The Non-GMO Project label is increasingly appearing on food products in the U.S. and now seed companies are starting to display the butterfly label. A few seed companies, seeing the growing demand for non-GMO products, are getting seed varieties Non-GMO Project verified though the numbers remain small compared with the number of non-GMO verified food companies.
“As demand for non-GMO choices continues to rise, farmers are seeking more non-GMO seed,” Megan Westgate, executive director of the Non-GMO Project, said. “Similarly, smaller farms and home gardeners are choosing to plant more organic and non-GMO varieties.”
High Mowing Organic Seeds Leads the Way
Vermont-based High Mowing Organic Seeds has been the leader in Non-GMO Project verified seeds. All 700 of the company’s organic seed varieties have been verified because of customer demand, according to company president Tom Stearns.
“We’re continuing to hear concerns about GMOs from our customers and while we are certified organic that doesn’t say anything about GMO contamination,” Stearns said, who worked with the Non-GMO Project to develop a non-GMO verification program for seed. “We’ve spent a huge amount of time implementing (GMO) preventative measures and did GMO testing but we felt this wasn’t enough. We wanted third party verification of our claims.”
Stearns said there are many more GMO plants than people think.
“There are some 40 GMO plant species, including things like petunia and endive,” he said. “There are contamination risks even when a GMO crop is not commercially approved, such as when crops such as GMO wheat escape field trials.”
High Mowing Organic Seeds had all of their seed varieties verified to assure their customers.
“If we were to just verify 15 percent of our varieties that have higher GMO risk, our customers may have wondered about the other 85 percent,” Stearns added.
Having all seeds verified also allows High Mowing Organic Seeds to be ready if more GMO varieties come to market since they will have GMO prevention systems in place.
“If GM lettuce is introduced, we are prepared,” Stearns remarked.
Tough Standard to Meet for Corn
Minnesota-based Albert Lea Seed House has begun getting some of its organic seed varieties Non-GMO Project verified.
“There’s a huge demand for non-GMO and we wanted to be on the leading edge,” Mac Ehrhardt, owner and manager Albert Lea, which sells organic and conventional seeds to farmers, said.
Albert Lea sells Non-GMO Project verified varieties of organic oats, rye, wheat and barley.
“We started with seed varieties we could get a handle on,” Ehrhardt said. “Once we know what it takes, we will move forward on others.”
The verification process was not that difficult, said Matt Leavitt, who handles organic certification for Albert Lea Seed House.
“It’s not unlike organic certification and we’ve had systems in place for isolation and minimizing commingling for 20 years,” Leavitt said.
Albert Lea Seed House also plans to get corn and soybean seed varieties verified but these will be more difficult due to GMO risks in those plants.
The Non-GMO Project’s standard sets a GMO threshold of 0.25 percent for seed.
“It’s a tough standard to meet for corn and also challenging for soybeans and alfalfa” Ehrhardt added. “It has to meet expectations of consumers, but must be achievable for farmers.”
“We need a substantial amount of seed at those low levels in order to support the Project’s 0.9 percent human food threshold over the long term,” Westgate said.
Ehrhardt doesn’t yet know how his farmer customers will respond to the non-GMO verification.
“There’s huge demand for non-GMO but I question whether our farmers are interested in the label,” he said.
Iowa-based Blue River Hybrids put two of its PuraMaize pollen-blocking corn hybrids through the Non-GMO Project verification.
Blue River Hybrids President Maury Johnson sees value in the verification for providing assurance to grain buyers and as a marketing tool.
“For a farmer who is growing organic and concerned about GMO content, this is a pretty handy way to buy seed that is non-GMO verified and has minimal or no GMO content,” Johnson said. “That’s a good first step.”
Similar to Albert Lea Seed House, Johnson plans to get more seed varieties Non-GMO Project verified.
Costco Requested Non-GMO Verification
At Utah-based Mountain Valley Seed Company, retail giant Costco provided the impetus for getting seed varieties Non-GMO Project verified.
“The Non-GMO Project is very predominant in Costco and our Costco buyers wanted the verification,” Robb Baumann, Mountain Valley Seed Company partner, said. “That’s what led us to do it.”
Mountain Valley Seed Company sells 16 organic seed varieties at Costco.
Baumann said his company receives calls “every day” from people asking about GMOs. “The number one question we get is about GMOs,” he said.
Still, Bauman has mixed feelings about non-GMO verification.
“Certainly there is value in that customers see it as something good,” he added. “But it is an expense. Organic is already expensive. In a way it’s taking an organic product and putting another label on it that said the same thing twice.”
Conventional Seeds Also Non-GMO Verified
While most Non-GMO Project verified seeds are organic, there are also verified conventional varieties. Washington-based Mighty Mustard sells three varieties of non-GMO verified mustard varieties that farmers grow as cover crops to suppress weeds and increase soil organic matter.
In Oregon, Pure Seed became the first seed company to sell non-GMO verified forage seed for animal feed and turf seed varieties for golf courses and municipal parks.
General Manager Lucas Solis said his company wants to be ahead of the curve.
“GMO has become a bigger topic in turf grass and some companies are developing GMO varieties,” he said. “We see the advantage of being non-GMO from an education standpoint and we are doing our best to maintain the integrity of our products.”
Further, Solis said Non-GMO Project verification provides assurance to customers, particularly international customers in countries that have strict GMO policies.
Need for Clean, Non-GMO Seed
While there is growing interest in Non-GMO Project verification among seed companies, there aren’t many incentives for companies to have their seed verified because the Non-GMO Project focuses more on food.
“The Non-GMO Project Standard focuses on post-harvest testing, so there’s no requirement to use verified seed,” Westgate said. “The challenge is that without verified seed being required, there’s less incentive for that sector to engage.”
The Non-GMO Project has organized a Seed Advisory Committee that will examine ways to encourage more seed companies to get their products verified.
“We need to find a solution to creating more engagement,” Westgate said.
While demand for non-GMO verified seed is not that strong, the need for it is, said Westgate.
“Seeds are the foundation of the food supply, so it’s essential to preserve and build sources of clean, non-GMO seed,” she concluded.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
Trump Calls Fauci 'a Disaster,' Tries to Blame Science and Medical Experts for Failed Coronavirus Response
President Trump attacked the nation's top infectious disease specialist in a call with campaign staffers that several reporters were allowed to listen to on Monday. In the call, Trump said that Dr. Anthony S. Fauci was "a disaster." He added that despite the evidence that coronavirus cases are once again rising across the country, the public was tired of hearing so much news about the virus, especially from "these idiots" in the government and scientific community, as The Washington Post reported.
- Fauci Warns Pre-Pandemic Normalcy Not Likely Until Late 2021 ... ›
- Fauci Warns Bad Second Wave of Coronavirus Could Hit U.S. ... ›
- Coronavirus and the Terrifying Muzzling of Public Health Experts ... ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
By Rebecca Niemiec and Kevin Crooks
Colorado voters will decide on Nov. 3 whether the state should reintroduce gray wolves (Canis lupus) after a nearly 80-year absence. Ballot Proposition 114 would require the state to develop and oversee a science-based plan to restore wolves, focused in Western Colorado and initiated by the end of 2023.
Back by Popular Demand?<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDUzOTQxNy9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYwNzI4NTkyMX0.BeRR61CH6a-TWwSw1p4kmng4x4tXRaSMKyTRHKIHmOw/img.jpg?width=980" id="1f7fe" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="339e3443dc63f3be06e24a82f0b37a03" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="9aec767b3325e364a8605524504f95ab"><iframe lazy-loadable="true" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wTx_jqpqqfU?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
Clashing Values<p>Proposition 114 has strong support in Colorado. <a href="https://extension.colostate.edu/topic-areas/people-predators/public-perspectives-on-wolves-and-wolf-reintroduction-8-004/" target="_blank">Statewide surveys </a> conducted by phone, by mail and online over the past two decades have found that 66% to 84% of respondents supported reintroducing wolves. This support is consistent across different regions of the state and diverse demographic groups.</p><p>In a <a href="https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9074" target="_blank">survey of Colorado residents</a> that we conducted in 2019, the prospect that wolves could contribute to a balanced ecosystem was the most commonly cited reason for supporting reintroduction. Other arguments included people's cultural and emotional connections to wolves, and <a href="https://extension.colostate.edu/topic-areas/people-predators/moral-arguments-related-to-wolf-restoration-and-management-8-011/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">moral arguments</a> that restoring a species humans had eradicated was the right thing to do.</p><p>While overall public support is strong, over half of Colorado's 64 counties have passed <a href="https://www.drovers.com/article/wolf-reintroduction-ballot-colorado" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">resolutions against restoring wolves</a>. Many ranching and hunting associations are actively campaigning against the ballot measure.</p><p>In our 2019 study, we found that media coverage in the state focused more strongly on <a href="https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9074" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">perceived negative impacts</a> associated with wolf reintroduction than on beneficial effects. Surveys show that resident concerns include threats to <a href="https://extension.colostate.edu/topic-areas/people-predators/wolves-and-human-safety-8-003/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">human safety and pets</a>; <a href="https://extension.colostate.edu/topic-areas/people-predators/wolves-and-livestock-8-010/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">wolf attacks on livestock</a>; and the potential for wolves to <a href="https://extension.colostate.edu/topic-areas/people-predators/wolves-big-game-and-hunting-8-001/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">reduce deer and elk populations</a>, threatening hunting opportunities.</p>
Who Decides?<p>This measure is the first giving voters in the U.S. an opportunity to weigh in on bringing back a native species. Addressing the issue through a ballot measure adds a unique twist to public and media discussions about wolves.</p><p>Supporters call it a democratic way to ensure that the <a href="https://www.cpr.org/2020/09/29/should-wolves-be-brought-back-to-colorado-a-rancher-and-a-biologist-have-their-say/" target="_blank">public's values are recognized</a>. They also argue that voters are deciding only whether wolves should be reintroduced, while allowing experts at the <a href="https://cpw.state.co.us/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">state wildlife agency</a> to create a reintroduction plan <a href="https://www.steamboatpilot.com/news/election/howl-you-vote-wolf-advocates-opponents-ask-colorado/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">based on the best available science</a>.</p>
<div id="4c11f" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="dec8674441e02372e50b796d848e4130"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1316474105315483649" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">According to a recent poll of 900 demographically representative likely voters, two-thirds supported “restoring wol… https://t.co/74LMG1PYtW</div> — High Country News (@High Country News)<a href="https://twitter.com/highcountrynews/statuses/1316474105315483649">1602706860.0</a></blockquote></div>
Finding Consensus<p>Studies suggest that ballot initiatives like 114 will <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.07.032" target="_blank">become more common</a> as public values toward wildlife change and more diverse groups seek to influence wildlife management. For us, the key question is how to recognize and incorporate these differing values as agencies make decisions.</p><p>Research drawing on insights from <a href="https://extension.colostate.edu/topic-areas/people-predators/dialogue-and-social-conflict-about-wolves-8-009/" target="_blank">psychology, political science and sociology</a> suggests that it is critical to run<a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QppmBszEF6zsNnhBJ7Q2-pSWRR-Zx_ln/view" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> truly participatory processes</a> that engage government agencies and people who have a stake in the issue in shared decision-making. Fostering dialogue between groups that value wildlife differently can build empathy and mutual understanding and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.07.015" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">foster compromise</a>. Broadening the conversation in this way is essential for coexisting with carnivores with minimal impacts on predators and people.</p>
- Four Environmental Fights on the 2020 Ballot - EcoWatch ›
- Conservation Groups Challenge Kill-at-Will Policy for Wyoming ... ›
- Oppose Welfare Ranching, Not Wolves - EcoWatch ›
Poor eating habits, lack of exercise, genetics, and a bunch of other things are known to be behind excessive weight gain. But, did you know that how much sleep you get each night can also determine how much weight you gain or lose?
- Moved by Flint Water Crisis, 11-Year-Old Scientist Invents Lead ... ›
- Malala Yousafzai and Greta Thunberg Finally Meet in Oxford ... ›
- Irish Teenager Wins Google Science Award for Removing ... ›
By Brian Bienkowski
Fish exposed to endocrine-disrupting compounds pass on health problems to future generations, including deformities, reduced survival, and reproductive problems, according to a new study.
Low Levels Lead to Generational Impacts<p>Researchers exposed inland silverside fish to bifenthrin, levonorgestrel, ethinylestradiol, and trenbolone to levels currently found in waterways.</p><p>"Our concentrations were actually on the low end" of what is found in the wild, DeCourten said, adding that it was low amounts of chemicals in parts per trillion.</p><p>Bifenthrin is a pesticide; levonorgestrel and ethinylestradiol are synthetic hormones used in birth controls; and trenbolone is a synthetic steroid often given to cattle to bulk them up.</p><p>Such endocrine-disruptors have already been linked to a variety of health problems in directly exposed fish including altered growth, reduced survival, lowered egg production, skewed sex ratios, and negative impacts to immune systems. But what remains less clear is how the exposure may impact future generations.</p><p>For their study, DeCourten and colleagues started the exposure when the fish were embryos and continued it for 21 days.</p><p>They then tracked effects on the exposed fish, and the next two generations.</p>
Inherited Problems<p>DeCourten said the altered DNA methylation is one of the plausible ways that future generations would experience health impacts from previous generations' exposure. Hormone-disrupting compounds have been shown to impact DNA methylation, which is an important marker of how an organism will develop.</p><p>"Methyl groups are added to specific sites on the genome, [the exposure] is not changing the genome itself, but rather how the genome is expressed," she said. "And that can be inherited throughout generations."</p><p>In addition, Brander said there are essentially different "tags" that exist on DNA molecules, which tell genes how to turn on and off. She said the exposure to different compounds may be "influencing which methyl tags get taken on or off as you proceed through generations."</p><p>The researchers said the study should prompt future toxics testing to consider impacts on future generations.</p><p>"The results … throw a wrench in the current approach to regulating chemicals, where it's often short-term testing looking at simple things like growth, survival, and maybe gene expression," Brander said.</p><p>"These findings are telling us we really at least need to consider" the next two generations, she added.</p>
- Alarming Levels of Cancer-Causing Chemicals Found in Columbia ... ›
- Microplastics Are Killing Baby Fish, New Study Finds - EcoWatch ›