Melissa Waddell - The Non-GMO Project

To celebrate National Dairy Month, we are highlighting some of the world's most innovative, Non-GMO Project Verified dairy producers These dairy operations offer regenerative and regionally-specific solutions to the most significant issues facing the dairy industry (e.g., animal welfare, soil health and climate change) — all without GMOs!

"We’ve created a new paradigm in dairy that puts sustainability, human health and the environment at the core of nutrition."

Ohio-based milk company ORIGIN is on a mission to rebuild dairy.

ORIGIN consistently exceeds the most rigorous certifications, creating a new standard for excellence in dairy. "We want to look at an approach that is not just sustainable. Because if we are sustaining, we're not doing enough," says CEO and founder Adrian Bota.

ORIGIN meets the highest standard for clean labels, with both Non-GMO Project verification and Regenerative Organic certification. ORIGIN says commitment to supporting small family farms who raise heritage breeds is the reason their milk is richer and healthier than conventionally produced dairy.

By combining the best farming traditions with progressive ideals, ORIGIN is creating a vision for clean dairy that could fix industrial-style dairy's destructive legacy.

Non-GMO and Regenerative Organic

Regenerative Organic is a comparatively new label. It was established in 2017 by a coalition of farmers, business leaders and soil health experts.

Under the Regenerative Organic standard, existing USDA Organic requirements are considered a starting point. Regenerative Organic enhances the wellbeing of the entire ecosystem, while its social and economic impacts extend beyond the farm. According to the Regenerative Organic Alliance, a truly regenerative approach includes all the people and organisms in a farm system, "from the soil microbiome to the animals to the workers."

Regenerative practices can include cover crops, conservation tillage, rotational planting and grazing and avoiding chemical pesticides and fertilizers. For shoppers and eaters, choosing products with the ROC label — including ORIGIN dairy products — means you're making a meaningful contribution to a resilient and sustainable agriculture system.

The origin of taste and health

Origin whole milk carton on counter top

ORIGIN looks to farmers of heritage cow breeds, such as Guernsey, Jersey, Milking Shorthorn, Dutch-belted, and Brown Swiss, to provide dairy that's unlike anything you've tasted before.

Today, most conventionally-produced milk comes from Holstein cows, the distinctive black-and-white cow famous for producing low-cost and abundant milk. However, the ubiquity of the Holstein cow might be impacting human health — and not for the better.

Over hundreds of generations of breeding, Holsteins have developed a genetic mutation that altered their milk's protein structure. Modern Holsteins generally produce milk with an "A1" protein that is relatively new to human consumption. Milk with A2 proteins — such as the milk produced by many heritage breeds — is more similar to human breast milk, and it may be easier to digest. Studies have shown that an estimated 80% of people who believe they are lactose intolerant are actually intolerant of the A1 protein in conventional dairy. They may be able to consume A2 dairy without adverse effects.

ORIGIN milk's rich, golden hue results from its high beta-carotene, milkfat and protein content. Compared with conventionally produced white milk, ORIGIN milk touts better nutritional profile, claiming:

33% more vitamin D
25% more vitamin A
30% more vitamin K
15% more calcium
12% more protein
300% more omega-3s
5% more milkfat

Always local

ORIGIN milk combines the strongest dairy traditions with forward-thinking regenerative principles to create a vision for clean-dairy that nourishes people, animals and the land. Cows are pasture-raised on small-scale family farms, making a compelling case that bigger is not necessarily better.

In fact, small looks pretty awesome.

Small herds mean that every cow is important. It means that calves remain with their mothers longer. And it means that regional networks support local food systems and rural economies.

The Non-GMO Project is delighted to partner with ORIGIN Milk during National Dairy Month. To hear more about ORIGIN Milk and the potential of regenerative, organic and non-GMO dairy, watch the seminar, The Whole Truth About Dairy.

To celebrate National Dairy Month, we are highlighting some of the world's most innovative, Non-GMO Project Verified dairy producers. These dairy operations offer regenerative and regionally-specific solutions to the most significant issues facing the dairy industry (e.g., animal welfare, soil health and climate change) — all without GMOs!

Albert Straus knows dairy.

Growing up on his family's dairy farm in Northern California, he learned all about dairy farming and land stewardship from his parents. Today, Straus Family Creamery is a West Coast leader in organic, regenerative and non-GMO dairy farming.

Where conventional dairy stumbles, Straus soars. Their transition to organic was the natural evolution of the family's environmental commitment. Plus, organic production and cutting-edge regenerative thinking secured Straus' future as a viable dairy business. That's no small accomplishment in a famously turbulent industry.

Here's how Straus Family Creamery is rising to the top.

Beyond organic

Straus was on his way to organic production before the label even existed. Throughout the 1970s and 80s, the family farm transitioned pasture land to no-till and reduced chemical use. In 1994, Straus Dairy Farm transitioned fully to organic production, combining Albert Straus’ commitment to land stewardship with a specialized market that hopefully provided financial stability. At the time, Straus Dairy Farm was the first certified organic dairy farm west of the Mississippi River and the first 100% certified organic creamery in the United States.

Under USDA organic certification, dairy cows must receive organic animal feed. However, in 2005, when Albert Straus tested the organic feed he was buying, he found GMOs. (GMOs are prohibited in organic production, but the National Organic Program does not have a testing requirement. GMO contamination can go undetected). Until the Non-GMO Project's formation in 2007, diligent producers such as Albert caught contamination that would otherwise have gone unnoticed.

A visionary after our hearts, Albert Straus began a GMO testing program in 2008, later joining the Non-GMO Project's Product Verification Program. Straus Family Creamery pursued verification for their products in 2010, as soon as the Butterfly label began appearing on shelves.

Beyond waste

Albert Straus regards supply chains and waste streams with creativity and frugality. For years, he has used upcycled food products that would otherwise end up as waste to add nutrition and variety to his cows' diets. In 2021, Straus Dairy Farm participated in the first U.S. commercial trial using red seaweed (Asparagopsis taxiformis) supplementation as a climate change solution. The trial demonstrated that adding roughly 1/4 pound of red seaweed to each cow's diet led to significant "enteric methane emissions'' (a.k.a cow burps). Methane emissions released from burping went down an average of 52%, and as much as 90%.

Cow burps are no small thing. Blue Ocean Barns Co-founder and Seaweed Producer Joan Salwen says, "There's as much climate warming effect from one dairy cow as there is one passenger car over the course of the year."

Methane is also captured from cows’ manure. Straus Family Creamery uses a methane biodigester to produce electricity from the methane in cow manure, turning a problem into a solution. In addition, solid animal waste is turned into valuable compost to feed the soil.

A perfect embodiment of Straus' circular economy is the electric feed truck, the first-of-its kind in the world. The vehicle delivers feed to the cows and is powered by the methane captured from the cows' waste. It doesn't get more circular than that.

Toward a carbon-neutral future

In 2013, Straus Family Creamery was the first dairy in California to adopt a 20-year carbon farm plan. Carbon farming uses a plant's natural ability to take carbon from the atmosphere and put it back into the soil.

The Straus team increases plant photosynthesis using a variety of methods. Perennial grasses with deep root systems are encouraged on no-till pastureland. Herds move through a rotational grazing program that improves the land's health, and the cows naturally fertilize as they go. Carbon farming continues right to the water's edge, where grasses, trees and streamside plants protect wetlands, keep waterways clean and reduce soil erosion. Straus Family Creamery plans to make its supplying farms carbon neutral by 2030.

Tresch Family Farms supplies organic milk to Straus Family Creamery

Being a leader means bringing others along on the journey. Straus Family Creamery also works with its network of small dairy suppliers to help them adopt regenerative carbon farming and climate-positive practices. The Straus Family Creamery’s suppliers are currently on track to be carbon-neutral by 2030.

Straus’ vision for a profitable dairy operation that is carbon-neutral and improves the region's soil and water is a blueprint for the dairy farms of tomorrow. After all, farming is not for the faint of heart. The conventional dairy market infamously clobbers all but the largest operations, forcing farmers to "get big or get out." Scale tends to maximize the worst impacts of industrial-style farming and make innovation harder to implement.Thankfully, Albert Straus' clarity and vision keep the growing business on the right path: "As long as we're keeping the focus on small family farms, keeping land practices and animal welfare and community in mind, it will all work."

Thankfully, Albert Straus' clarity and vision keep the growing business on the right path: "As long as we're keeping the focus on small family farms, keeping land practices and animal welfare and community in mind, it will all work."

In the last few years, synthetic, non-animal dairy products have entered the marketplace unregulated and unlabeled. GMO developers use new genetic engineering techniques such as synthetic biology ("synbio") to create dairy proteins that don't come from a cow, sheep, goat, or any of the plant-derived favorites such as oats or almonds. Instead, synbio non-animal dairy proteins are created by microorganisms such as yeast that are genetically modified to produce novel compounds.

It's getting more difficult for the average eater to tell whether the product they reach for in the dairy aisle is an experimental GMO. Synbio companies have rebranded their processes as "precision fermentation," framing it as a high-tech version of brewing beer (it is not). They market synbio dairy as a cleaner, greener, more humane alternative to traditional dairy, positioning it alongside natural and organic products even though synbio is not a natural process and does not create natural products.

Here's how synbio companies paint an overly-rosy but woefully incomplete picture of their products and their environmental impacts.

How green is synbio dairy?

Synbio dairy is marketed as a kinder alternative to livestock and the environment, but how does the reality measure up against the promises? Natural products industry experts say that synbio companies are ignoring the damage their products can do to maintain the illusion of environmentalism. However, a complete life-cycle accounting reveals the grim shadow of industrial agriculture.

"All of these synbio companies want you to believe that their supply chain begins at their receiving dock," says Alan Lewis, Vice President of Government Affairs for Natural Grocers. “Those products start with fracked natural gas converted to synthetic nitrogen, applied to fields along with toxic pesticides made from petrochemicals,” he shares. “Pollution of the land, pollution of the water, destruction of rural communities…. And then you harvest all that up, you highly process it – and that ends up on somebody's receiving dock to make 'regenerative' milk products in precision fermentation."

Regenerative is the real deal

Dairy Month is the perfect time to celebrate natural dairy potential as a climate asset rather than an environmental drain. Innovative and visionary dairy producers are reimagining what dairy looks like like. Dairy's reformation is not only possible, it's imperative: Animals are an essential part of the nutrient cycling process. Integrated animal agriculture done right can help regenerate degraded soil, improve biodiversity and reduce dependence on chemical fertilizers and pesticides that are too often applied to farmland.

Our Non-GMO Project Verified brands include industry leaders who are exploring natural dairy's regenerative potential. From the U.S.'s first Regenerative Organic Certified dairy operation to methane bio-digesters and red seaweed supplements in California to a New Zealand company's commitment to farming for future generations and today's, there is no shortage of ways to go regenerative. The path to regeneration and sustainability is highly individual — no two operations look alike!

The healthiest dairy

Have you heard the term "nutrient density"? It's a fast-growing area of research exploring how growing practices impact the nutritional content of our food. A movement is emerging across industries to restore nutrition to our farms and diets — and rebuild human and planetary health in the process. (You can read more about nutrient density here or watch a video of a panel discussion on the topic here).

In general, our food has become less nutritious over the past 60 years or so. The decline has various drivers, but one underlying theme: Modern farming practices prioritize high yields at the cost of nutrient density. We're growing more food but getting less nutrition from it, and the consequences are devastating. Our planet and its people are increasingly ill.

If we look at nutrient density in the dairy aisle, we find that nutrition from the cow depends mainly on the "how." A dairy cow's genetic makeup and diet have much to do with what ends up in your glass. For example, Origin Milk relies on heritage Guernsey cows to produce milk with particular proteins known as "A2." A2 milk boasts an impressive nutritional profile compared with conventionally produced milk: 33% more vitamin D, 15% more calcium, 300% more omega-3 fatty acids, and more. Milk with A2 proteins is more like human breast milk and, therefore, easier for people to digest — research indicates as many as 80% of people who experience symptoms of lactose intolerance could consume nutritious A2 milk without discomfort.

The nutritional profile of synbio, non-animal milk is comparatively weak. Genetically modified microbes are fed growth media usually made from GMO corn, soy or sugar beets to support the production of non-animal dairy protein isolates. The proteins are separated from the growth media slurry, processed, mixed with added flavorings, colorants, texturizers, other proteins and fortified with vitamins and minerals. In some cases, GMO microbes might remain in the final product. That is the opposite of a natural, whole food.

When it comes to building a nourishing and regenerative food system, shortcuts are shortsighted. The Non-GMO Project Verified products show there are many solutions to the problems in our food system — and GMOs aren't one of them.

Soy is the most commonly-grown commodity crop in North America today. In 2022, American farmers planted more than 100 million acres of soy — more acreage than any other single crop. That's a lot of soybeans, but not necessarily a lot of food. In fact, most soy isn't used in human food at all.

According to the USDA, just over 70% of soy grown in the U.S. becomes animal feed and another 5% becomes biodiesel. Roughly a quarter of the soybeans end up in food for human consumption, primarily as highly-processed ingredients such as oils, ground meals and starches with little nutritional value.

The agrichemical corporations that make and patent GMO soy have grown tremendously rich and powerful by prioritizing profit over all else. GMOs create wealth for shareholders way more than they offer a meaningful benefit to the consumer, the farmer or the planet.

Here's how GMO soy supports some of contemporary agriculture's most destructive practices.

Just add glyphosate

Roughly 95% of soy grown in the United States is genetically engineered to withstand weedkillers, a GMO trait known as herbicide tolerance. The first herbicide-tolerant GMO soy was created by inserting DNA from a glyphosate-resistant bacteria into the soy plant so farmers could apply weedkillers to their fields without damaging their cash crop.

When herbicide-tolerant GMOs were introduced, the biotech industry promised the new technology would reduce pesticide application, but data shows the reverse is true. Since the 1990s, glyphosate use has increased 15-fold. While glyphosate was initially marketed as a "safe" weedkiller, in 2015 it was deemed a "probable human carcinogen" by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Superweeds

Herbicide-tolerant GMO crops, including soy, have led to the rise of herbicide-resistant “superweeds.” Superweeds emerge through natural selection. Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum herbicide that will kill off most weeds, but because nature is diverse and resilient, a few weeds survive. The survivors generate seeds and pass their resistance on to the next generation.

Today, glyphosate-resistant weeds such as ragweed, horseweed and rigid ryegrass are common across the U.S. The Non-GMO Project's headquarter state of Washington is also home to 14 unique herbicide-resistant weeds — click here to find out how many there are in your state.

Superweeds are a growing problem. Once herbicide-resistant superweeds emerge, farmers must apply more or stronger herbicides to remove them. The soy farmer’s weapon of choice is usually the notoriously volatile herbicide dicamba.

Dicamba

Dicamba is a highly destructive herbicide that has caused catastrophic damage to crops across the United States. As glyphosate-resistant superweeds became more of a problem, farmers looked for another herbicide that could wipe them out. In 2016, Monsanto created a dicamba-tolerant GMO soybean. To frustrated farmers, GMO soy looked like a chance to get ahead of glyphosate-resistant weeds, but the increase in dicamba use had its own downsides.

Dicamba is infamous for its volatility, meaning that under certain conditions, it forms a gas and can drift miles from where it is sprayed, devastating crops and natural areas along the way. Since 2017, millions of acres of crops have reportedly been destroyed by dicamba drift, although the EPA estimates the real damage could be as much as 25 times worse than reports indicate.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the use of dicamba has increased 6-fold in the last decade. During that time, new restrictions and GMOs have entered the market — and newly dicamba-resistant superweeds have appeared in Tennessee and Illinois.

The pesticide treadmill

Relying on chemicals leads to a phenomenon called "the pesticide treadmill." Pesticide overuse prompts a target pest to develop immunity. Then, a new chemical pesticide is chosen to target the superweeds and the cycle continues. Getting off the treadmill is challenging because the whole system that farmers work in — extension agents, lobbyists influencing federal policies, crop insurance programs — is framed around the needs and products of agrichemical companies. There is more incentive to stay on the treadmill than to find another way.

Ultimately, chemical companies and their subsidiaries are the only real winners. Since GMOs first entered the market, they have been wildly successful in selling more chemicals. With each herbicide-tolerant GMO crop, sales of the accompanying weedkillers skyrocket.

History has repeatedly shown us that reliance on GMOs, chemical pesticides and industrial-style agriculture is doomed to fail. It springs from the urge to rebuild the natural world as a factory — homogenous, efficient and extractive. However, real solutions are based on working with nature, not against it. Food security means embracing the diversity that underpins resilient, regenerative and non-GMO agriculture.

One of the most common questions we see on our social media channels is, "Where is the science that GMOs are bad for you?"

There is a short answer and a long one. The short answer is dozens of studies show uncertain or adverse impacts from GMOs (you can scroll down to the end of this article to find a list of some of them). However, for every independent study showing uncertain or negative impacts from GMOs, many more industry-funded studies show no concerns at all — and the disparity between independent and industry-funded research is where the real issue lies.

Research that indicates potential negative impacts of GMOs tends to face virulent, bewildering and sometimes nonsensical criticism. The studies are denied by pretense rather than being challenged on substance. The researchers and the journals behind them face intimidation campaigns and professional attacks. In short, such studies are met with a "kill the messenger" response that sows confusion and mistrust while leaving crucial questions about GMOs unanswered.

Until scientific methods are applied evenly on both sides of the debate, "Where's the science?" is the wrong question. We believe the right question is: Why are comparable scientific studies with opposing findings treated so differently?

The Pusztai paper

Shortly after GMOs entered the supply chain in the 1990s, researchers at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland conducted an animal feeding study to explore GMO safety. After feeding genetically modified potatoes to rats, they observed damage to the animals' intestines and immune systems.

Before the study was published, one of the lead researchers, Dr. Árpád Pusztai, was interviewed about the study's findings. He modestly described the study's conclusions, then added, "If I had the choice I would certainly not eat [GMO potatoes]." The interview attracted attention, raising the study's profile. An error in a press release, though not in the research itself, was repeated in the media and sparked confusion and concern. Dr. Pusztai's attempts to correct the mistake were misconstrued as an admission of misconduct and he was fired from his research position.

The scientific community was divided on the validity of the research. Several prominent scientists came to Pusztai's defense, while a committee of the Royal Society of London dismissed the study as poorly executed and designed. It's crucial to note that according to a 2015 analysis of the affair, none of the 900+ media articles written about the Pusztai paper offered "conclusive evidence of why his experiment was allegedly deficient." Ultimately, five of the six independent reviewers for The Lancet, the most distinguished medical journal in the world, supported the study's findings and recommended publication.

The study had been planned, conducted and reviewed according to best practices, and consistent with Dr. Pusztai's previous work. His exasperation at the study's treatment was palpable: "Supposedly in my previous 270 papers, some 40 of them with the same design and methodology, I was scientifically alright, but then suddenly I had a mental breakdown."

The Séralini study

Another high-profile scandal is known as the Séralini study. In 2012, Gilles-Éric Séralini, a professor of molecular biology at the University of Normandy, France, led a toxicity study on genetically modified "Roundup Ready" corn and the glyphosate-based herbicide, Roundup, that is commonly applied to it. The study found that rats who consumed Roundup at concentrations below established safety limits experienced "severe hormone-dependent mammary, hepatic and kidney disturbances’' and a high incidence of tumors.

Soon after the paper was published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), criticism poured in. Researcher Sheldon Krimsky compiled an inventory of the main points in his paper, An Illusory Consensus Behind GMO Health Assessment:

"Séralini was criticized for not following OECD guidelines in doing such experiments, but as he pointed out, there are no such guidelines for in vivo studies of GMO toxicity. He was criticized for using too few animals. His response was that ten animals in each sex group was recommended by OECD in 1981. People criticized him because he did not use the protocols for a carcinogen study. He responded that his study was not a carcinogen study but rather a long-term, full toxicological study. Nevertheless, he was required to report any lesions or tumors, which he did."

FCT released an editorial outlining its publication standards and singling out the Séralini study as having met all of them. While FTC confirmed that Séralini's data was not incorrect and there was no misconduct, fraud or intentional misrepresentation, the journal later retracted the study without the authors' consent — a puzzling decision as it met all the standards for publication and none of the standards for retraction. The Séralini study was republished in 2014 in Environmental Sciences Europe and the controversy remains intact.

Studying the studies: A curiosity in double standards

For science to expand our understanding, research must be independent and rigorous. It must be executed and assessed in good faith and adhere to standard protocols.

Thankfully, there is a growing body of scholarship on independent and industry-led research, comparing studies' design, execution and reception. These papers help to untangle some very dense subject matter. In Sheldon Krimsky’s paper, he analyzes the reception and legacy of GMO research. Krimsky found a general trend of friendliness and receptivity toward industry-led research, even studies based on the same methodology as the independent studies that faced severe criticism. When differences between test subjects are found in industry-led studies, they are more readily dismissed as irrelevant. For example, in her paper Retraction by Corruption: The 2012 Séralini Paper, Eva Novotny notes that a 2004 study funded by Monsanto and similar in design to the Séralini study, found disturbing health signs that were dismissed in the published paper.

Holding studies to different standards because of their results is a profound failure of the scientific method. Such biased reception creates a chilling effect, inhibits further research and leaves vital questions unanswered. The ongoing confusion erodes public trust and reduces transparency in the food system. We need further long-term studies on GMOs.

In a recent interview with Food Sleuth Radio, Non-GMO Project executive director Megan Westgate characterized the biotechnology industry as utterly lacking in curiosity and ongoing inquiry. "The whole industry that calls itself scientific is based on upholding a narrative that supports continued profits. It is not scientific. It is not curious. And it is not going to serve us in the very critical moment we find ourselves in."

You don't have to take our word for it.

The following studies are listed in Sheldon Krimsky's paper An Illusory Consensus Behind GMO Health Assessment as indicating uncertain or adverse impacts from GMO consumption or exposure to the pesticides that accompany GMOs. We encourage curiosity and further reading on the studies and their reception by the biotechnology industry.

Depending on your family dynamics, the term "wild relatives'' might bring to mind vociferous in-laws or unpredictable cousins — any relation who reliably keeps the holidays from getting boring. Did you know that crops have wild relatives, too? They are the weedy distant relations of the plants we grow for food, fuel and fiber — and they have a crucial role to play in global food security.

Since the dawn of agriculture roughly 10,000 years ago, our ancestors have been observing, selecting and cross-breeding our crops' ancestors, resulting in the domesticated versions we rely on today. Step by step, season by season, skilled farmers and breeders stewarded invaluable genetic resources to secure what they needed to survive — meaning that the origin of all domesticated plants is, at some point in its history, wild.

How can that wild past provide us with a more prosperous future?

Where the Wild Things Grow

It's all in the genes.

"These wild relatives of crops have been evolving on Earth for millions of years, and they have witnessed so many different climates," one researcher tells NPR. "The traits that help them adapt and survive in these conditions are stored in their DNA. We have this diversity and it can be a tool to help us face the future."

Wild organisms that have evolved to survive difficult conditions such as drought, heat, flood and poor soils carry genetic traits that can help us develop more resilient food crops.

But that diversity is at risk. Wild spaces are increasingly threatened by deforestation, destructive industrial-style agriculture practices, GMO contamination and climate change. The organisms that live there are disappearing. That's why scientists, nonprofits and international agencies are working together to gather and save seeds, preserving what would otherwise be lost.

One such effort, the Crop Trust's Wild Relatives Project, has already borne fruit.

Diverse traits, resilient crops

Drought resilience is one of agriculture's most sought-after traits, particularly in light of our warming climate. To meet this need, the Crop Trust's Wild Relatives Project is turning to the genetic bounty held in wild plants to create new varieties of alfalfa, finger millet, rice, potatoes and more — all able to withstand the effects of climate change.

Their first success is Jabal wheat, a drought-tolerant durum wheat that was announced in 2022. Jabal wheat was created by cross-breeding commercial durum wheat (the kind used to make pasta, couscous and bulgur) with wild goatgrass, a distant relative. Jabal wheat has been approved for cultivation in Morocco, where it is welcomed by farmers experiencing the worst drought in 30 years.

Collaboration with farmers is crucial to Jabal wheat's success. "A key part of this project is to involve farmers,” said Filippo Bassi, a senior scientist and collaborator on the development of Jabal wheat. “We look to their knowledge and their capacity to identify the best traits in each variety, so that we can deliver something that actually fits into their farming system and improves their lives."

Another non-GMO success story with a wild connection is a non-GMO potato with late blight resistance. Late blight is a severe fungal infection that can wipe out potato crops. In the 1840s, late blight caused famines that killed more than a million people in Ireland alone. Last year, researchers announced a new potato variety that can resist late blight while reducing the need for agricultural inputs. The potato, known as CIP-Matilde, was developed by crossing a commercially-grown potato with a wild relative.

The "long-term issues" of GMOs

CIP-Matilde's potential to fight late blight without costly inputs such as pesticides is a crucial trait for rural and subsistence farmers who cannot afford them. It also highlights key differences between GMO and non-GMO solutions. For example, J.R. Simplot's GMO potatoes also resist late blight, but the patents that protect GMOs raise costs for farmers while preventing them from saving seed potatoes for the following year. A GMO wheat variety engineered for drought tolerance can also withstand the application of weedkiller — a trait that will likely cause a spike in chemical applications where it is adopted.

In an article celebrating the blight-resistant, non-GMO potato, agricultural journalist Richard Halleron added a note of caution: "I am fast coming to the conclusion that [genetic modification] and all other related sciences could be creating long-term issues for humanity – many, or all of which, could prove very difficult to step back from."

The non-GMO solutions outlined here were arrived at through shared resources and collaboration. They are shaped by holistic thinking, centering the knowledge and experience of farmers and breeders. At the Non-GMO Project, we'll choose an equitable food system over a corporate monopoly every time.

As the gardening and growing seasons get underway across North America, it’s easy to be overwhelmed by the choices. Rolling racks filled with greenery tower above us at nurseries and garden centers, offering limitless options.

If you want to grow a non-GMO garden this season, here are some tips from the Non-GMO Project to start you on your way.

While GMOs are a standard feature on North American farmland, the home gardener isn't likely to unwittingly purchase and plant GMO seeds. That's because farmers who grow GMO crops must sign technology-use contracts with the corporations that make them, protecting the GMO developers' intellectual property but eroding farmers' right to save seeds.

Learn more about seeds and patents

However, home gardeners are emerging as a target market for some newer GMOs, including the purple tomato. The GMO tomato will likely be launched at farmers' markets, ultimately being available to home growers. Selling GMO seeds to home gardeners significantly departs from historical restrictions on farmers who grow GMO commodity crops and the Non-GMO Project staff are monitoring the story as it develops.

Fewer chemicals, more life

Most GMOs are engineered to produce an insecticide or to withstand the application of herbicides, making them a clever way for chemical companies to sell more chemicals. Since GMOs came onto the scene in the 1990s, pesticide use has skyrocketed across American farmland. So, while most genetically modified seeds aren’t typically commercially available to the home grower, you can still vote with your dollars on the chemical industry's other cash cow: pesticides.

If a challenge in your yard has you reaching for a quick chemical fix, take a beat. Consider how you could solve the problem with a physical or biological intervention rather than a chemical one. For example, planting cover crops on otherwise bare soil makes it easier to pull out the odd weedy interloper by hand. You can keep insect pests in check by offering shelter, food or water sources to the beneficial creatures that consume them. Wherever possible, add more life instead of more chemicals. Your garden and your community will thank you.

GMO-derived ingredients can appear in other garden supplies, such as fortified potting soil mixes or fertilizers. For example, soy or alfalfa meal can be used to boost nutrition in soil amendments — and both are made from crops considered at high risk of being GMO. Animal-derived ingredients, such as bone or feather meal, could be sourced from livestock that consumed GMOs in their feed.

Choosing non-GMO supplies can help to build and protect our non-GMO inheritance. To avoid GMOs, look for the Non-GMO Project Verified mark or choose certified organic products.

Food for thee (and bee)

The benefits of growing even a portion of your own food are massive. It cuts down on waste, reduces the carbon footprint of transporting crops hither and thither and you get the exercise and stress reduction of time spent outside. Plus, home-grown food is delicious and often very pretty. There’s a perfect crop for everyone: Partial shade in the yard? Try some early-season greens. Are you an apartment-dweller? Keep herbs on the windowsill year-round. Live in a cave? Grow mushrooms.

Humans owe a debt of gratitude to the birds, bees and butterflies that pollinate more than ¾ of the world's flowering plants, including much of our food. These fantastic creatures have faced habitat loss and steep population decline in recent years and deserve a helping hand. Many seed companies sell pollinator-specific seed mixes — sprinkle seeds generously for a beautiful, low-maintenance flower garden and pollinator buffet. Or share your herb garden with our flying friends. Woody perennials such as thyme and rosemary produce blossoms that feed the pollinators and leaves that can be used in the kitchen.

Find Non-GMO Project Verified seeds

To start the season on the right note, we leave you with this delightful factoid: Did you know that honeybees tell one another about the best feeding spots with an impressive "waggle dance"? They can accurately communicate the direction and distance of a food source with well-thought-out choreography. That means for every pollinator patch planted, somewhere there is a bee dancing about it. In that spirit, we wish you a joyful growing season as you tend to your bit of paradise.

Did you know that a carrot you eat today is less nutritious than a carrot your grandparents ate? That's because nutrient density, the amount of nutrition food delivers to the eater relative to how many calories it contains, has declined since their time.Your grandparents' carrots provided about the same calories but significantly more nutrients.

Today, we consume more calories with fewer nutrients than previous generations did. It's a significant concern, particularly as some of the most common chronic illnesses, such as diabetes, heart disease and some cancers, are connected to diet and nutrition. Obesity can exist alongside "hidden hunger," in which a person takes in enough calories but still suffers from nutrient gaps in their diet that can cause health impacts.

Looking at the causes of nutrient density decline can lead us back to more nutritious foods and better health.

More is less

Modern farming techniques are primarily to blame for nutrient density decline. Industrial-style agriculture prioritizes efficiency and yields above all else, and that comes at a cost. High-yielding seeds, synthetic fertilizers and pesticides have increased cereal yields by 175% since 1961, but high productivity can come at the cost of less nutritious food and negative impacts on the environment.

Luckily, the same practices that restore soil health and reduce fertilizer and pesticide dependency also increase nutrient density. These practices are part of a localized approach to food production and farming known as regenerative agriculture. Regenerative agriculture can help us produce better food while restoring environmental services such as air and water filtration and recycling nutrients in a resilient ecosystem.

Today, compelling social, environmental and scientific trends are converging to reshape how we think about our food. The newly-formed Nutrient Density Alliance follows in the footsteps of existing organizations exploring nutrient-dense food to improve human and planetary health.

The Nutrient Density Alliance is a coalition of environmental nonprofits (including the Non-GMO Project) and innovative brands working to provide eaters with reliable and meaningful data on the nutrients in their food, empowering them to act intentionally to preserve their health and well-being.

Nutrition = taste

When it comes to nutrition, we're only beginning to learn how much we don't know.

Researchers using the latest technology are mapping the nutrients that make up our food (imagine a culinary version of the Human Genome Project). Early estimates have identified more than 26,000 individual chemical compounds. To put that number in perspective, side panels on products at the grocery store currently offer information on up to 150 or so chemical compounds — less than 1% of what we now know exists. The other 99% is referred to as nutritional dark matter — a diverse galaxy of bioactive compounds largely unknown to the public who consumes them daily.

In the meantime, each of us is born with natural nutrient density detectors: our taste buds. "Nutrition equals taste," says Tina Owens, a senior fellow at the Nutrient Density Alliance. "When you eat a strawberry that's beautifully red but it tastes like cardboard? That is your body knowing the difference." Regenerative agriculture and nutrient density hold the key to the foods your body remembers from a generation ago.

Identifying the functions and therapeutic potential of nutritional dark matter could entirely upend how we think about, produce and consume our food — healing our bodies and our planet at the same time. The movement toward regenerative agriculture and nutrient density is only getting stronger as more innovative certifications and passionate advocates join the cause.

And not a moment too soon.

The Non-GMO Project is based on the simple idea that everyone has the right to know how their food is made, and to make choices that align with their values. The Butterfly's growth (66k Verified products and counting!) stems from its resonance, from people all over the world seeking out more natural, non-GMO options.

Simply put, the non-GMO food supply continues to grow because of the choices we make every day. We are creating our food system together, exercising our right to choose and harnessing the transformative energy at the intersection of values and action.

Because our choices are so powerful, the Non-GMO Project team drafted a set of core behavioral values that embody our highest aspirations, both as individuals and as an organization. Here are the five behavioral values that guide us.

Embrace Innovation

We embrace innovation by supporting each other to take risks in service of learning and creativity.

It's human nature to want to succeed at everything we do, but perfectionism is inherently limiting. Trying to control the outcome of our labors keeps us within our comfort zones. The result is a seemingly safe space, but not an interesting one. Predictable, yet stagnant.

Growth, learning and creativity all come with risks. By embracing innovation, we might end up somewhere we didn't know it was possible to go.

Communicate Authentically

We speak truthfully and listen deeply; we say the hard things and trust each others' intent as we seek understanding.

Have you ever been tempted to censor yourself, to hide your true feelings to avoid conflict, judgment or drama? You're not alone. However, the cost of holding back is greater than the risk of speaking truthfully. Communicating superficially causes estrangement from each other and, ultimately, from ourselves.

We strive to speak with candor, and listen with care and curiosity. We share our views, experiences and opinions for the purpose of being known rather than being right. We honor different ways of knowing and continuously challenge our assumptions.

Be a Leader

We all have the ability to inspire others and influence decisions, regardless of title; we use our unique superpowers to lead from where we are.

Each person, by virtue of their talents and viewpoint, is capable of making unique contributions to our collective mission and culture that no one else can make. We continuously encourage these contributions, knowing that our world is infinitely richer with them.

To nurture leadership in all its forms, we consciously challenge the traditional, hierarchical model of leadership.

Practice Essentialism

We choose our pursuits selectively, accept the reality of trade-offs and say no to everything except the essential.

Inviting diverse voices and exploring new territories opens up many possibilities — including the very real possibility of losing our way amid a dizzying array of options. Through essentialism, we stay oriented to our most important work, "making our highest possible contribution to the things that really matter."* Essentialism helps us set aside the good and interesting in favor of the imperative.

Cultivate Wellbeing

We cultivate holistic wellbeing, finding joy and meaning in our work together, and balance in our lives.

Natural systems function on the principle of balance. Disrupting that balance damages our wellbeing, causing effects that reverberate throughout our environment.

We believe balance is the basis of a regenerative, nourishing food system, and we nurture that balance within ourselves and our relationships. When we cultivate wellbeing, we honor the essential interconnectedness of all things.

These five behavioral values guide our work together, embodying our highest aspirations. Of course, aspirations bring new territory and unknown possibilities. Our location is rarely fixed. As we strive and grow, we accept where and who we are. We take comfort in knowing there are lessons and insights to be gained from every experience, if we are receptive to them.

*Source: Essentialism: The Disciplined Pursuit of Less, Greg McKeown