-3 to Omega-6 fatty acid ratios than conventionally raised beef. Raising animals on pasture is also better for the animals, and better for the environment: when cattle eat grass the way they are supposed to, they are healthier, happier and more nutritious.
Secondly, we believe that organic and grass-fed is critical to create the most nutrient-dense product possible. Unfortunately, our current agriculture system is highly extractive and uses toxic pesticides (like glyphosate) and chemicals to maximize output while harming the health of the soil, animals and planet in its system. Though it has flaws, we believe that organic practices result in FAR improved human, animal and environmental health, which is why we support and purchase from organic and grass-fed farms and ranches.
What are your best-selling products and why do you think your customers particularly choose them the most?
Our best selling products are our beef and chicken bone broth. I believe consumers choose these products because they are delicious, but also because we use incredibly high sourcing standards for these products. For our beef bone broth, we use only bones from 100% grass-fed, grass-finished cattle. And our chickens are 100% organically raised and with access to pasture.
What kind of testing do you do on your products to make sure they are safe and healthy for your customers?
We do all kinds of testing around amino acid concentration, heavy metals and the like. We also recently went through the process of ensuring our products are all certified glyphosate residue free, to give our consumers extra peace of mind that every ingredient we source and put in our bone broths and soups is sourced with the highest integrity and is free of toxic glyphosate residue.
Our partner The Detox Project certifies your products as Glyphosate Residue Free certified – why is glyphosate (the active ingredient in weedkillers such as Roundup) an important issue?
Glyphosate is an incredibly important issue: 250 m pounds of glyphosate is used in the USA, every year. That’s hundreds of millions of pounds of harmful chemicals applied to crops in the USA. A chemical that has been shown to impact fertility, disrupt hormones, and increase susceptibility to cancer.. on top of damaging the lining and populations of your gut bacteria. Kettle & Fire wrote more about the dangers of glyphosate in a recent blog post .
Do you believe the bone broth market will continue to grow and if so, what will set the top players apart from the rest?
I am very hopeful that bone broth continues to grow. All signs point towards bone broth continuing to grow as more and more people wake up to the idea that they need these key proteins and amino acids in their diet in order to improve their health. I believe the bone broth category – and really all categories that promote eating real food sourced with integrity – will continue to grow over the decades as American’s begin to understand the link between the food they eat and their health.
As the market continues to grow, I believe the top players will separate themselves from the rest by virtue of their ingredient sourcing practices. As well as taste, of course 🙂


sustainablepulse--2020-08-28--US Black Farmers Association Sues Bayer and Calls for Ban on Roundup

A federal lawsuit filed Wednesday on behalf of the National Black Farmers Association in the Eastern District of Missouri is calling for the removal of Monsanto ’ s popular weedkiller Roundup from the market , Tri States Public Radio reported Thursday .
German biotech giant Bayer AG , which bought Monsanto two years ago , said in a statement that the new lawsuit has no basis and that its products are safe .
At a press conference Wednesday morning outside Bayer ’ s Creve Coeur office , attorneys , activists and farmers chanted “ Black Farmers Matter , ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used Roundup .
Virginia-based farmer John Boyd Jr. said during the event that he and other Black farmers were pigeonholed into using the product without proper warning from Monsanto about how to use it and the negative health effects they could incur .
In June , Bayer agreed to pay nearly $ 11 billion to settle about 100,000 lawsuits claiming Roundup caused cancer .
More than 25,000 plaintiffs chose not to settle their claims .
Boyd said many more are still at risk of developing health problems as a result of using the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the National Black Farmers Association , which represents about 109,000 farmers in 42 states , including some farmers in the St. Louis area .
“ Every time money is on the table for these settlements , Black farmers have been left out .
And that ’ s why we ’ re glad to have this legal team represent us so we can get some justice this time .
Because we ’ ve been left out for far too long , ” he said .
Civil rights attorney Ben Crump is leading the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the families of Jacob Blake , Breonna Taylor and George Floyd — who were all shot by police this year .
St. Louis County NAACP President John Bowman threw his support behind the lawsuit Wednesday , saying it ’ s a social justice issue .
“ Black farmers have been trapped into using a dangerous product , and they are paying for it with their economic freedom , their health , and in some cases , their lives , ” he said .
“ Not only are we dying from the vicious misconduct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re also dying from the vicious misconduct of greedy corporate owners who are willing to trash and create toxins in our community and to diminish the value of the heritage of Black farmers.
” Chris Schnieders , a partner with Napoli Shkolnik , and St. Louis-based James Onder , founder of Onder Law , are also supporting the lawsuit .
Onder represents the largest number of unsettled Roundup-related cases .

A federal lawsuit filed Wednesday on behalf of the National Black Farmers Association in the Eastern District of Missouri is calling for the removal of Monsanto’s popular weedkiller Roundup from the market, Tri States Public Radio reported Thursday.
German biotech giant Bayer AG, which bought Monsanto two years ago, said in a statement that the new lawsuit has no basis and that its products are safe.
At a press conference Wednesday morning outside Bayer’s Creve Coeur office, attorneys, activists and farmers chanted “Black Farmers Matter,” and urged more relief for Black farmers who used Roundup.
Glyphosate Box Glyphosate Residue Free Certification for Food Brands – Click Here Test Your Food and Water at Home for Glyphosate – Click Here Test Your Hair for Glyphosate and other Pesticides – Click Here to Find Our Your Long-Term Exposure
Virginia-based farmer John Boyd Jr. said during the event that he and other Black farmers were pigeonholed into using the product without proper warning from Monsanto about how to use it and the negative health effects they could incur. In June, Bayer agreed to pay nearly $11 billion to settle about 100,000 lawsuits claiming Roundup caused cancer. More than 25,000 plaintiffs chose not to settle their claims.
Boyd said many more are still at risk of developing health problems as a result of using the product. He’s the president of the National Black Farmers Association, which represents about 109,000 farmers in 42 states, including some farmers in the St. Louis area.
“Every time money is on the table for these settlements, Black farmers have been left out. And that’s why we’re glad to have this legal team represent us so we can get some justice this time. Because we’ve been left out for far too long,” he said.
Civil rights attorney Ben Crump is leading the litigation. He’s also represented the families of Jacob Blake, Breonna Taylor and George Floyd — who were all shot by police this year.
St. Louis County NAACP President John Bowman threw his support behind the lawsuit Wednesday, saying it’s a social justice issue.
“Black farmers have been trapped into using a dangerous product, and they are paying for it with their economic freedom, their health, and in some cases, their lives,” he said.
“Not only are we dying from the vicious misconduct of police officers, but we’re also dying from the vicious misconduct of greedy corporate owners who are willing to trash and create toxins in our community and to diminish the value of the heritage of Black farmers.”
Chris Schnieders, a partner with Napoli Shkolnik, and St. Louis-based James Onder, founder of Onder Law, are also supporting the lawsuit. Onder represents the largest number of unsettled Roundup-related cases.
Read More Here: Tri States Public Radio


sustainablepulse--2020-08-31--US Federal Judge Poised to Deny Approval of GMO Salmon

Unimpressed with the environmental assessment the Food and Drug Association used to approve a new breed of genetically modified salmon destined for the American dinner table , a federal judge looked poised Tuesday to rule in favor of environmental groups afraid of its potential to blunt wild salmon populations .
At a hearing last Tuesday , U.S. District Judge Vincent Chhabria said he ’ s concerned that AquaBounty , the biotech company behind the GMO salmon , might use the FDA ’ s finding of “ no significant impact ” to expand the program without realizing its full impact on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its “ AquAdvantage ” salmon — a genetic mix of ocean pout and Pacific Chinook — at its hatchery in Rollo Bay on Prince Edward Island , then transport the eggs for growth at its Indiana farm site .
That is , if litigation doesn ’ t stand in the way .
AquaBounty ’ s salmon , touted for its abnormally high growth rate , marks the first time the FDA has allowed a genetically modified animal to be raised and sold for food .
The FDA approved the company ’ s application @ @ @ @ @ @ @ salmon in 2015 , spurring a lawsuit from the anti-GMO group Center for Food Safety and several environmental organizations and trade groups representing the fishing industry .
Chhabria said he wasn ’ t so sure that the FDA ’ s environmental assessment won ’ t set a precedent for approving future AquaBounty facilities .
“ I ’ m not saying it opens the floodgates or sets the standards , but perhaps it pushes us in a direction and future agency action will likely be informed by this agency action , ” he said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this case have considered the fact that this was the first such facility and future decisions would be building on this facility ?
” “ AquaBounty has no guarantee that the FDA is going to accept whatever comes down the pike , ” said Marissa Piropato , a justice department attorney representing the FDA .
She said Chhabria was asking the government to speculate on AquaBounty ’ s future plans , which it can not do without a concrete proposal .
“ You seem to be saying we should be sticking our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no concrete plans to build more facilities , ” Chhabria said , adding that the FDA ’ s environmental assessment “ is going to be their starting point for looking to regulatory approval for future actions.
” Lawyers for the environmental groups have the same concern .
“ Whatever they do here is going to inform the approval for those other applications and is going to inform what the FDA does for all GE animals going forward , ” Earthjustice attorney Brettny Hardy said in a phone call Tuesday evening .
“ If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inadequate that means it ’ s never going to be enough .
It ’ s not going to get better.
” Environmental groups claim the FDA ’ s latest environment assessment from 2015 is already outdated and doesn ’ t adequately ensure the safety of wild Atlantic salmon that could be harmed by competition for food and interbreeding by their much larger genetically engineered brethren .
They asked Chhabria to vacate it and order a more comprehensive environmental impact statement .
Chhabria said he was inclined to reject the assessment and order the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the project ’ s potential hazards , but did not issue a formal ruling Tuesday .
The FDA ’ s lawyers also gave Chhabria something else to consider : proposing that it actually doesn ’ t have the authority to approve or reject a drug based on its potential adverse effects on Atlantic salmon .
DOJ attorney Mary Englehart said the federal Food , Drug , and Cosmetic Act does not authorize the FDA to consider environmental impacts when approving a new animal drug application .
Chhabria said he could understand why the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effect on trees , but he seemed genuinely befuddled why Atlantic salmon — unmistakably an animal under the FDCA — might fall outside the statute .
“ Killing trees is one thing , killing salmon is another , ” he said .
“ Even if you ’ re right about environmental effects generally , it doesn ’ t follow for me that you also can not consider or act upon the risk that the salmon would be killed.
” To illustrate his point , Chhabria presented the outlandish scenario of 1,000 foot-long AquAdvantage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their man-made confines to “ devour everything in sight and on the face of the Earth.
” Engelhart said the FDA doesn ’ t have the authority to revoke its approval in that situation , as it can only regulate the drug ’ s effect on the animal receiving it and the humans consuming the animal .
If the genetically engineered salmon were to escape , they would be deemed unsafe and adulterated by the FDA , so the agency imposes restrictions on how the salmon are produced and distributed .
“ If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ escape , that calls into question containment measures that would affect the integrity of the salmon , ” she said .
Chhabria appeared astounded .
“ So you have the authority to protect the precious genetically modified salmon , ” he said .
Engelhart said the legislative history of the FDCA shows that Congress did not intend the FDA to be responsible for evaluating a drug ’ s environmental risk .
A ruling in favor of the FDA on this point could invalidate the entire purpose of doing an environmental assessment .
Hardy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public about its environmental review process if it lacks the authority to act on it .
“ The public is going to think it ’ s looking at these environmental issues when they ’ re just putting together a bunch of window dressing , ” she said .

Unimpressed with the environmental assessment the Food and Drug Association used to approve a new breed of genetically modified salmon destined for the American dinner table, a federal judge looked poised Tuesday to rule in favor of environmental groups afraid of its potential to blunt wild salmon populations.
At a hearing last Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Vincent Chhabria said he’s concerned that AquaBounty, the biotech company behind the GMO salmon, might use the FDA’s finding of “no significant impact” to expand the program without realizing its full impact on local ecology.
AquaBounty plans to breed its “AquAdvantage” salmon — a genetic mix of ocean pout and Pacific Chinook — at its hatchery in Rollo Bay on Prince Edward Island, then transport the eggs for growth at its Indiana farm site. That is, if litigation doesn’t stand in the way.
AquaBounty’s salmon, touted for its abnormally high growth rate, marks the first time the FDA has allowed a genetically modified animal to be raised and sold for food.
The FDA approved the company’s application to make and sell the genetically engineered salmon in 2015, spurring a lawsuit from the anti-GMO group Center for Food Safety and several environmental organizations and trade groups representing the fishing industry.
Chhabria said he wasn’t so sure that the FDA’s environmental assessment won’t set a precedent for approving future AquaBounty facilities.
“I’m not saying it opens the floodgates or sets the standards, but perhaps it pushes us in a direction and future agency action will likely be informed by this agency action,” he said. “Shouldn’t the FDA in this case have considered the fact that this was the first such facility and future decisions would be building on this facility?”
“AquaBounty has no guarantee that the FDA is going to accept whatever comes down the pike,” said Marissa Piropato, a justice department attorney representing the FDA.
She said Chhabria was asking the government to speculate on AquaBounty’s future plans, which it cannot do without a concrete proposal.
“You seem to be saying we should be sticking our heads in the sand because there are no concrete plans to build more facilities,” Chhabria said, adding that the FDA’s environmental assessment “is going to be their starting point for looking to regulatory approval for future actions.”
Lawyers for the environmental groups have the same concern. “Whatever they do here is going to inform the approval for those other applications and is going to inform what the FDA does for all GE animals going forward,” Earthjustice attorney Brettny Hardy said in a phone call Tuesday evening. “If the analysis they are doing here is inadequate that means it’s never going to be enough. It’s not going to get better.”
Environmental groups claim the FDA’s latest environment assessment from 2015 is already outdated and doesn’t adequately ensure the safety of wild Atlantic salmon that could be harmed by competition for food and interbreeding by their much larger genetically engineered brethren. They asked Chhabria to vacate it and order a more comprehensive environmental impact statement. Chhabria said he was inclined to reject the assessment and order the FDA to take a closer look at the project’s potential hazards, but did not issue a formal ruling Tuesday.
The FDA’s lawyers also gave Chhabria something else to consider: proposing that it actually doesn’t have the authority to approve or reject a drug based on its potential adverse effects on Atlantic salmon.
DOJ attorney Mary Englehart said the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act does not authorize the FDA to consider environmental impacts when approving a new animal drug application.
Chhabria said he could understand why the FDA might overlook a drug’s effect on trees, but he seemed genuinely befuddled why Atlantic salmon — unmistakably an animal under the FDCA — might fall outside the statute.
“Killing trees is one thing, killing salmon is another,” he said. “Even if you’re right about environmental effects generally, it doesn’t follow for me that you also cannot consider or act upon the risk that the salmon would be killed.”
To illustrate his point, Chhabria presented the outlandish scenario of 1,000 foot-long AquAdvantage salmon with razor-sharp teeth busting out of their man-made confines to “devour everything in sight and on the face of the Earth.”
Engelhart said the FDA doesn’t have the authority to revoke its approval in that situation, as it can only regulate the drug’s effect on the animal receiving it and the humans consuming the animal. If the genetically engineered salmon were to escape, they would be deemed unsafe and adulterated by the FDA, so the agency imposes restrictions on how the salmon are produced and distributed.
“If there’s a large chance of escape, that calls into question containment measures that would affect the integrity of the salmon,” she said.
Chhabria appeared astounded. “So you have the authority to protect the precious genetically modified salmon,” he said.
Engelhart said the legislative history of the FDCA shows that Congress did not intend the FDA to be responsible for evaluating a drug’s environmental risk.
A ruling in favor of the FDA on this point could invalidate the entire purpose of doing an environmental assessment. Hardy said the FDA could be misleading the public about its environmental review process if it lacks the authority to act on it.
“The public is going to think it’s looking at these environmental issues when they’re just putting together a bunch of window dressing,” she said.


sustainablepulse--2020-09-01--Largest US Retailers Reject GMO Salmon as Court Pressure Builds

Walmart , Costco , Albertsons , Kroger , Ahold , Aldi , Trader Joe ’ s , Whole Foods , H-E-B , Hy-Vee , Sprouts , Giant Eagle , Meijer and Target have affirmed their commitment to not sell genetically engineered AquAdvantage® salmon ahead of AquaBounty Technologies planned first-ever harvest and commercial sales in the U.S. , planned for this fall .
The news comes following the court hearing last week , in which a federal judge in California looked poised to rule in favor of environmental groups afraid of GMO salmon ’ s potential to blunt wild salmon populations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approval of the fish .
Friends of the Earth released an updated list Tuesday of 80 grocery retailers , seafood companies , food service companies and restaurants with more than 18,000 locations nationwide that have stated that they will not sell genetically engineered salmon , demonstrating a widespread market rejection of the first commercial offerings of the first genetically engineered animal approved for human consumption in the U.S. “ Genetically engineered salmon pose unacceptable risks to wild salmon and broader ecosystems .
People across the country have made it clear that they don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ salmon , and food retailers are clearly listening , ” said Dana Perls , food and technology program manager at Friends of the Earth .
“ We thank these forward-thinking retailers for their leadership.
” A growing body of science suggests that GE salmon may pose serious environmental risks including potentially irreversible damage to wild salmon populations .
More research is needed on the potential health risks of this novel food .
The GE salmon was first approved for sale in the U.S. in 2015 .
In the wake of controversy over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ import ban on GE salmon until labeling standards were established .
In 2019 , the FDA lifted the ban on importation of GE salmon and eggs into the U.S. Consumers will not have a clear way to distinguish whether they ’ re buying GE salmon because of the lack of clear labeling requirements of GE foods under the USDA ’ s National Bioengineered Food Disclosure standard .
Under this regulation , GE salmon would likely be labeled using a QR code instead of clear , on-package labeling .
Companies are also allowed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which may cause confusion among consumers .
AquaBounty Technologies ’ AquAdvantage® salmon is genetically engineered with the DNA of an eel-like ocean pout to grow faster .
Research has raised a range of potential ecological and socioeconomic threats associated with GE salmon , supporting the need for thorough risk assessment and strong regulation prior to commercialization .
The FDA ’ s decision on this genetically engineered salmon application could set a precedent for other genetically engineered fish and animals .
At least 35 other species of genetically engineered fish — as well as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fit in factory farming systems — are currently under development .
A full list of stores that have made commitments to not sell genetically engineered seafood and salmon is available here .

Walmart, Costco, Albertsons, Kroger, Ahold, Aldi, Trader Joe’s, Whole Foods, H-E-B, Hy-Vee, Sprouts, Giant Eagle, Meijer and Target have affirmed their commitment to not sell genetically engineered AquAdvantage® salmon ahead of AquaBounty Technologies planned first-ever harvest and commercial sales in the U.S., planned for this fall.
The news comes following the court hearing last week, in which a federal judge in California looked poised to rule in favor of environmental groups afraid of GMO salmon’s potential to blunt wild salmon populations, thus blocking the FDA’s approval of the fish.
Friends of the Earth released an updated list Tuesday of 80 grocery retailers, seafood companies, food service companies and restaurants with more than 18,000 locations nationwide that have stated that they will not sell genetically engineered salmon, demonstrating a widespread market rejection of the first commercial offerings of the first genetically engineered animal approved for human consumption in the U.S.
“Genetically engineered salmon pose unacceptable risks to wild salmon and broader ecosystems. People across the country have made it clear that they don’t want to eat genetically engineered salmon, and food retailers are clearly listening,” said Dana Perls, food and technology program manager at Friends of the Earth. “We thank these forward-thinking retailers for their leadership.”
A growing body of science suggests that GE salmon may pose serious environmental risks including potentially irreversible damage to wild salmon populations. More research is needed on the potential health risks of this novel food.
The GE salmon was first approved for sale in the U.S. in 2015. In the wake of controversy over the U.S. approval, the U.S. instituted an import ban on GE salmon until labeling standards were established.
In 2019, the FDA lifted the ban on importation of GE salmon and eggs into the U.S. Consumers will not have a clear way to distinguish whether they’re buying GE salmon because of the lack of clear labeling requirements of GE foods under the USDA’s National Bioengineered Food Disclosure standard. Under this regulation, GE salmon would likely be labeled using a QR code instead of clear, on-package labeling. Companies are also allowed to use the term “bioengineered,” which may cause confusion among consumers.
AquaBounty Technologies’ AquAdvantage® salmon is genetically engineered with the DNA of an eel-like ocean pout to grow faster. Research has raised a range of potential ecological and socioeconomic threats associated with GE salmon, supporting the need for thorough risk assessment and strong regulation prior to commercialization.
The FDA’s decision on this genetically engineered salmon application could set a precedent for other genetically engineered fish and animals. At least 35 other species of genetically engineered fish — as well as chickens, pigs and cows engineered to fit in factory farming systems — are currently under development. A full list of stores that have made commitments to not sell genetically engineered seafood and salmon is available here.