"Substantial equivalence" - A tricky, misleading term!

The biotech industry argues that genetically engineered organisms do not require labeling, should not be subjected to rigorous testing, and do not warrant careful public scrutiny.

This is because, the industry proclaims, genetically engineered organisms are "substantially equivalent" to their non-engineered counterparts.

Substantially equivalent? Say what??

The concept of "substantial equivalence" like so many words in the biotech industry's vocabulary, reeks of Orwellian Doublespeak. It is their attempt to have their cake and eat it too.

In other words, there is a deceptive ambivalence to "substantial equivalence".

Let's unpack the term.

Of course, the industry could not say that the GMO was "completely equivalent" because then they would have no basis for claiming a patent on the organism.

And they could not claim that it was "substantially different" either, because that would trigger concern that they'd rather not face.

The secret was to find a combination of words that make the invention seem just different enough to merit a patent but not different enough for people to be concerned about. With "substantial equivalence", they landed in a pot of gold.

Of course, the concept is absolutely misleading. But that was why it was valuable. It functions like a slippery snake, evading any attempt to pin down its meaning. When those concerned about GMOs speak out, it slithers over towards "equivalence". When the patent offices inquire, it nests in the serpentine ambiguity of the word "substantial".

(I apologize to the snakes out there for using this metaphor.)

"Substantial equivalence" shares that oxymoronic sneakiness that makes so many other industry concepts so enervating. Think of "sustainable development" or "clean coal" or "ethical oil".

The term "substantial equivalence" originally met with resistance from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), who had internal documents describing the possible toxins, allergens, and new diseases that might arise from GMOs (Freese and Schubert, 2004).

However, for whatever reason, the documents were ignored and the FDA decided to go along with the term.

So did the FAO.

The FDA also decided that it would be sufficient if the biotech companies conducted the studies by themselves to establish whether or not their GMOs were "substantially equivalent". This would not be considered a conflict of interest.

And the FDA decided that the FDA itself would not need to conduct any testing of these novel organisms. It would just believe the biotech companies' reports.

The FDA's regulation gets even more stringent at this point. Listen up.

The actual experimental write-ups by the companies are classified so no independent scientists can access them. The FDA has no problem with this.

And, as icing for this overly saccharine transgenic cupcake... the biotech companies do not allow external scientists to conduct health or environment tests using their seeds. In fact, when you purchase the seeds, you have to sign a legal document assuring that you will not test them in any way.

They are not merely seeking a monopoly on our food source. They are also seeking a monopoly on the knowledge we can gain about their products.

Let's leave all of this (ahem....) impressively rigorous regulation for a moment, and ask ourselves: what is it exactly that the biotech companies claim to analyze in order to deem their products "substantially equivalent"?

A 2003 review in Trends in Biotechnology identified 7 main research foci. Now, we cannot actually see the studies that Monsanto or Dupont or Dow or Astra Zeneca because conduct in these 7 areas because, as I said, they are company secrets. But even if we take their word for it and in good will assume that the reports they issue publicly are not biased, the seven areas themselves are not at all convincing.

In fact, with a little understanding of genetics and ecology, they all seem quite weak.

Allow me to indulge a little bit in each of them. Here is what biotech companies claim to do, and here are my answers:

1. Study the introduced DNA and the new proteins or metabolites that it produces.

Genes make mRNA which produce proteins. Understanding what new proteins are produced is crucial for understanding how the gene is altering the behaviour, physiology and biochemistry of the organism. This is because proteins are the building blocks of processes and products in the body. Of course regulators should be studying the proteins that the introduced DNA produces!

Unfortunately, studying the proteins that the introduced DNA produces is not enough.

Why?

Because the introduced DNA interacts with other genes, switching them on or off, upregulating or downregulating them. For example, in yeast, over 95% of the genes interact with their neighbours (Featherstone and Broadie, 2002). Genes do not behave in isolation, they operate in networks. When we introduce new DNA into an organism, an undefined number of other genes end up producing proteins in unexpected ways too. The same goes for metabolites, which are synthesized in complex networks of co-interacting chemicals.

2. Analyze the chemical composition of the relevant plant parts, measuring nutrients, anti nutrients as well as any natural toxins or known allergens.

The key word in this is "relevant". I assume that for GMOs intended for consumptions, the "relevant plant parts" are those parts which people eat. But the novel genes are not just in those relevant plant parts. They are in every single cell of the organism's body! And even if humans are not eating those other plant parts, SOMETHING is. And it is important to know how that something will react because it is part of a larger ecology and so changes to it could have ecological effects.

Second, it is easy to test for "known" allergens and anti-nutrients. But what about unknown ones? The concern is that novel proteins or novel combinations of proteins or metabolites might trigger some health problem. Given that it is impossible to test for an unknown allergen does not mean that the burden of proof should be placed on those concerned. Yes, it is a scientific problem to figure out how to conduct such tests. But that is the problem of those who produce the technology.

It is not acceptable for them to say (as they sometimes do): It is too complicated! How can you expect us to study each and every one of those unlikely scenarios? Doing so would throw a wrench into the cogs of progress!!

3. Assess the risk of gene transfer from the food to microorganisms in the human gut.

Unsurprisingly, there are problems with this one too. And again, they stem from a refusal of the biotech industry to respect living beings as complex interactive networks.

The quantity and variety of gut micro-organisms is continually shifting across time, is dependent on cultural, environmental and climatic factors, and numbers from 300 to 1000 bacteria species, and fungi and protozoa too. Can we possibly imagine that biotech companies test for all of these possible combinations? It is a permutational nightmare and would be exorbitantly costly. But it gets worse: the gut itself is an environment for the gut organisms, and as the gut changes (from sickness, from exposure to chemicals, etc.) they way the gut microorganism behave changes too. Some genes may switch on, others may downregulate, as the organisms co-evolve with their mini-ecosystem. What about all those factors? Further: considering the biotech companies do not actually conduct tests on humans (PRIOR to release, of course... we all know that they are conducting highly unscientific experiment on millions of us AFTER release!) we cannot assume that the environment within which these microorganisms are being tested for gene transfer is equivalent to the environment in the human gut. Finally, the context of the GMO is not stable. Environmental stressors can switch on certain genes or inhibit others, altering the way that the transgene behaves and potentially making it unstable. Alternatively, changes in the human could modify the degree to which the gene may jump.

Proponents of genetic engineering might say: Lighten up! It's just a gene! Why would it be more likely to jump out of the food and cause a nuisance than any of the other genes? Shut up and eat it, it is the most tested food to ever find itself onto your dinner plate!

Well, the answer, again, is clear: the gene didn't just arrive by some happy coincidence into the host code. It was forced in using viral vectors despite the defence mechanisms within the cell to prevent the invasion of foreign DNA. After in, it was shaken into activity using a viral promotor. These viral genes are aggressive and unpredictable. After all, it is through these genes that viruses can hijack other organisms' genetic codes. Viral genes increase the instability of the other transgenic genes. The same stuff that made it get in can also make it jump out.

4. Study the possibility that any new components in the food might be allergens.

It is interesting to ponder how this could be done without human studies. Anyway, I've addressed the concerns with this point in #2 and #3 above.

5. Estimate how much of a normal diet the food will make up.

How much of it we eat is simply not relevant to answering the question of how similar the novel organism is to its natural counterparts. There isn't much else to say about this one.

6. Estimate any toxicological or nutritional problems revealed by this data in light of data on equivalent foods.

This is potentially useful. The idea is this: suppose the novel proteins are present in some other food. The scientists study that food for toxicity so that they have likely scenarios with respect to their GMO. By all means this sort of analysis should be conducted! But it would be erroneous to assume that a given protein in one context has the same effects as that same protein in another. The other nutritive factors and metabolites in that food work synergistically or antagonistically in complex ways that render the protein's effect "context dependent".

7. Additional animal toxicity tests if there is the possibility that the food might pose a risk."

These are typically 90 day studies and are inadequate to assess health across the lifespan or multi-generationally.

So, what would better "substantial equivalence" look like?

It is possible that a gene might be inserted somewhere such that it did not do anything harmful to the organism, to the one consuming it, or to the surrounding ecology. Of course it is theoretically possible that some GMO is "safe" in these senses. But the point is that no study is anywhere near establishing this and there are sound genetic and ecological reasons to believe that this would be a rare phenomena.

Nevertheless, there are some technologies emerging that can show in much greater detail whether or not a GMO is "substantially equivalent". There are problems with these tests, but it is good for food activists to become familiar with them.

Proteomics, metabolomics, and transcriptomics (often known collectively simply as OMIC studies) provide much greater insight into the effects of transgenic alterations than any of the simplistic and limited biochemical tests conducted. For example, a proteomic study would show how the protein products in the new organism different statistically from a natural organism of the same species. This would help identify pleiotropic effects. If an inserted gene altered the behaviour of some gene nearby it, this altered behaviour would (theoretically) show up as some change in the protein distribution relative to a non-engineered organism.

These studies are still insufficient due to statistical inadequacies, but also because they only provide snapshots into the behaviour of the GMO. The GMO might be tested in laboratory conditions, where the inserted gene behaves in one way with its neighbours. But in complex field conditions, the gene often behaves differently and its behaviour changes over its lifespan. It would be unrealistic to think that the biotech companies could comprehensively test for protein changes across every likely field condition because there is an enormous variety, dependent on humidity, temperature, interacting organisms, predators, nutrient availability, etc.

Needless to say, most biotech companies and their cheerleaders are arguing that ANY OMIC study is unnecessary and that current substantial equivalence protocols are more than sufficient.

I apologize that this article got pretty technical, but I really think we need to know this stuff. Anyway, my conclusion is simple:

"Substantial equivalence" is a misleading term. Current regulations provide many holes for potentially serious health and environmental effects to slip through. Newer OMIC studies exists, which would provide a finer grained filter to skim out potential problems, but these studies are certainly not foolproof. Activists should understand that this neologism is used for political gain and as a tool for ensuring compliance. It is not a scientific term and it is not likely to be in the near future, given our analytical limitations in understanding the genome.

It is important that we expose the regulation for what it is. The biotech industry constantly accuses those concerned with genetic engineering of ignorant fear-mongering. The techniques that these companies utilize and enthrone with the Godly title, "Science", are neither noble nor ingenious. Behind their cunning words lie a dearth of precision and a surplus of greed.

The Powerful Potential of Anti-GMO Cyber-Citizens!

Sometime last night,
with the cold November winds blowing amuck outside his window,
and the naked trees scratching menacing songs on the rooftop,
a man stumbled upon something that warmed his heart.


It was, of all things, a Thanksgiving Survey on Smucker's Facebook page.

The survey asked consumers to vote on their favourite Thanksgiving food. The top choices were (in order of preference): turkey, stuffing, potatoes, ham, and pumpkin pie.

Now, as many of you know, these surveys are designed so that people can participate and add items to the list. The man softly grinned and tapped the words "Non GMO food" into the survey.

Then he voted for it.

Word got around because somebody posted it on a consumer advocacy group's Facebook Page and that group, in turn, posted to someone else.

It went viral.

Many people ended up voting. I surely did.

By the time I had gone to sleep, "Non GMO food" had received twice as many votes as the next highest on the list. When I woke up this morning, I saw that it had received 5 times as many. For those stats hounds out there, here's the current score:

Non-GMO Food 259
Turkey 64
Stuffing 46
Ham 19 (... how ham got ANY votes is beyond me!)
Pumpkin Pie 16

(editor's note: The questionnaire has now been removed)

While people voted, they also voiced their concerns about Smucker's GMO policy on their Facebook page. Dozens of comments filled the page and I am happy to report that no one was tempted by the obvious cheap-shots that Smucker's has heard a million times. There were no "Sucker's" or "Schmucker's" flung about at all!

By and large, people were civil, which is the most effective way to be in situations like this.

(What is Smucker's GMO policy by the way? It is basically this: we will use genetically engineered ingredients and we will pay a lot of money to confuse you into believing that labeling is a bad idea if you ever think to try and push the government for your right to know what is in your food.)

This quick, simple action demonstrates the new power that citizens have in the age of the internet.

It is a wonderful example of "swarm intelligence".

Like bees and ants, concerned citizens who use Facebook, Twitter and other forms of social networking, work in a distributed and de-centralized intelligence that has a power that we are only just beginning to recognize. Through the connections and relations it provides, the system is capable of doing things that any individual one of us is impotent to achieve.

As many of the bigger NGOs lumber about, held back by their own weight and bureaucracy, people networking over computers are spontaneously and dexterously birthing new and exciting actions daily. We still need those NGOs for some functions but there are some things that we can do better than they can.

We are crafters of a Beautiful New World Order and posting, sharing, liking, tweeting, recommending, and commenting are among our most important work tools.

My sense is that if we organized ourselves a little bit, we could increase our effectiveness severalfold.

There are over a hundred anti-GMO groups in North America. Many of these groups are performing redundant activities, posting and reposting the same soundbites and visuals. Of course, swarm intelligence requires some redundancy.

But we could divide our labour in an organized way and increase our impact immeasurably.

How?

Well, we could have a few groups whose specific job is to scour Facebook Pages looking for opportunities for us to act. Along with the Smucker's vote, there are probably hundreds of other important resources for us within Facebook.

But we don't have to stay within the navy blue halls of Facebook either: we could have a few groups that scan the major news networks for food issues related to GMOs and organics. Many of these news agencies provide "comment" sections that are beckoning our delightful responses!

We could have a few groups foraging in the "women's magazines" and a few others in the "men's" ones (I know, I hate the gender division here too).

We could have another group surveying the online science magazines.

And, of course, we'd need some other groups to scope out the smaller newspaper websites too.

And then there's the blogs!

Each time a group finds a relevant article, they would leave their comments, copy the link, and send it off through our networks.

Upon receiving these ACTION ALERTS, we would simply click on the link, read the article or post, voice our comments and go about our day feeling slightly happier. We have contributed a little to a new and powerful form of participatory democracy. That always feels good.

When the Smucker's staff open their Facebook account today, their socks are going to fall off.

Can you imagine if we left as few stones as possible unturned, if virtually every North American media resource was well represented with our messages, if customers ignorant of the issue were continually exposed to our polite and informed, yet firm and resolved voices?

I don't want to lead you into any fantasy utopia. But we can certainly get closer to achieving this by organizing a little and dividing our labor.

So let's start! What is your group going to focus on?

Educating more Effectively about GMOs

I am elated, absolutely elated, that North Americans are becoming more concerned about genetic engineering. This is a wonderful, hopeful time!

When the biotech companies and the food giants threw $45 million into defeating our right to know what is in our food, they had no idea what a silly move that was. Instead of silencing their opponents, they made it clear to those sitting on the fence that they would do anything to maintain their profits. My capitalist and socialist buddies alike, hearing the story, shake their heads. It is a move that will disgrace them for decades to come.

As a result, many of us are now beside ourselves with excitement. The defeat of Proposition 37 did not feel like a defeat because the industry exposed their true nature while bashing us down. We are witnessing thousands of people across the continent rising up and speaking out, initiating boycotts and stickering campaigns, all with a newfound gusto that is rare in the activist world. "Worldchangers" cherish these moments when momentum seems to be on our side.

But I want to ask all of you to conserve your energy.

This will be a long battle. Too many activists burn out because they put all their soul into something and aren't given back results that reward them for their commitment and passion.

We cannot afford to burn out. It is the long haul that matters.

If we can organize people and send ten thousand letters to Nestle or Coca-Cola today, it is less effective than sending those same ten thousand letters spread out over a couple months. If the rate steadily increases over that time, it is especially worrying for the companies. Consider the graph below, with two lines depicting the number of letters received about GMOs over a given period of time. If you were a CEO of Coca-Cola, which trend, A or B, would you be more concerned about?

So... not only is it in the interest of our health and sanity to slow down a little bit, it is likely to benefit our cause as well.

Besides, there are only so many people we can persuade with the frantic, frenetic energy that many of us now feel. But there are many more that we will turn off.

Let's all slow down and breathe here. We have to steer this momentum in a useful direction and not have it burn up like newspaper in a campfire.

As we spread information about genetic engineering through our various forms of social media or through conversations with those around us, we must constantly work at refining what we say and how we say it.

Activists are among the least effective educators. But we really only do our cause a disservice if we do not discriminate between what is educational and what is not.

Here are some criteria to consider:

1. Is your information scientific?

The biotech industry is continuously accusing us of being unscientific. We should learn from this that appearing scientific is important. Is the claim we are making supported by a reliable scientific source? Is the article peer-reviewed or does it authentically state the position of some peer-reviewed article or scientist? Can we openly acknowledge the possible weaknesses of a study so that we can say things like: "While it is true that the sample size of this study was small, it nevertheless indicates the need for precaution and further research because the biotech industry sometimes even uses small sample sizes." Here is an example of a scientifically reliable article and here is one that is surely not. Let's all enrich our understanding of genetics and why exactly there are so many risks to this technology!

2. Are you being preachy?

Why is it that Jehovah Witnesses turn so many of us off? Why is it that Angry Vegans often make meat eaters want to go and eat more meat? It is not because of what they are saying. It is how they are saying it. Are you speaking in a way that will make the average consumer feel like you think you are better than them? When people approach us as if they know everything and as if their life mission is to "save" or "wake up" the masses, they flip a switch in our brains from "receptive and listening" to "ok, I gotta get outta here. This person is too much". People are most open to learning from those who are open to learning from them. Reciprocity builds relationships, trust, and a motivation for both people to develop and grow.

3. Do You Know that Less is Sometimes More?

Too much information shuts people off. It is better to have a few, well-considered and well-delivered sources of information than a deluge of mediocre ones, interspersed with the occasional excellent one. The slurry of average-quality messages will camouflage the great ones. People like diversity. People like new stimulation. People do not like opening their Facebook feeds and seeing 20-30 posts monotonously re-informing them that "GMOs are bad" or are "destroying the world". They already get too much junk, most of which they just pass over. We should strive for optimal quantity not maximum quantity. And if, one day, we feel ourselves just a bit too fired up about our friend chomping down on a GMO cheeseburger? We need to take a moment, stop, and reflect: am I calm enough? Or will my comments deter him from listening to me ever again about this issue? If the latter, then maybe it is better to just keep silent right now.

4. Can you make your Message Pleasing?

Mass advertising works for products that people want to buy. It creates thirst and desire. But what we are selling does not often come across as pleasant or good or desirable. It sucks, but the truth isn't always nice.

There is some basic psychology here and you can bet the marketing firms hired by Monsanto know all about it: drinking a can of Coke makes people feel good. But being told that the Coke they've been drinking for 20 years is killing them (and the planet) makes people feel bad. Humans are simple creatures, attracted to what makes them feel good. They will generally prefer the quality of an immediate pleasure to the promise of a long term one. In fact, studies show that people will actually flock to their temptations precisely when they feel most badly about themselves. Our negative messaging may steer people straight towards their vices and dependencies... No wonder so much activism doesn't work!

A GMO-free world has a lot a beauty, health and magic and we need to show people that taking part in imagining such a world is itself more satisfying than munching Lays' GMO potato chips. It is more satisfying, isn't it? Well, how do we show that without force-feeding it?

In conclusion, I suggest that all of us make a lunch date with a teacher we know so we can ask them about teaching strategies and approaches that work in the class. Good teachers have care and tact and subtlety (in their better moments!) that will be of tremendous value for us in our struggle to improve ourselves and become better activists. To the chalkboards!

Contact Information for the Biotech and Food Companies opposing Labeling of GMOs

I have compiled the contact information for the major biotech companies, organizations, and food companies that launched the $45 million campaign to defeat mandatory labeling of genetically engineered organisms in food.

I urge you to write a brief letter and send it to each of these companies. You can copy and paste the same text if you like. It should take less than an hour to run through this list!

Here are some pointers for writing an effective letter:

1. Be polite (they are less likely to think you are a fanatic and more receptive to your message). It is ESPECIALLY important to be polite when writing messages on different companies' Facebook Pages. Faithful customers will be reading your comments and will not be receptive to insults and polarizing language. If your message is furious and violent, the company may also alert Facebook that you are spamming their page and Facebook may revoke your posting rights. Be nice.

2. Let them know how disappointed you are that they do not support our right to know what is in our food (i.e. Proposition 37).

3. Explain that although you love their products (if you do), you will not be purchasing them anymore.

4. Explain that you will also be talking to your investor/bank because you do not want any of your investments supporting the company.

5. Explain that you will be communicating your reasons for boycotting the company to all of your friends.

6. Ask them to change their policy and support the mandatory labeling of genetically engineered organisms, and that you will reconsider your boycott if they make such changes.

Send this page as a link to everyone who you think might be concerned about GMOs!

NOTE: Alliance for Natural Health has just produced this great page where we can send a letter to all of the companies at once! It is very important to sign on to this and spread it widely. But form letters are really NOT substitutes for individual letters. Do both!

Organic Consumer's Association now has a webpage with the call lines of these companies too, if you'd rather give them a ring!

Biotech Company Contacts:

Monsanto
Dupont
Dow Chemical
BASF
Syngenta
Bayer
Council of Biotechnology Information
Biotechnology Industry Organization


Food Company Contacts:

Pepsico
Pepsi's Facebook Page

Grocery Manufacturers Association

Kraft Foods
Kraft Foods Facebook Page

Coca-Cola
Coke's Facebook Page

Nestle USA
Nestle's Facebook Page

Conagra Foods
ConAgra's Facebook Page

General Mills
General Mills' Facebook Page

Kellogg Company
Frosted Flakes Facebook Page

Smithfield Foods
Smithfield Foods Facebook Page

Del Monte Foods
Del Monte Facebook Page

Campbell's Soup
Campbell's Soup Facebook Page

Heinz Foods
Heinz Facebook Page

Hershey Company
Hershey's Facebook Page

The J.M. Smucker Company
Smucker's Facebook Page

Bimbo Bakeries

Ocean Spray Cranberries
Ocean Spray Facebook Page

Mars Food North America
Mars Facebook Page

Hormel Foods

Unilever
Unilever Facebook Page

Bumble Bee Foods
Bumble Bee Foods Facebook Page

Pinnacle Foods

Dean Foods Company

Bunge North America

McCormick & Company
McCormick Facebook Page

Wrigley Jr. Company
Wrigley's Extra Facebook Page

Abbott Nutrition

Cargill, Inc
Cargill Facebook Page

Rich Products Corporation
Flowers Foods
Dole Packaged Foods
Knouse Foods Cooperative

OK. So those are the bad guys. Now we don't want to just be negative activists and criticism should only ever be a portion of our important work. We must also take time to thank, congratulate, and admire those striving to move humanity towards a sustainable future. There are companies and organizations who have contributed lots of money to support labeling of GMOs. They need to know how much we appreciate them!

Contact these proactive companies too!

Major Companies supporting labeling of GMOs:

Mercola
Nature's Path
Dr. Bronner's
Lundberg Farms
Amy's Kitchen
Clif Bar
Organic Valley
Annie's
Nutiva
Eden Foods


There were many more companies that just these supporting our efforts, and many organizations and citizen groups as well! They all deserve our recognition and support. For a full list of labeling endorsers, visit this link!

New: Organic Consumer's Association now has a form letter to thank all of the supporters. You can reach it here.

Other posts related to taking action against the biotech bullies: 10 Easy Ways, The Next Step after Prop 37, Cyberactivism

10 easy ways to topple the Biotech Bullies after Prop 37

In the wake of the defeat of Proposition 37, I have compiled a list of 10 things we must continue to do to ensure that our movement succeeds. I have not presented them in any order of importance. I consider them all crucial.

Ask Organic Consumers Association and the California Right to Know Campaign to help organize and network these next steps. They have the resources and we need their help!

1. Continue the push for labeling

While Proposition 37 may have been defeated, Californians will have more opportunities to bring labeling to their state. Meanwhile, other states in America and other countries can learn from the successes and failures of Proposition 37 to develop more effective strategies to fight for labeling in their regions. This is already happening: labeling initiatives are popping up in dozens of American states, in Canada, and beyond. Send letters to the companies fighting against labeling and let them know how disappointed you are!

2. Boycott GMO products

GMO products are unethical, unhealthy, and environmentally destructive. They are produced by biotech companies that are increasingly monopolizing the food chain and using their profits to suppress dissent. Boycotting GMO products should be an obvious priority for anyone in the movement. Consume verified Non-GMO! Use this non-GMO shopping guide! But remember: GMOs are not just in our food! Make a statement: say no to GMO cotton, to GMO trees, to GMO vaccines, to GMO fuel, to a GMO world!

3. Boycott companies producing GMOs

Many companies produce GMO and non-GMO products. If we purchase their non-GMO products, they can still use that money to fund GMO research and to purchase advertising space on public airways to try and convince us to consume their products. Until they come clean and shift out of biotechnology, there are enough ethical non-GMO companies around that we can support instead. Sign Natural Health Alliance's pledge to boycott these products today, and they will email our pledge to all those companies. You can also email each of the companies individually at this easy to access page.

4. Boycott biotech investments

Make an appointment with your financial advisor. You need to get your money out of the biotech industry immediately! Far too few people make use of this incredibly important and effective way of promoting change. Say no to GMO mutual funds, stocks, futures, options, and RRSPs. Ask your financial advisor about "ethical investing" and have him make sure that no biotech companies and junk food companies are in them. Do not fear: ethical investments do not show less productivity or increased risk than regular investments.

5. Keep educating yourself

The biotech industry points the finger at anti-GMO activists and calls us "extremists", "Luddhites", "anti-science", and "anti-progress". We have to actively and continuously work on ourselves to dispel these labels. We need to seek out the rigorous and scientific articles. We need to understand the details. We need to identify reliable sources of knowledge. We need to scrutinize our information sources and not blindly trust any claim made against GMOs. We will become better activists by doing so.

6. Educate others

And as we educate ourselves, we must also educate others. We need to figure out how to present ourselves as calm, rational and knowledgeable about the subject. We need to uncover what tactics the biotech bullies use to pull people to their side and identify these tactics to people so they develop immunity against them. We need to figure out how to talk about the complexity of the issue to people who may have little understanding of it. This will all take time and we will surely all make mistakes. But we will get better at it if we remain open to change and self-improvement.

7. Continue developing networks

The internet is obviously an amazing opportunity for different people concerned about health, environment and social issues to connect and share what they are doing. We can actively work at strengthening our networks by seeking other groups and inviting them into our circles. If all of our friends on Facebook are narrowly defined "anti-GMO" groups, then there will be a lot more inbreeding going on than if we stretch our network outwards to include other concerns that overlap with ours. What about animal rights groups? Anti-poverty activists? Futurists? Schoolteachers? Philosophers? Christians? And as we share articles and links with these groups, we must be careful to choose articles that we think they will most appreciate. We must try to adapt to our audiences.

8. Email and Phone

We should be calling and emailing the companies that we will no longer support and explaining clearly and carefully why we have chosen to boycott them. We must not use anger because anger is not convincing. We do not want to shut them off. We should also be calling and emailing the companies that have been heroes through the struggle for a non-GMO world. We must congratulate them and praise them and let them know that the bold steps they have taken have paid off. They must know that their pro-activity fosters loyal customers so that they can continue improving the quality and ethics of their products.

9. Label it yourself

If they won't label it, we're gonna label it! This is a great way of educating consumers, of putting pressure on our grocery stores, and on letting the biotech bullies know that we are serious. Remember: stock brokers pull money out of companies when they see volatility. We can easily create the kind of fear and apprehension in the security of GMO companies through engaging in our own labeling campaigns. Visit Stickering for our Future and Label it Yourself for free downloadable stickers.

10. Support each other

Activism can be exhausting and demotivating. We are fighting against huge, seemingly relentless forces. We have to learn to take care of ourselves so that we have energy and drive for the long run. If we crumble at a loss, we lose our power to continue fighting. I was really impressed by many of the comments I saw from anti-GMO activists after Prop 37 was defeated. People took time and effort to support each other. We cannot let activists fall down. We need everyone to keep strong in this battle for the health of the Earth.

Good Luck Everyone and thanks for all your hard work!

Related posts: Biotech and Food Company Contact/Email List, The Next Step after Prop 37.

The next step after Proposition 37

I am sitting here, on the eve of California's vote for Proposition 37. Proposition 37 would require that food products containing genetically engineered organisms be labelled in the state.

I am quite confident that the proposal will not pass. Over the past month, the biotech industry (Monsanto, Dow, Dupont, Syngenta, BASF, Bayer and others), supported by hefty contributions from the junk food industry (Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Hersheys, Nestle, Kraft, and others), has launched a 45 million dollar campaign to intimidate and confuse the Californian people.

Polls taken late last week suggest that support has fallen to 38%.

Though it will not likely pass, those working on the proposal have not failed. Earlier, I wrote a blog post suggesting that this crumbling in support does not mean that we have lost the game. What it means, rather, is that we must re-assess what the goal is. While earlier polls suggested that 90% wanted labeling, most of these people were not really committed to the issue and probably knew nothing of it one way or another. They could not accurately be called supporters. Now we have 38% of Californians who still want labeling even after being absolutely deluged with misinformation, lies and scare tactics (NOTE: after the vote, support was actually 47%!! Congratulations). This is obviously a great number of people. If we work together, we can accomplish an even greater goal than labeling: we can make genetic engineering unprofitable and force the companies to pursue more ethical ways of making money -- or go extinct.

In this post, I want to focus on the strategy of boycotting. Boycotting is the only form of direct democracy we have. Every purchase is a vote as important as any vote for any political candidate. Just like politicians, companies re-assess strategy if they lose only a few percentage points of support (i.e. cash). The biotech bullies can coerce the freedom of the press to prevent the labeling of their products. But they cannot coerce us to use their products.

Some people are critical of boycotts, and they rightly point out the limitations of "lifestyle change" politics. I would never suggest that boycotts are sufficient for change. We must continue to educate, network, push governments, call out companies, and create sustainable and enriching alternatives. But it is necessary that we pursue boycotting as well and take responsibility of this democratic right that we have and the power inherent in it.

Boycotting also presents educational opportunities although most boycotters do not exploit these opportunities effectively. Each time we eat or refuse to eat a product, we have the chance to explain why we have chosen to do so to those we are with. The educational challenge is to explain in a way that does not come across as self-righteous or "holier-than-thou". Too many activists push people away from their cause because they really don't know how to talk about it without repelling their audience. I myself am guilty of this too. As a result, I often don't explain enough and shirk the opportunity entirely.

There are several types of boycotting possible, and we must pursue all of them. On the most basic level, we can refuse to purchase ingredients that contain genetically engineered products. There are now shopping lists and barcode scanning programs to help us decipher whether some item is genetically engineered. There are also verified non-GMO products that we should be supporting with our vote instead.

The importance of organic animal products cannot be overstated. It takes between 5 and 20 kilograms of grain to produce 1 kilogram of beef. One steak might come from several dozen ears of GMO corn supplemented with GMO soy for protein. It takes about 2 kilograms of grain to produce a dozen chicken eggs. Some animals are more efficient than others at converting feed into meat, milk, or eggs, but in every case a substantial amount of grain goes into producing any animal product.

On the next level of consumer boycotting, we can boycott any products produced by companies that are supporting genetic engineering. In this age of corporate conglomerations, it is not surprising to find that many of the well-known organic food products are actually owned by major food companies. For example, Kraft owns Boca Foods, General Mills owns Cascadian Farm, and Heinz has a 20% equity in Spectrum.

There are still many independent companies, such as Amy's Kitchen, Nature's Path, Eden, Nutiva, and Organic Valley. You can show these companies that you value them by purchasing their products. You can even email them encouraging words explaining how important it is that they have remained independent.

Nor can we afford to limiting our boycotting to foods. GMO cotton clothes, GMO corn ethanol for our cars, GMO pet food, cleaning products, toothpaste. We need to avoid as much of it as we can. We need to pull our dollars out of toxic companies and throw them into businesses trying to forge paths to a sustainable future.

Now let me explain the most important type of boycott of all. It is imperative that we make sure that our mutual funds, RRSPs, GICs, and other investments are not pouring money into biotech companies. We need to talk to our investors, our financial advisors, and our banks and have them dump Monsanto and Dupont from our investment portfolios. Some articles have recently called attention to this essential strategy, but many people still ignore the power of this form of boycotting. If 10% of us make it clear to our bankers that we will not support genetic engineering, and provide lists of companies we do not want to invest in, the message will spread through the investment world very quickly. It is crucial that we can explain clearly and without judgment why we are concerned about genetic engineering. Be gentle. We should always be cognizant of who we are talking to and what their perspective might be. Spouting off about conspiracy theories, government-alien partnerships, chemtrails, or crop circles is unlikely to impress your financial advisor. Don't drift off topic. The "wacko" flag will fly up right above your head. Better to stick to the facts of the science of GMOs.

Even our chequing or savings accounts may inadvertently be used to fund biotech companies. Our banks re-invest the money we put into our accounts. Setting up accounts with credit unions that only lend to local businesses is a safe way to avoid some of these problems. Even this is not guaranteed but it opens up discussions and credit unions will often be more receptive to concerns such as ours. Try it out!

Gandhi was an influential proponent of the power of boycotting. For him, it was not simply a political tactic or a strategy (though it was certainly these things). For Gandhi, boycotting was an opportunity to align one's actions and one's values. He considered aligning action and value a deeply spiritual practice, a part of his influential doctrine of satyagraha. Gandhi was always critical of phrases such as "the ends justify the means". He countered that "the means are, after all, everything". Each time we align our values and actions, we gain strength, motivation, and self-esteem, we educate others, and we come closer to the Truth that can guide our lives. So said Gandhi.

Suppose we do not boycott GMOs. Suppose we insist that the problem is too big (as many Indians thought about the British occupation in Gandhi's time) and that individual action is ineffective. What would happen? Well, things would unfold something like this: those we talk to would not believe the issue serious enough to act on because they see us consuming GMOs. Banks and biotech companies would not believe we really cared about the issue because all we do is march on the streets with banners. They would continue "business as usual" knowing that after the march, we go home and put GMO-fed lamb chops on the barbecue. Governments would not see any significant financial shifts and would deem the anti-GMO movement as a fringe concern of little political impact.

The Right to Know Campaign (RKC) and the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) are the two most appropriate organizations to foster an effective boycotting campaign. Unfortunately, I believe that many of their staff will feel unmotivated, tired, and saddened if Proposition 37 does not pass. We can and we need to fuel them with energy. They have links, networks and a resource base that is too important to let wither. We need to email them (RKC; OCA) and tell them that we want them to organize a massive boycotting campaign. We must tell them that we want the campaign to be as easy as possible and to comprehensively cover all aspects of what needs boycotting, from foodstuff to investments. We also need to congratulate them for their months of hard work and for giving us the hope that another world was possible. They gave us that hope and after November 6th we may need to give it back.

And suppose Proposition 37 passes? I'll uncork a bottle of red wine, call my friends, and celebrate. When I wake up the next morning, I'll compose my email to the Right to Know Campaign and the Organic Consumers Association anyway. Even if we get labeling, we still need this boycott to push unethical and unhealthy business practices into oblivion.

Proposition 37 a victory regardless of outcome

If passed, Proposition 37 would ensure that most genetically engineered foods be labeled in the State of California.

It would also ensure that products using the word "Natural" could not contain genetically engineered organisms.

Because California is the most populated state in America and its biggest food producer, it is widely thought that if labeling starts there, it will spread across to other states and also affect food policy in Canada. Then, Canada and the United States would finally join the 62 other Nations that already enjoy the rights to mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods.

That is why Proposition 37 matters to all of us.

Since 1910, California has allowed new propositions to be voted on directly by citizens on ballots. Anyone can initiate a proposition for consideration, and depending on the type of proposition, it will be put on the ballot if between 5 and 8% of California's population has signed a petition demanding it.

In theory, this is potentially a great tool for fostering a robust democracy. It provides a direct channel for citizens to turn their concerns into legislation.

In reality, it has had a mixed history. The power of this ballot system is greatest when the issue has no strong economic interests against it. When a proposition promises to jeopardize the earnings of major corporations, unlimited amounts of money and resources will be thrown into defeating it, no matter how important it is for our health or prosperity.

Proposition 37 is no exception.

The major biotech-pesticide companies, Monsanto, BASF, Dow, Dupont, Syngenta, and Bayer, have contributed over 22 million dollars to defeating Proposition 37. Monsanto, the maker of Agent Orange, DDT, PCBs and rBGH, voted in 2011 as the world's Worst Company of the Year, alone has forked over 7 million dollars into overturning the people's will. These six companies produce most of the genetically engineered organisms on the market today and have hundreds of different animals, plants and microbes waiting in the pipeline to be released once public concern of GMOs dwindles.

If it dwindles.

Over 20 million dollars have also been spent by food companies, including Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Kraft, Kellog's, Nestle, General Mills, Conagra, Del Monte and Unilever (to name some of the bigger contributions).

It now appears certain that Proposition 37 will be defeated. With 45 million dollars and fueled by boundless avarice, these companies have unleashed a tirade of misinformation, lies, and aspersions through glossy television commercials, radio messages, and junk mail. With huge advertising budgets and a well-slicked team of marketing psychologists, market researchers, graphic designers and editors, they have successfully stirred up and stoked the fear they need.

Consider: Nearly 70% of Californians strongly supported Proposition 37 in early September.

Only 38% support it now.

By contrast, only 20% were against it a month ago.

Opposition has now jumped to 50%.

Tens of thousands of citizens across North America have worked tirelessly to promote Proposition 37, earnestly and bravely speaking out on behalf of the health of humans, future generations, the rights of other species to genetic integrity, and of the stability of ecosystems. Tens of thousands of citizens have volunteered days and weeks campaigning to raise awareness, signing up on calling teams, and amassing petition signatures.

Not only have they donated time and money, they have also committed their hearts to the initiative.

When a handful of super-rich companies can thwart public opinion through lies jacked up on millions of dollars of advertising steroids, it is easy to get discouraged. We know that what is at stake is a lot more important than corporate bottom lines. It seemed so certain that California was going to finally get labeling, so to watch the erosion of popular support is heartbreaking. It shakes up not only our confidence in the possibility of a healthy world for our children but also our faith in democracy itself. We ask ourselves: Why aren't there any mechanisms to protect the people's will against the power of money? Why haven't governments learned their lesson after the decades-long tobacco industry misinformation fiasco?

If you are like me, you feel depressed about the drop in support for Proposition 37. If you are like me, you may feel like there is no point in putting effort into changing the world. You likely feel raw and fragile: you again committed your heart to something you care so strongly about only to see it again crushed by this greedy, senseless machine. If you are like me, you probably want to take some time off and spend it in the company of what makes you happy and gives your life meaning.

But if you are like me, what makes you happy and gives your life meaning is the very thing that is getting destroyed. And so it feels like there is nowhere to go.

Before I lead you all the way down into the suffocating abyss that we activists so often find ourselves in, let me try and shine some light on what has happened with Proposition 37. I have some strong grounds for considering our work on this a success, even though the proposition is virtually guaranteed not to pass.

Look at this fact: despite the biotech bullies' campaign to wash the airways with 45 million dollars worth of lies and deceit, 38% of Californians still demand labeling. That is an incredible fact. Consider, for a moment, their calculated techniques: one of their main ones is to convince people that labeling will inflate their grocery bills by hundreds of dollars a year. This is, of course, nonsense. Labeling did not increase costs in any of the other 62 countries where labeling is now required. But we have no effective way of communicating this on the scale that the biotech bullies do (it is much more likely that the biotech bullies themselves will be the ones set to lose a few hundred dollars a year per customer after consumers avoid purchasing their foods). The biotech bullies have narrowed in on Average Joe's pocketbook, knowing that this is an extremely powerful incentive, especially in our current economic climate. They supplement these arguments by falsely attributing quotes to the FDA and to Stanford University, and by accusing proponents of the propositions of being "anti-science" or "anti-progress".

Despite this, three out of every eight Californians still want labeling.

This indicates either a tremendous commitment to the issue or a solid mistrust of the biotech industry. Or both. In any case, nearly half of Californians are now strong enough that they are immune to 45 million dollars of masterfully varnished deception! Remember: this is not an election time partisan issue, where voters blindly throw allegiance behind their favoured colour: neither Romney nor Obama have spoken out in support of the proposition.

Instead, this indicates that a significant number of people are waking up.

Some might argue: but we had 66% support in September and 90% support earlier in the year. How can you spin this failure into a success story?

I would point out that most of those people had very little clue what GMOs are, had had no exposure to the controversy one way or another, and had not committed themselves strongly to any position. Those people were easy to waver and many of them may be easy to pull back to our side too. What is more significant is that we've now got a rock base of 38% of people totally committed, regardless of the scare tactics and attempts at indoctrination they've been subordinated to by their television sets. This could mean 38% of Californians making purchasing decisions that reflect their ethics and conversing with the rest, slowly drawing them back. If we consider the fact that much less than 38% are committed to organic food, we should realize that we have quite a powerful foundation here.

Now if we can work on this strong base, we can overcome the biotech bullies anyway. This proposition doesn't need to pass. If we can work with our momentum and commit in partnership to not purchasing products that contain GMOs, the industry will topple. Before Proposition 37 emerged, we certainly would not have been able to find 15 million Californians likely to boycott companies to avoid GMOs. Now we have that. And we have millions more across North America who have learnt more about GMOs and the corporate control of our food chain through the efforts of Californians. Proposition 37 has galvanized this support, increased awareness, and has brought us together.

If we consider only the triumph or failure of Proposition 37, we are likely to be disappointed, give up, and all the work we've done would be shed for nothing. But if we recognize our work on Proposition 37 as one phase in a larger project, then our work has already been a resounding success. It is natural that we feel sadness and grief. We must face these emotions directly and support each other through them. But we cannot misinterpret this historical moment: the world is waking up and our most important and exciting work is still ahead of us!