Tag Archives: labeling

Why does the dairy industry oppose GMO labels? Updated for 2026





The International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) is one of the corporate front groups suing Vermont in an attempt to block the state’s GMO labeling law.

The trade group is also lobbying for HR 4432, an anti-consumer, anti-states’ rights bill, introduced in April (2014) in the House of Representatives by Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kansas).

The bill, dubbed by consumers as the ‘Deny Americans the Right to Know’ (DARK) Act, would pre-empt all state GMO labeling laws. HR 4432 would also legalize the use of the word ‘natural’ on products that contain GMOs.

IDFA President and CEO Connie Tipton has been an outspoken opponent of consumers’ right to know. In her address to this year’s Dairy Forum, she noted that consumers “can be harsh critics on topics such as genetically modified organisms” – and then went on to criticize “restrictive labeling requirements” as “a straightjacket on innovation and marketing.”

Tipton has also made it clear that not only does the IDFA oppose mandatory GMO labeling laws, the trade group also opposes retailers’ efforts to label voluntarily. For instance, when Walmart considered labeling the GMO sweet corn it sells (a promise that remains unfulfilled), Tipton went on the attack. Walmart, she said,

“announced this past summer it planned to sell a new crop of genetically modified sweet corn created by Monsanto. Nothing wrong with that, but a lot of us were scratching our heads when Wal-Mart added that it would label the product as containing GMO ingredients – even though the Food and Drug Administration has already said the product is safe.

“Given Wal-Mart’s size and market share, there are legitimate concerns that its decision on GMO labeling will force other retailers to march in lockstep behind the industry giant.”

What’s to hide?

Why would the IDFA spend millions to defeat GMO labeling laws, including launching a lawsuit against Vermont?

Isn’t the dairy industry the ‘Got Milk?’ people, the ones who wear milk mustaches to get kids to drink what the industry promotes as healthy whole food? Doesn’t the IDFA represent the family farmers whose black-and-white cows graze happily on green grass outside picturesque red barns?

Truth be told, those idyllic images have nothing to do with reality. They’re part of a carefully orchestrated, and very expensive public relations campaign aimed at fostering the illusion that milk and other dairy products originate from small family farms – illusions that couldn’t be further from the truth.

In fact, the IDFA is just another wing of the processed food industry. And like the rest of the processed food industry, IDFA members have a lot to hide, where their products come from, and what’s in them.

Dairy products as delivery systems for GMO sweeteners

Milk consumption has been on the decline for some time now. Today, less than a third of dairy production goes toward making milk that people drink. To compensate, the industry pushes processed, dairy-based foods that contain a lot of decidedly non-dairy ingredients, including many that are genetically engineered.

Yogurt, ice cream, cream cheese, and flavored milk have become delivery systems for genetically modified sweeteners, especially high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) – made from corn that has been genetically engineered by Monsanto to absorb Roundup herbicide and produce the Bt toxin.

It is also more toxic than regular sugar. A recent study compared two groups of rats, one fed HFCS and the other table sugar, both in doses equal to what many people eat. The rats fed HFCS had death rates 1.87 times higher than females on the sucrose diet. They also produced 26.4% fewer offspring.

Previous studies on rodents and humans tied HFCS consumption to metabolic problems such as insulin resistance, obesity and abnormal cholesterol and triglyceride levels. Yet HFCS is used by some of the most powerful brands in the IDFA leadership, including:

  • Skinny Cow, the low-fat ice cream brand of Nestle USA, which is represented on the IDFA board by Patricia Stroup, chair.
  • Blue Bunny, the flagship brand of Wells Enterprises, Inc., represented by Michael Wells, vice-chair.
  • Hood, represented by Jeffrey Kaneb, treasurer.

Consumer demand is pushing many food companies to remove HFCS from dairy products. For instance, IDFA member Yoplait has gone HFCS-free. But Yoplait still contains sugar, which likely comes from sugar beets that have been genetically engineered to absorb Roundup herbicide, and GMO corn starch.

You want GMO trans fat-laden cheese on that?

If you add non-dairy ingredients to cheese, it no longer meets the legal definition of cheese. So how is it that as much as one-fifth of what people think of as ‘cheese’ comprises vegetable oils (usually from GMO corn, soy, cottonseed or canola), including trans fats from partial hydrogenation?

By creating multiple definitions of ‘cheese’, regulators have created a system that allows the dairy industry to load up cheese with non-dairy products by renaming their products. A product containing at least 51% cheese can be called a ‘processed cheese food’. Products that contain less than 51% real cheese must be labeled a ‘processed cheese product’.

Prior to 2006, many of these cheese ‘foods’ and ‘products’ sold in grocery stores contained trans fats. But once the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) began requiring packaged food makers to list trans fat content as a separate line item on the labels of foods sold in stores, most of the cheese made with trans fats has been sold through restaurants where it doesn’t have to be labeled.

That means consumers who frequently eat out are still eating a lot of trans fats with their cheese – they just don’t know it. Though as this article notes, consumers can still buy products at the grocery store that contain trans fats without knowing it-because food makers are allowed to claim “no trans fats” on the front of their package as long as the product contains less than 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving, an amount even the FDA admits can be dangerous because of the cumulative effect.

Trans fat is the worst type of dietary fat. Trans fats create inflammation, which is linked to heart disease, stroke, diabetes and other chronic conditions. They contribute to insulin resistance, which increases the risk of developing Type 2 diabetes.

They can harm health in even small amounts: for every 2% of calories from trans fat consumed daily, the risk of heart disease rises by 23%. There is no safe level of consumption.

Kraft, the nation’s largest manufacturer of cheese, has largely phased out trans fats, but it hasn’t dropped the GMOs.

When Kraft reformulated Cheez Wiz, the company removed the cheese, leaving a taste of “axle grease” – in the words of a former Kraft food scientist who helped invent the original product. But Cheez Wiz still contains GMOs, in the form of canola oil and corn syrup.

Kraft is represented on the IDFA executive committee by Howard Friedman.

Stretching the limits of what ‘dairy’ means

Genetically modified ingredients like HFCS and trans fats are super cheap. This has pushed the dairy foods industry to use such ingredients to the point of stretching the limits of consumers’ understanding of what’s actually a dairy product.

Enter government regulators, who have had to step in to define just exactly what is – and isn’t – a legitimate ‘dairy’ product.

A ‘Frozen Dairy Dessert’ can’t be called ‘ice cream’ if it contains less than 10% milk fat. Statistics on the market share of ‘dairy desserts’ versus ice cream is unavailable, but even Breyer’s, known for its ‘all natural’ ice cream has converted about 40% of its ice creams to ‘dairy desserts’.

Why would the dairy industry embrace a declining amount of milk in dairy foods? As it turns out, breaking milk into its constituent parts and selling them separately has been an efficient way for the industry to eliminate waste and increase profits, even if there might be less actual milk in any one particular product.

Skim milk used to be a waste product that was either discarded or fed to farm animals. Now it’s sold as skim milk and fat-free dairy products (even though there’s little evidence dairy is the best diet food).

Once the dairy industry had successfully created a market for skim milk, it realized it had another problem on its hands: what to do with the glut of whole milk and extracted milk fat created by soaring sales of skim milk. The solution? Make more ‘cheese foods’ and ‘cheese products’. But that led to a new problem – what to do with all that cheese?

For a time, the federal government bought the industry’s excess cheese and butter, packing away a stockpile valued at more than $4 billion by 1983. Then, in 1995, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) created Dairy Management Inc, a nonprofit corporation, partially funded by the USDA (and your tax dollars), that defines its mission as increasing dairy consumption.

Dairy Management teamed up with restaurant chains like Domino’s and Pizza Hut to launch a $12 million marketing campaign promoting pizza with extra cheese. (Remember, restaurants don’t have to label their cheese as containing GMO-laden trans fats).

The Dairy Management’s program directly benefitted Leprino Foods Company, supplier of cheese to both Domino’s and Pizza Hut. Pizza Hut lists ‘modifed food starch’ among the ingredients in its cheese. Modified food starch is another name for modified corn starch, which is most always made with GMO corn.

Leprino Foods is represented on IDFA’s board by Mike Reidy, who serves as secretary.

As long as the dairy industry’s fortunes continue to be built upon the sales of GMO-containing ‘dairy products’ and ‘cheese foods’, its principal lobbying group, the IDFA, will continue to spend millions to keep consumers from knowing what’s really in those foods.

This is not an industry that cares about farmers, or wholesome, healthy foods. What used to be a community of farmers selling real, whole foods has long since morphed into a processed food industry.

And as such, the industry, represented by the IDFA, will continue to fight tooth-and-nail against what they portray as “restrictive labeling requirements” that create “a straightjacket on innovation and marketing.”

 


 

Alexis Baden-Mayer is political director of the Organic Consumers Association.

This article was originally published by the Organic Consumers Association.

 




390210

A whisker from victory! Oregon GMO vote goes to a recount Updated for 2026





Measure 92, Oregon’s food labeling initiative for GMO ingredients, will go to an automatic recount after the difference in vote between ‘yes’ and ‘no’ votes narrowed to just 809 with all votes counted.

The count has been been going on continuously since the 4th November election. Opponents were vocal in calling the vote in their favor just a day after the election, but as more votes came in from all 36 counties, the gap narrowed to 0.06% – well under the recount trigger level of 0.2%.

“Regardless of what the final outcome of this race is, this is a very encouraging sign for those of us who support labeling of genetically engineered foods“, said Sandeep Kaushik, a spokesman for the ‘Yes on Measure 92‘ campaign promoting the measure.

“We’ve known since election night that this race is too close to call. Instead of throwing in the towel when we trailed narrowly in the first vote counts, the ‘Yes on Measure 92’ campaign went to work. We activated our campaign staff and hundreds of volunteers over the last week to ensure that every possible valid vote is counted.

“Our efforts have led in recent days to thousands of Oregon voters correcting signature issues so that their valid ballots can be counted and their voices heard in this election.” 

Big food spent $20 million fighting Measure 92

The incredibly narrow race comes despite a $20 million campaign from the opposition led by big food and chemical companies. The previous record for spending on an Oregon ballot initiative was $12 million for both sides combined.

Monsanto donated nearly $5 million, DuPont Pioneer $4.5 million, Dow AgroSciences over a $1.1 million, with Pepsi and Coke, who use sugar and corn genetically engineered to be resistant to herbicides in their products, combining for over $3.5 million.

On the other side the Yes campaign raised around $6 million, $1 million of which came from the Centre for Food Safety’s political arm, the CFS Action Fund, which also helped to mobilize thousands of volunteers in Oregon and across the country.

CFS previously worked with and provided legal and grassroots support to campaigns in Oregon to ban the planting of GE crops in two Oregon counties, and worked with the State Senate to ban GE canola in the Willamette Valley until 2019.

“Thanks to the tireless efforts of on the ground organizers, and despite an aggressive and expensive opposition campaign, GE food labeling is still alive in Oregon”, said CFS director Andrew Kimbrell. “The power and tenacity of the Food Movement has been on full display here in Oregon.”

A fourth state to require GMO labelling?

If the ‘yes’ votes are victorious on the recount, Oregon would be the fourth US state to require GE labeling.

Connecticut and Maine each passed GE labeling laws this past spring, but both bills include a trigger clause requiring several other states to also pass labeling bills before the new laws can be implemented. Vermont was the first state to pass a no-strings-attached labeling law, set to go into effect in 2016.

In Colorado, where a similar ballot initiative was also up for a vote, the anti-labeling side won the vote after spending over $16 million, hugely outspending the ‘Yes on 105 campaign’.

In all, companies funding anti-labeling campaigns have spent over $100 million in just four states – California, Washington, Oregon and Colorado.

In 2013, Rep. Peter DeFazio and Sen. Barbara Boxer introduced the Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act (H.R. 1699/S. 809) to make GE food labeling mandatory across the country.

Supported by 63 Representatives and 17 Senators, the bill directs the Food and Drug Administration to use its authority to enact a federal, mandatory GE labeling policy that would guarantee all Americans the right to know.

“We are optimistic that when the recount is complete Measure 92 will prevail”, said Kaushik. “But we want to be clear about one thing: regardless of the final outcome of the mandatory recount, the labeling issue is not going away.

“This movement continues to grow and build support across this state and around the country, and that growth will continue.”

 


 

 

 

 




387363

All out for November 4th: GMO fight at the crossroads Updated for 2026





On November 4, final votes will be tallied in two hard-fought and highly publicized state mandatory GMO food labeling ballot initiatives: Measure 92 in Oregon and Initiative 105 in Colorado.

It is no exaggeration to say that these two crucial ballot initiatives will quite likely determine the future of chemical-intensive, genetically engineered agriculture in North America.

Despite the fact that the Gene Giants (Monsanto Dupont, Dow, Syngenta, BASF, and Bayer), backed by the world’s largest junk food manufactures (Coca Cola, Pepsi, Kraft, General Mills, Kellogg’s), have spent over $30 million to mislead and confuse voters in these two states, latest indications are that voters in at least one state, Oregon, will vote for mandatory labeling.

Voters in Colorado (where the Yes on GMO labeling forces have been outspent 25-to-1) are waging a valiant struggle against overwhelming odds.

Victory in any state wil be victory in all states

What is important to understand is that a victory in either of these two front line states will be decisive.

A David versus Goliath victory in either Oregon or Colorado, coupled with the previous strategic victory for GMO labeling in Vermont in May (2104) will mark the beginning of the end for Monsanto and its allies.

And a victory would be further amplified by Chipotle and Whole Foods Markets’ pledge that all GMO-tainted foods (including meat, eggs and dairy) will soon be labeled in their restaurants and stores.

Despite massive lobbying and a lawsuit filed against the state by Big Food and GMO companies, Vermont passed the nation’s first mandatory GMO food labeling law in May 2014. Vermont’s law also prohibits labeling GMO-tainted foods as ‘natural’.

And although the Vermont law (which goes into effect in 2016) is legally enforceable only inside the state’s borders, this law (along with others such as Oregon) will have an enormous national impact.

Large food and beverage and supermarket brands (Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Kraft, Nestle, Unilever, Nestle, General Mills, Kellogg’s, Conagra) whose products contain GMO ingredients will not be able, in terms of public relations, to just label their products as containing GMOs in Vermont, while denying consumers in the other 49 states this information.

If forced to label (or to reformulate their products to get rid of GMOs, as they’ve done in Europe) in Vermont, Big Food will have to do the same in all 50 states, and Canada as well. This is why the Grocery Manufacturers Association and the International Dairy Foods Association have sued Vermont in federal court to try to get the labeling law reversed.

Americans are overwhelmingly ‘GMO-skeptic’

Since genetically engineered (GE) crops and foods were forced onto the market in the 1990s by Monsanto and the FDA, with no pre-market safety testing and no labels required, consumers have mobilized to either ban or to require mandatory labeling of these ‘Frankenfoods’.

Survey after survey has shown that Americans, especially mothers and parents of small children, are either suspicious of, or alarmed by, unlabeled GMO foods.

This is understandable given the toxic track records of the chemical companies pushing this technology, as well as the mounting scientific evidence that these controversial foods and crops-and the toxic herbicides and insecticides sprayed on them or laced into their cells-severely damage or kill birds, bees, butterflies, lab rats, farm animals and no doubt, humans.

Most polls indicate that 90% of Americans want to know whether their food has been genetically engineered or not, even though massive advertising by the Frankenfood lobby has brainwashed millions of consumers into believing that state-mandated GMO labels will raise grocery store costs or hurt small producers. In Europe where GMO labeling is mandatory, GMO foods and crops have been nearly driven from the marketplace.

Fear and anger against Frankenfoods have spawned an unprecedented national grassroots Movement that has persevered for over two decades, despite hundreds of millions of dollars spent by the GMO and junk food industries to buy off federal and state lawmakers and regulatory agencies.

The GE lobby in recent years has waged vicious anti-labeling propaganda campaigns against grassroots-powered ballot initiatives in California (2012), Washington State (2013), Oregon (2014) and Colorado (2014).

Unfortunately for Monsanto and big food interests, most legal analysts predict that Vermont’s carefully written law will stand up in court. But once Oregon (and perhaps) Colorado pass similar laws to the one in Vermont, it will be ‘game over’ for large food corporations and supermarket chains hell-bent on keeping consumers in the dark about hidden GMOs in their foods.

Responsible corporations joining the movement

Of perhaps equal importance to Vermont’s law, consumer pressure has prompted the nation’s largest retailer of organic and natural foods, Whole Foods Market, to announce that all 40,000 or so food items in its stores will have to be labeled by 2018 if they contain GMOs. The labeling policy includes meat, eggs, dairy and all deli or take-out items.

Again, although this policy will only affect the 40,000 or so food products sold in WFM stores, brands selling to Whole Foods will suffer a public relations disaster if they are forced to label their items in WFM as GMO-tainted, but then refuse to do so in other stores.

Many of the thousands of suppliers to Whole Foods are now racing to get GMOs out of their products so they won’t have to put the proverbial GMO ‘skull and crossbones’ on their products in 2018.

On the restaurant front, consumer pressure has forced the highly profitable Chipotle restaurant chain to make a similar promise.

Other grocery brands and restaurant chains (most of whom are watching their profits decrease, while WFM’s and Chipotle’s rise) will shortly be facing enormous pressures from their customers to do the same.

Next, the debate will ‘go Federal’

Beyond November 4, additional states are likely to pass ballot initiatives or state legislation over the next year. Given the cumulative impact of these victories for consumer power, Monsanto and Big Food’s minions in the federal government face a difficult dilemma.

Do they allow these state labeling laws to stand, thereby drastically reducing the presence of GMO foods in the marketplace and set what to them appears to be a dangerous precedent for consumer power?

Or will they move to thwart the people’s will and stomp on state’s rights by passing a federal GMO labeling bill that is industry-friendly, voluntary, and patently dishonest?

And of course with the 2016 Presidential campaign fast approaching, Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, Jeb Bush, Rand Paul and others aspiring to be President will be facing the same dilemma. Are you with us or against us?

So far only one national leader likely running for President, Bernie Sanders, Senator from Vermont, has come out for states rights’ to require mandatory GMO labeling.

There is indeed currently an industry-sponsored bill languishing in the US House of Representatives, the Pompeo bill, that will

  1. take away the right of states to pass mandatory GMO labeling laws;
  2. take junk food companies off the hook by making GMO labeling voluntary; and
  3. make it legal to continue the fraudulent industry practice of labeling or marketing GMO-tainted foods as ‘natural’ or ‘all natural’.

The Pompeo ‘Monsanto Bill’ is so blatantly anti-consumer and unpopular that it has so far managed to attract very few co-sponsors in the House, and has generated no corresponding bill in the Senate.

Still, we should not underestimate the power of the Gene Giants and Big Food – not to mention the treachery of indentured elected public officials and the White House.

Recent moves by Monsanto’s Minions in Washington (including approving Agent Orange crops and negotiating secret international trade deals) make it clear that many of them are quite willing to abolish democracy, if necessary, in order to protect the massive profits of their paymasters, the big corporations.

Future labelling demands will only grow

Notwithstanding future battles with the Washington Establishment, November 4 will likely prove decisive, setting the stage for future, even more comprehensive consumer right-to-know campaigns.

These future campaigns, now percolating behind the scenes, will include the demand for labels on meat and animal products coming from factory farms, where the animals are routinely fed GMOs, antibiotics, growth hormones and slaughterhouse waste (including manure and blood).

This forthcoming factory farm right-to-know campaign, will expose the horrors of the entire US food and farming system, and hopefully over time move the country away from an out-of-control food and farming system that is destroying not only public health, and the health of billions of farm animals, but the fundamental health of the environment and the climate that are necessary for human survival.

At the same time we organize to change public policies through grassroots lobbying and ballot initiatives, we must continue to educate and mobilize consumers in the marketplace to pressure stores and brands to label and or remove GMO and factory farmed foods from the marketplace.

Part of this campaign will be to spread the ‘Traitor Brands’ boycott whereby consumers have begun boycotting the products of food companies who are members of the Grocery Manufactures Association, the industry front group opposed to consumers right-to-know.

The key to driving GMOs into the margins, and moving away from the ‘fatal harvest’ of industrial agriculture, is public education and grassroots mobilization, both online and on the ground.

Likewise the key to stopping the federal government from pre-empting state GMO labeling laws is to create so much public awareness that politicians will be afraid to thwart the people’s will.

America’s contemporary food fight is not just a battle for health and sustainability, but a fundamental struggle over whether we and our children will live in a Democracy or a Corporatocracy.

All out for November 4th!

 


 

Action: please make a donation or volunteer to get out the vote.

Ronnie Cummins is international director of the Organic Consumers Association and its Mexico affiliate, Via Organica.

This article was originally published by the Organic Consumers Association.

More: for related articles and more information, please visit OCA’s Genetic Engineering page and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

 




386222