Will the Natural Products Association Live Up to its Name in the Continued Fight for GMO Labeling?
December 11, 2012
Spread the Word to
Friends And Family
By Sharing this Article!
Email this article to a friend
By Dr. Mercola
As you've no doubt heard, California Proposition 37, which would have required genetically engineered (GE) foods to be labeled as such and prohibited GE-containing foods to be labeled as "natural" or "all-natural," failed to pass on November 6 by just a few percentage points.
California is reporting that Yes on 37 garnered 48.5 percent of the vote compared to 51.5 percent on the No side.
This was the net effect of the $50 million dollar No to 37 campaign, which saturated California voters with misleading ads. It's a testament to consumer education that they won with such a narrow margin despite outspending the Yes campaign by tens of millions of dollars.
What they didn't anticipate was the backlash, and the inevitability of labeling now that so much awareness has been brought about in the media and word of mouth.
Finally, Americans will have a discussion about genetically engineered monocultures and the dangers they present to our environment and our health. I want to extend my personal thanks to each and every one of you who participated in the Right To Know campaign.
Just know that there will be plenty of opportunity to keep pushing for GE labeling in the coming year, and if the California ballot did anything, it was to massively increase awareness about GE foods across the US.
It is a critical first step that US states pass legislation; it is the ONLY way our federal government will take action. I am going to share my opinions about Prop 37 over a series of upcoming articles.
Here, I want to address the Natural Products Association (NPA) and ask them to protect the integrity of "Natural" and honor consumers' choice. Businesses love to market products as 'Natural' because it has value to the consumer, but what does the consumer expect from 'Natural' goods?
What is the Natural Products Association?
The NPA is the leading trade association for natural products, leading the charge in lobbying Capitol Hill and setting the standards for natural products. The NPA mission statement reads:
"As the leading voice of the natural products industry, the Natural Products Association's mission is to advocate for the rights of consumers to have access to products that will maintain and improve their health, and for the rights of retailers and suppliers to sell these products."
The NPA's Natural Standard for Personal Care Products1 debuted in 2008. It was the first and only natural certification in the US, and the certification has become well recognized in the years since. NPA certified products use natural ingredients, avoid ingredients with health risks, don't use animal testing, and include a majority of biodegradable or recycled material in the packaging.
What most people do not realize however, is that the NPA's Natural certification does not actually prohibit genetically engineered (GE) ingredients... In fact, a product can contain 100% GE ingredients and still qualify for their Natural certification! Furthermore, the Association did not support Prop. 37, and Shaw has stated the Association does not support state-by-state GE labeling efforts.
You're Being Deceived More Often than Not When Shopping for "Natural"
As recently as November, 2012, NPA CEO John Shaw was named one of the Top Lobbyists2. He was also named as one of the top lobbyists for 2010. There can be little doubt that the NPA is in an excellent position to take a strong stand to protect consumers' right to know and push for better certification standards when it comes to natural products.
Yet the unregulated "natural" food, supplements, and products sector, which is routinely produced with genetically engineered ingredients, toxic pesticides, synthetic chemicals, nitrate fertilizers, and livestock drugs, is actually larger than the certified organics sector. This "natural" market is worth more than $50 billion a year, compared to the certified organic sector, which is a $32 billion per year market.
Polls show that most US consumers are confused about the difference between organic and so-called "natural" products, with many consumers believing that "natural" means "almost organic" or even "better than organic," but of course "natural" products are typically much cheaper than the organic varieties, yet typically cost more than conventional products not labeled "natural." In other words, the $50 billion+ "natural" products sector is basically built upon low or non-existent standards, and this ability to charge a premium without actually having to use premium ingredients is what's being protected by organizations fighting against GE labeling.
Who is the NPA Working for?
So is the NPA really lobbying on your behalf on the Hill? In a recent interview with Newhope3603, Shaw is quoted as saying that:
"NPA continues to move aggressively, in Washington, DC, and all across the US, on behalf of its members... The members at NPA are expressing confidence in us. Membership is our No. 1 priority as we move forward, not only to expand, but also to maintain current members and make sure their needs are being met..."
So, who are the members of the National Products Association? Members4 of the NPA include not just trusted natural and organic brands, but also some of the biggest pharmaceutical and chemical companies in the world — in essence some of the premiere opponents to all things natural and/or organic, including:
A press release5 declaring the Association's opposition to Prop. 37 promulgated one of several false statements about Prop. 37, designed to scare people away from GE labeling:
That's a truly telling statement. Because certainly, opposing accurate labeling of genetically engineered products is not, and cannot be, a viable stance of any organization truly dedicated to consumer rights. According to an assessment of the litigation incentives in Prop 37 by legal expert James Cooper, PhD, of George Mason University6, the scope and certainty of Prop 37 make frivolous lawsuits highly unlikely. The press release also falsely claims Prop 37 "includes bounty hunter enforcement provisions". It does not.
"While the Natural Products Association... support consumers' right to know about their food ingredients, NPA has concerns regarding the enforcement provision and how the proposition defines natural foods. 'Proposition 37 places every supplier, manufacturer, and retailer of food products at risk of unreasonable and frivolous litigation,' NPA's official position said. 'We are concerned the restrictions on natural foods in the proposition language could create a difficult business environment in California and further hinder the ability of our members to sell natural products.' CRN said it opposes Prop 37 because it was not created to protect public health..."
John Shaw stated that, "NPA appreciates the contributions of our valued members in crafting this position."
Rising Trend: Lawsuits Against Unnatural Products Bearing "Natural" Label
Ironically, in the wake of the failure to pass Prop. 37, consumers are taking companies to court over products using the "natural" label when in fact they contain GE ingredients. (The latest example of this growing trend is Pepperidge Farm's Goldfish Crackers7, which contains GE soy.) In November of last year, a federal court did uphold the right of states to prohibit use of the term "natural" on foods produced through genetic engineering.
In Briseno v. Conagra Foods, Inc.8, in ruling on a motion to dismiss, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ruled that because the FDA has not established any definition of the term "natural," state law could be invoked to assert that a claim that genetically engineered food is "natural," is unlawful false advertising. Several other courts have also concluded that state laws regulating or restricting use of the term "natural" are NOT preempted by the FDCA as amended by the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act.
It's Never Too Late to Do the Right Thing
When it comes to genetically engineered products, the NPA seems to struggle under pressure.. Last year, in response to the lack of oversight, NPA said it was developing its own standard for natural claims on food products, which it planned to introduce in 20129. No such standards were ever introduced.
Vote with Your Pocketbook, Every Day
The food companies on the left of this graphic spent tens of millions of dollars in the last two labeling campaigns—in California and Washington State - to prevent you from knowing what’s in your food. You can even the score by switching to the brands on the right; all of whom stood behind the I-522 Right to Know campaign. Voting with your pocketbook, at every meal, matters. It makes a huge difference.
I encourage you to continue educating yourself about genetically engineered foods, and to share what you’ve learned with family and friends. Remember, unless a food is certified organic, you can assume it contains GMO ingredients if it contains sugar from sugar beets, soy, or corn, or any of their derivatives.
If you buy processed food, opt for products bearing the USDA 100% Organic label, as certified organics do not permit GMO’s. You can also print out and use the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, created by the Institute for Responsible Technology. Share it with your friends and family, and post it to your social networks. Alternatively, download their free iPhone application, available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications. For more in-depth information, I highly recommend reading the following two books, authored by Jeffrey Smith, the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology:
For timely updates, join the Non-GMO Project on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.
Please, do your homework. Together, we have the power to stop the biotech industry from destroying our food supply, the future of our children, and the earth as a whole. All we need is about five percent of American shoppers to simply stop buying genetically engineered foods, and the food industry would have to reconsider their source of ingredients—regardless of whether the products bear an actual GMO label or not.