If a consumer cares about GMOs in their food, they know they need to look for the Non-GMO Project’s butterfly. The certification is granted to products that meet a stringent set of regulations that ensure genetically modified or bioengineered ingredients are not included. Many products that are not required by federal law to label bioengineered ingredients are not eligible for Non-GMO Project verification.
This study pulls together SPINS point-of-sale data for both natural and multi-outlet stores for the 104 weeks ending Dec. 26, 2021. Across the board, the Non-GMO Project butterfly gave a large boost to sales growth.
In terms of dollar volumes, Non-GMO Project Verified frozen plant-based meats; frozen and refrigerated meat, poultry and seafood; and refrigerated eggs saw offerings with the butterfly grow far more than those products that simply billed themselves as non-GMO or had non-GMO labels.
Frozen and refrigerated meat, poultry and seafood products with the butterfly saw 52.5% sales growth, for example. Those that simply billed themselves as non-GMO saw 40.5% growth, and those without non-GMO labels grew 22.2%.
However, these results need to be looked at for what they are. There is still growth happening in products that aren’t trying to position themselves as non-GMO. Given the fact that more than 90% of U.S. corn and soybeans are produced using genetically modified varieties, according to the USDA, there are several existing products that cannot qualify for Non-GMO Project verification.
In the days that GMO labeling laws were being debated, it was estimated that 75% of grocery store products qualified as GMO. The breakdown may be different now, as more consumers are concerned with product labels and certifications. Large brands’ products that use GMO ingredients likely also saw huge sales during the last two years, especially during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, but the growth percentage might not have been as high as a smaller Non-GMO Project Verified product.
What the study does show is that Non-GMO Project Verified is a label certification that works. At the beginning of the year, as the requirement for foods made with bioengineered ingredients to be labeled was taking effect, researchers affiliated with Cornell University published a study that showed the power of the butterfly seal.
They designed the study to examine how mandatory GMO labeling impacted consumer purchases by looking at Vermont, which briefly enacted a state-specific labeling law. They found mandatory labeling had no pronounced effect on purchases, but that high-profile discussions about GMO products led to an uptick in sales for Non-GMO Project Verified items.
For brands looking to draw consumer interest, a Non-GMO Project Verified seal may do it, this study finds. And while the butterfly seems to work better than the USDA Organic seal, studies have shown that could be because consumers don’t really know what organic means. However, according to USDA requirements, products that become organic certified cannot use GMOs either. This study shows getting both certifications might be worth the cost.
Many of the processed foods that we see on grocery shelves today bear an ingredient label that says “artificially flavored.” Due to the prevalence of artificial additives in the marketplace, one of the questions we are asked most frequently from savvy shoppers is: “Why did I see the word artificial in the ingredients of a Non-GMO Project Verified product?”
Similar to how the word “modified” does not mean genetically modified when referring to modified corn starch or similar products, “artificial” does not inherently mean an ingredient is GMO. “Artificial flavor” is a term used by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to classify flavorings not found in nature or derived from natural elements (plants or animals). Artificial flavors are produced through synthesis in a lab to mimic the taste and chemical makeup of a natural counterpart. They are often used to cut costs for food producers. While this production process can be achieved without any genetic engineering—no GMOs required—some producers do choose to use GMOs.
It’s important to recognize that while artificial does not inherently classify ingredients as a GMO, some artificial ingredients do come from GMOs—especially GMO microorganisms. Those are the types of artificial ingredients that are addressed in the Non-GMO Project Standard.
Flavors are added to food primarily for their taste rather than nutritional value. Think of strawberry jam—while the strawberries in the jam are flavorful, they wouldn’t be considered a flavor in that product. However, in a product like strawberry gum,.strawberry would be considered a flavor because it is present solely for taste.
In the US, flavors are regulated by the FDA, which enforces the Food Additives and Amendment Act of 1958. Under this law, the FDA is responsible for ensuring the safety of new food additives, including flavors, before they can be used in food products.
The FDA categorizes flavorings as either natural (e.g., vanilla bean extract, almond extract), artificial (e.g., synthesized vanillin, benzaldehyde), or spices (e.g., basil, cumin seed, or paprika). While artificial flavors are those not derived from natural elements, natural flavors are the processed and concentrated form of the plant or animal they came from. Spices are simply dried vegetables with no added flavoring. Ingredients traditionally regarded as foods, like onions, garlic, and celery, must be separately disclosed on a product’s ingredient list because they are not considered spices by the FDA.
The next time you reach for that artificial vanilla flavor, Look for the Butterfly so you can be sure that product is non-GMO, right back to any microorganisms involved. Non-GMO Project Verified products are third-party tested and backed by our rigorous Standard to help take the guesswork out of shopping for you and your family.
The following is a guest post courtesy of a group of Indigenous leaders and organizations (for a full list of contributors, see below). The Non-GMO Project is honored to share this content, which invites proponents of western ecological agriculture to go deeper — to not ‘take’ certain land practices from Indigenous cultures without their context, but to encompass deeper Indigenous worldviews.
Regenerative Agriculture & Permaculture offer narrow solutions to the climate crisis
Regenerative agriculture and permaculture claim to be the solutions to our ecological crises. While they both borrow practices from Indigenous cultures, critically, they leave out our worldviews and continue the pattern of erasing our history and contributions to the modern world.
While the practices 'sustainable farming' promote are important, they do not encompass the deep cultural and relational changes needed to realize our collective healing.
Where is ‘Nature’?
Regen Ag & Permaculture often talk about what's happening 'in nature': "In nature, soil is always covered.” “In nature, there are no monocultures." Nature is viewed as separate, outside, ideal, perfect. Human beings must practice “biomimicry” (the mimicking of life) because we exist outside of the life of Nature.
Indigenous peoples speak of our role AS Nature. (Actually, Indigenous languages often don't have a word for Nature, only a name for Earth and our Universe.) As cells and organs of Earth, we strive to fulfill our roles as her caregivers and caretakers. We often describe ourselves as "weavers", strengthening the bonds between all beings.
Death Doesn’t Mean Dead
Regen Ag & Permaculture often maintain the "dead" worldview of Western culture and science: Rocks, mountains, soil, water, wind, and light all start as "dead". (E.g., "Let's bring life back to the soil!" — implying soil, without microbes, is dead.) This worldview believes that life only happens when these elements are brought together in some specific and special way.
Indigenous cultures view the Earth as a communion of beings and not objects: All matter and energy is alive and conscious. Mountains, stones, water, and air are relatives and ancestors. Earth is a living being whose body we are all a part of. Life does not only occur when these elements are brought together; Life always is. No “thing” is ever dead; Life forms and transforms.
From Judgemental to Relational
Regen Ag & Permaculture maintain overly simplistic binaries through subscribing to good and bad. Tilling is bad; not tilling is good. Mulch is good; not mulching is bad. We must do only the ‘good’ things to reach the idealized, 99.9% biomimicked farm/garden, though we will never be as pure or good "as Nature", because we are separate from her.
Indigenous cultures often share the view that there is no good, bad, or ideal—it is not our role to judge. Our role is to tend, care, and weave to maintain relationships of balance. We give ourselves to the land: Our breath and hands uplift her gardens, binding our life force together. No one is tainted by our touch, and we have the ability to heal as much as any other lifeform.
Our Words Shape Us
Regen Ag & Permaculture use English as their preferred language no matter the geography or culture: You must first learn English to learn from the godFATHERS of this movement. The English language judges and objectifies, including words most Indigenous languages do not: 'natural, criminal, waste, dead, wild, pure…' English also utilizes language like "things" and "its" when referring to “non-living, subhuman entities”.
Among Indigenous cultures, every language emerges from and is therefore intricately tied to place. Inuit people have dozens of words for snow and her movement; Polynesian languages have dozens of words for water's ripples. To know a place, you must speak her language. There is no one-size-fits-all, and no words for non-living or sub-human beings, because all life has equal value.
People are land. Holistic includes History.
Regen Ag and Permaculture claim to be holistic in approach. When regenerating a landscape, ‘everything’ is considered: soil health, water cycles, local ‘wildlife’, income & profit. ‘Everything’, however, tends to EXCLUDE history: Why were Indigenous homelands steal-able and why were our peoples & lands rape-able? Why were our cultures erased? Why does our knowledge need to be validated by ‘Science’? Why are we still excluded from your ‘healing’ of our land?
Among Indigenous cultures, people belong to land rather than land belonging to people. Healing of land MUST include healing of people and vice versa. Recognizing and processing the emotional traumas held in our bodies as descendants of assaulted, enslaved, and displaced peoples is necessary to the healing of land. Returning our rights to care for, harvest from, and relate to the land that birthed us is part of this recognition.
Composting
Regen Ag & Permaculture often share the environmentalist message that the world is dying and we must “save” it. Humans are toxic, but if we try, we can create a "new Nature" of harmony, though one that is not as harmonious as the "old Nature" that existed before humanity. Towards this mission, we must put Nature first and sacrifice ourselves for “the cause”.
Indigenous cultures often see Earth as going through cycles of continuous transition. We currently find ourselves in a cycle of great decomposition. Like in any process of composting there is discomfort and a knowing that death always brings us into rebirth. Within this great cycle, we all have a role to play. Recognizing and healing all of our own traumas IS healing Earth's traumas, because we are ONE.
Where to go from here?
Making up only 6.2% of our global population, Indigenous peoples steward 80% of Earth's biodiversity while managing over 25% of her land. Indigenous worldviews are the bedrocks that our agricultural practices & lifeways arise from. We invite you to ground your daily practices in these ancestral ways, as we jointly work towards collective healing.
Learn whose lands you live on (native-land.ca), their history, and how you can support their causes and cultural revitalization.
Watch @gatherfilm and Aluna documentary.
Amplify the voices and stories of Indigenous peoples and organizations.
Follow, support, donate to, and learn from the contributors to this post.
On March 8, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) lifted its ban on the import of the genetically modified AquAdvantage salmon created by AquaBounty Technologies. The FDA initially approved this GMO for human consumption in 2015, but Congress required the FDA to halt imports of the fish until appropriate GMO labeling guidelines could be established.
The FDA announced that this congressional mandate has been fulfilled through the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (NBFDS), which requires the labeling of some GMOs at the federal level. AquAdvantage salmon is explicitly included in the USDA’s List of Bioengineered Foods. Now that GMO salmon will be labeled in the US, the FDA has given the go-ahead to import, raise, and sell GMO salmon.
AquaBounty hopes to have its GMO salmon on the market as soon as 2020. Since compliance with the NBFDS does not become mandatory until 2022, it is unclear whether AquaBounty would choose to label its salmon in the interim. This means it is possible that GMO salmon could be sold in the US without a GMO disclosure for two years. The Non-GMO Project will continue to monitor this situation as it develops.
