Saturday, September 25, 2010

Take Food Away from the Grip of the WTO, UN CALLS FOR "AGRO-ECOLOGICAL" FARMING!

Published on Friday, September 24, 2010 by The Guardian/UK
UN Warned of Major New Food Crisis at Emergency Meeting in Rome
Environmental disasters and speculative investors are to blame for volatile food commodities markets, says UN's special adviser

by John Vidal and agencies
The world may be on the brink of a major new food crisis caused by environmental disasters and rampant market speculators, the UN was warned today at an emergency meeting on food price inflation.

The UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) meeting in Rome today was called last month after a heatwave and wildfires in Russia led to a draconian wheat export ban and food riots broke out in Mozambique, killing 13 people. But UN experts heard that pension and hedge funds, sovereign wealth funds and large banks who speculate on commodity markets may also be responsible for inflation in food prices being seen across all continents.

[July's wildfires in Russia have led to a draconian wheat ban, pushing up prices. (Photograph: Maxim Shipenkov/EPA)]July's wildfires in Russia have led to a draconian wheat ban, pushing up prices. (Photograph: Maxim Shipenkov/EPA)

In a new paper released this week, Olivier De Schutter, the UN's special rapporteur on food, says that the increases in price and the volatility of food commodities can only be explained by the emergence of a "speculative bubble" which he traces back to the early noughties.

"[Beginning in ]2001, food commodities derivatives markets, and commodities indexes began to see an influx of non-traditional investors," De Schutter writes. "The reason for this was because other markets dried up one by one: the dotcoms vanished at the end of 2001, the stock market soon after, and the US housing market in August 2007. As each bubble burst, these large institutional investors moved into other markets, each traditionally considered more stable than the last. Strong similarities can be seen between the price behaviour of food commodities and other refuge values, such as gold."

He continues: "A significant contributory cause of the price spike [has been] speculation by institutional investors who did not have any expertise or interest in agricultural commodities, and who invested in commodities index funds or in order to hedge speculative bets."

A near doubling of many staple food prices in 2007 and 2008 led to riots in more than 30 countries and an estimated 150 million extra people going hungry. While some commodity prices have since reduced, the majority are well over 50% higher than pre-2007 figures – and are now rising quickly upwards again.

"Once again we find ourselves in a situation where basic food commodities are undergoing supply shocks. World wheat futures and spot prices climbed steadily until the beginning of August 2010, when Russia – faced with massive wildfires that destroyed its wheat harvest – imposed an export ban on that commodity. In addition, other markets such as sugar and oilseeds are witnessing significant price increases," said De Schutter, who spoke today at The UK Food Group's conference in London.

Gregory Barrow of the UN World Food Program said: "What we have seen over the past few weeks is a period of volatility driven partly by the announcement from Russia of an export ban on grain food until next year, and this has driven prices up. They have fallen back again, but this has had an impact."

Sergei Sukhov, from Russia's agriculture ministry, told the Associated Press during a break in the meeting in Rome that the market for grains "should be stable and predictable for all participants." He said no efforts should be spared "to the effect that the production of food be sufficient."

"The emergency UN meeting in Rome is a clear warning sign that we could be on the brink of another food price crisis unless swift action is taken. Already, nearly a billion people go to bed hungry every night – another food crisis would be catastrophic for millions of poor people," said Alex Wijeratna, ActionAid's hunger campaigner.

An ActionAid report released last week revealed that hunger could be costing poor nations $450bn a year – more than 10 times the amount needed to halve hunger by 2015 and meet Millennium Development Goal One.

Food prices are rising around 15% a year in India and Nepal, and similarly in Latin America and China. US maize prices this week broke through the $5-a-bushel level for the first time since September 2008, fuelled by reports from US farmers of disappointing yields in the early stages of their harvests. The surge in the corn price also pushed up European wheat prices to a two-year high of €238 a tonne.

Elsewhere, the threat of civil unrest led Egypt this week to announce measures to increase food self-sufficiency to 70%. Partly as a result of food price rises, many middle eastern and other water-scarce countries have begun to invest heavily in farmland in Africa and elsewhere to guarantee supplies.

Although the FAO has rejected the notion of a food crisis on the scale of 2007-2008, it this week warned of greater volatility in food commodities markets in the years ahead.

At the meeting in London today, De Schutter said the only long term way to resolve the crisis would be to shift to "agro-ecological" ways of growing food. This farming, which does not depend on fossil fuels, pesticides or heavy machinery has been shown to protect soils and use less water.

"A growing number of experts are calling for a major shift in food security policies, and support the development of agroecology approaches, which have shown very promising results where implemented," he said.

Green MP Caroline Lucas called for tighter regulation of the food trade. "Food has become a commodity to be traded. The only thing that matters under the current system is profit. Trading in food must not be treated as simply another form of business as usual: for many people it is a matter of life and death. We must insist on the complete removal of agriculture from the remit of the World Trade Organisation," she said.
© Guardian News and Media Limited 2010

Wooo-Hooo, Oahu!!!!! Alooooooooooooha!!!!!

by Mark Fergusson, Chief Vegetarian Officer, Down to Earth -Honolulu, Hawaii

GMO stands for Genetically Modified Organism. GMO, also known as genetically engineered, bio-engineered, or biotech crop, is a term commonly used to refer to crops that have been genetically altered using gene-splicing technology (See the sidebar, "What Does GMO Mean, and Why Should I Be Concerned?).

I am excited to tell you that on Sunday Oct. 10th, 2010, Down to Earth Honolulu, Hawaii, will have a big Non-GMO sale! You'll get at least 40% off on a wide variety of Non-GMO Verified products including entrées, pasta sauce, breakfast foods, beverages, snacks, gluten-free products, and baking items.

The sale will be the high point of our participation in the natural food industry's first Non-GMO Month. The goal of Non-GMO Month is to build awareness of the new "Non-GMO Project Verified" logo that is starting to appear on non-GMO tested product packaging across the U.S. The new logo will empower consumers to exercise their right to choose non-GMO foods. We firmly believe you have a right to choose what you eat and feed your families, and the logo will help you make an informed decision about whether you want to eat GMO foods.

The new Non-GMO logo and the protocols governing the right to use it on product packaging were developed by The Non-GMO Project. This is a non-profit organization that Down to Earth has been a part of since inception.

What Does GMO Mean, and Why Should I Be Concerned?

GMO means Genetically Modified Organism -- also known as genetically engineered, bio-engineered, or biotech crops.

GMOs have been created in a laboratory using gene-splicing biotechnology. This process allows scientists to create combinations of plant, animal, bacteria and viral genes that do not occur in nature or through traditional crossbreeding. The process is haphazard, and can lead to unintended and uncontrolled changes in the organism’s DNA.

The vast majority of GMOs on the market are bred for herbicide tolerance and insecticide production. Despite biotech industry messages to the contrary, there are no GMOs available that have demonstrated increased yields, drought tolerance, nutritional superiority or any other consumer benefits. At the same time, there is a growing body of peer-reviewed research linking GMO consumption with decreased fertility, allergies, abnormalities in organs and immune response, and more.

In the European Union, all products containing more than 0.9% GMO are required by law to be labeled as such. Due to our own government’s lack of initiative with similar consumer protections, the Non-GMO Project was created. If you are concerned about GMOs and would like to see them more completely researched before feeding them to yourself and your family, you can now choose “Non-GMO Project Verified” products. Find out more at

The tenth of the month, or 10.10.10, is Non-GMO Day. On this day retailers throughout the nation will conduct educational activities to raise consumer awareness about the new "Non-GMO Project Verified" logo while also raising funds for the Non-GMO Project. We are donating 5% of sales that day to the Non-GMO Project. The proceeds will help advance consumers' right to choose and will help support the long-term availability of non-GMO food and ingredients.

October 2010 Is First Ever Non-GMO Month
As retailers, Non-GMO Month and 10.10.10 are great events for us to participate in, as we have first hand experience dealing with consumer frustration and confusion regarding GMOs, how to identify them, and how to avoid them while shopping for food. We experience the same frustration when buying products for our stores. So, Down to Earth is pleased to join this industry-wide effort to establish the Non-GMO Project.

We are motivated by a simple idea. We believe that consumers in North America should have access to clearly labeled non-GMO food and products. That conviction is the guiding mission of the Non-GMO Project. It’s a lot easier said than done! In the beginning, a huge part of the challenge was that—by the time the Project was started—GMOs had already been in production across the U.S. and Canada for nearly 10 years. Contamination risks to seeds, crops, ingredients and products had been steadily increasing without a standardized set of best practices to identify and stop contamination.

While this situation had previously paralyzed all efforts to address the problem, the Non-GMO Project took a different approach. They decided that the lack of a perfect solution was no excuse not to try to do something. They believed that with enough hard work and collaborative spirit they could improve the situation.

New Seal Backed by Third-Party Testing
Before the introduction of the Non-GMO Project, North America had no third-party verification program to test products for their GMO content. Many manufactures made non-GMO claims, but there was no way for you, as the consumer, to know whether or not the claims were actually true. Ideally, such claims would be backed by third-party testing. This idea is the heart of the Non-GMO Project—an independent Product Verification Program (PVP).

The PVP was designed to verify that participating companies or organizations are capable of producing and delivering products that comply with the Non-GMO Project’s Standard. It verifies that participants’ operations and systems comply with requirements of the Standard.

Nearly 900 products have been verified to date, with thousands more in the process. After "Verification" they are authorized to display this new logo on their packaging:

During the next few months, as manufacturers begin to include the Non-GMO Project Verification logo on their packaging, you will see more and more of the verified products on our shelves. A complete list of participating products is available on the Non-GMO Project’s website:

Down to Earth is proud to be a charter member of the Non-GMO Project. We feel strongly that our customers have a right to choose what they eat and feed their families. Many of them want to know whether the food they are purchasing contains GMO ingredients. Since Organic Certification prohibits the use of GMOs, selecting foods with the Organic label has been the only way customers could choose non-GMO foods. However, Organic Certification covers how a food is grown, not the content of the food itself. And, since food production has become increasingly compromised by cross pollination and cross contamination in processing and handling, even Organic Certification is not enough to ensure that a product is non-GMO.

What does the “Non-GMO Project Verified” logo mean?
The "Non-GMO Project Verified" logo is not a guarantee that the product is 100% GMO free. But it's close!

The protocols to grant Verification involve a comprehensive set of best practices to avoid contamination. All the ingredients must pass a test indicating that the ingredient is below 0.9% GMO (in alignment with laws in the European Union). After testing, the Project ensures that its rigorous traceability and segregation practices are followed to ensure that the tested ingredients are what get used in the product. In short, this seal means that a product has been produced according to rigorous best practices for GMO avoidance, including testing of risk ingredients.

The logo tells the consumer that GMO contamination has been avoided throughout the growth and harvesting of crops, their processing, storage and packaging. By making this information available to the public, the “Non-GMO Project Verified” label helps ensure that the customer will have the final say.

The supply of GMO-laden foods and products is increasing, although consumers remain skeptical. Often they are not aware of the meaning and potential effects of GMOs. According to the USDA, plantings of GM soybeans, corn, and cotton this year are at all-time highs: 93% of soybeans, 86% of corn, and 93% of the cotton planted in the United States is GMO. And with as much as 80% of processed foods in the country at risk for GMO contamination (according to the Grocery Manufacturers Association), it has been nearly impossible to make it out of the grocery store without GMOs in your cart!

But don’t give up hope just yet…the “Non-GMO Project Verified” seal will, for the first time, give you an opportunity to make informed choices when it comes to GMOs.

For more information about Non-GMO Month visit:

To see Down to Earth's position statement on GMOs click here:

Friday, September 24, 2010


Coalition Demands FDA Deny Approval Of Controversial Genetically Engineered Fish
Posted on August 27, 2010 by Heather
FDA Considers Approval of GE Salmon–the First GE Food Animal–Yet Fails to Inform the Public of Environmental and Economic Risks

A coalition of 31 consumer, animal welfare and environmental groups, along with commercial and recreational fisheries associations and food retailers submitted a joint statement criticizing an announcement this week by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that it will potentially approve the long-shelved AquAdvantage transgenic salmon as the first genetically engineered (GE) animal intended for human consumption.

The engineered Atlantic salmon being considered was developed by AquaBounty Technologies, which artificially combined growth hormone genes from an unrelated Pacific salmon, (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) with DNA from the anti-freeze genes of an eelpout (Zoarces americanus). This modification causes production of growth-hormone year-round, creating a fish the company claims grows at twice the normal rate. This could allow factory fish farms to crowd fish into pens and still get high production rates.

Each year millions of farmed salmon escape from open-water net pens, outcompeting wild populations for resources and straining ecosystems. “We believe any approval of GE salmon would represent a serious threat to the survival of native salmon populations, many of which have already suffered severe declines related to salmon farms and other man-made impacts,” Marianne Cufone, director of Food and Water Watch’s fish program said.

If the FDA opens this door, GE fish will likely be among the millions of salmon that currently escape from open ocean pens every year. This could be the last blow to wild salmon stocks and in turn the thousands of men and women who depend on fishing for their livelihoods. “Approving genetically engineered salmon is a sharp contradiction to the agreements the United States has signed at NASCO, where transgenic salmonids are considered a serious threat to wild salmon” said Boyce Thorne Miller, Science and Policy Coordinator for the Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance and accredited observer at the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization.

Escaped GE salmon can pose an additional threat – genetic pollution resulting from what scientists call the “Trojan gene” effect.” Research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences notes that a release of just sixty GE salmon into a wild population of 60,000 would lead to the extinction of the wild population in less than 40 generations.

Anticipating the stark danger to our fisheries and ocean environments – and trying to circumvent analyses of those dangers – AquaBounty has claimed that they will only raise their fish in land-based facilities. However most salmon farmers in the real world ply their trade in low-lying coastal areas and competing corporations will no doubt race to produce GE fish in crowded open ocean facilities already in use for fish production. Backsliding on its original claims, reports have circulated that AquaBounty may only suggest producers raise GE fish in “inland waters” – presenting novel threats to our nation’s lakes, rivers, and estuaries – many of which are already under attack by invasive fish species like the Asian carp and Northern snakehead.

“FDA’s decision to go ahead with this approval process is misguided and dangerous, and is made worse by its complete lack of data to review” said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director for the Center for Food Safety. “FDA has been sitting on this application for 10 years and yet it has chosen not to disclose any data about its decision until just a few days before the public meeting.”

On Wednesday, FDA officials announced that they had begun the approval process for the engineered salmon and have scheduled public meetings beginning Sunday, September 19. Speakers wishing to present oral comments are expected to submit their requests in writing by September 7th; one day after the FDA has said it may post “some” of the data to its website. “This is not a process that leads to full and informed public participation,” said Charles Margulis, Sustainable Food Program Coordinator for the Center for Environmental Health.

FDA announced the same day that it will hold a public comment period and a hearing on labeling for the transgenic salmon, which seems to presuppose that the controversial GE fish will be approved. If the GE fish is approved, Agency officials are undecided as to whether they will require any product labeling.

“We all know there is a great appetite for salmon, but the solution is not to ‘farm’ genetically engineered versions to put more on our dinner tables; the solution is to work to bring our wild salmon populations back” said Jonathan Rosenfield, PhD, a Conservation Biologist and President of the SalmonAID Foundation, a 28-member coalition of commercial, tribal, and sportfishing interests, conservation organizations and chefs. “The approval of these transgenic fish will only exacerbate the problems facing our wild fisheries.”

The statement was signed by the following:


Wednesday, September 22, 2010


Corporate Lobbying Is Blocking Food Reforms, Senior UN Official Warns

(AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty, File)
Published on Wednesday, September 22, 2010 by The Guardian/UK
by Juliette Jowit

Farming summit told of delaying tactics by large agri-business and food producers on decisions that would improve human health and the environment.

Lobbying by "powerful" big food companies is blocking reforms which would improve human health and the environment, a director of the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has warned.

Dr Samuel Jutzi's public comments in London will be welcomed by campaigners who have long complained that big agri-business and food producers have too much power over political decisions about regulation of their industry, as awareness is growing that the sector is the world's biggest user of fresh water, a major source of climate pollution, one of the greatest threats to biodiversity, and an important cause of obesity and disease.

Speaking at the Compassion in World Farming annual lecture, Jutzi, director of the animal production and health division of the FAO, said powerful lobby groups were able to delay decisions, sometimes for many years, and "water down" proposed improvements. Their job was made easier because the FAO works by consensus, so persuading as few as two or three national governments to oppose an idea was enough to block it, he said.

"I have now been 20 years in a multilateral organisation which tries to develop guidance and codes for good agricultural practice, but the real, true issues are not being addressed by the political process because of the influence of lobbyists, of the true powerful entities," said Jutzi.

Jutzi then compared the impact of such powerful interventions with the failure of the UN climate summit in Copenhagen in December. "Many of us tend to lose hope in this process as we go on, and as we make only very small steps towards the objectives," he added.

He said action to reform the way global agriculture works was essential in light of the projected doubling of food production by 2050 at the same time as increase water, land and energy scarcity.

Speaking afterwards to the Guardian, Jutzi said an example of the power of the corporate lobby was the obstacles put in the way of proposals two years ago for a voluntary code of conduct for the livestock industry. These would have rewarded countries which introduced better standards for health, and environmental regulations such as how many animals an area of land can support without long-term damage. Because some countries have insisted on more evidence and reports, the voluntary code was now likely to take as long as 10 years to implement, said Jutzi.

"We ran into very serious problems: that's where we noted that the economic interests of the lobbyists have [worked] in the background so certain governments would come up with strict opposition, really strict opposition," he said.

In another case, following the publication of a major report in 2006, Livestock's Long Shadow - which among other things calculated that the livestock industry was responsible for nearly one-third of all man-made greenhouse gas emissions - "you wouldn't believe how much we were attacked," Jutzi told the audience.

Jutzi declined to name individual companies or countries, but defended some parts of the industry, saying not all companies were involved in obstructing the FAO's work. "We know that some of the private sector companies are more progressive than some of the politicians from countries which [have] major livestock interests," he told the Guardian.

Joyce d'Silva, CIWF's director of public affairs, said: "Organisations like Compassion in World Farming engage in dialogue with the FAO - and other international agencies. However our funds are limited and cannot hope to match those of the major agribusiness companies or the budgets of governments which are hostile to, for example, further improvements to animal welfare guidance from these agencies."

She added that it was "horrifying" that, "the narrow interests of certain commercial sectors can have more influence than organisations which represent the values and aspirations of millions of citizens."

Tim Lang, professor of food policy at City University, London, said there have been concerns about corporate lobbying of UN organisations including the FAO and the World Health Organisation for decades, a problem made worse by the widespread acceptance of the power of private companies.

Another example of the success of lobbying was the watering down and low impact of another important report by the European commission, Eurodiet, in 2000, which aimed to give advice about healthy food and drink, said Lang.

"What we have had in the last 25 years is an economic paradigm where it's assumed that markets rule and that global powers are the future, and the global powers par excellence are not countries but companies," he said. "What Dr Jutzi was referring to was the ritualised way in which it has been applied in the meat and animal industry. It [would have been] astonishing if he hadn't said it, but it was nevertheless wonderful that he did."

Although Jutzi stressed that the impact of lobbying was via national governments, Lang said corporate interests had also become "embedded" inside UN organisations through close and regular contacts between the people involved. "They don't need to lobby increasingly, and mostly they are part of the architecture of power," he said.

Despite the problems, Jutzi said there was great scope for improvements. "The sector has significant opportunities to transit to a more sustainable and responsible development path if necessary policy guidance is enforced," he said.
© Guardian News and Media Limited 2010

Tuesday, September 21, 2010


FDA Won’t Allow Food to Be Labeled Free of Genetic Modification: Report
'Extra labeling only confuses the consumer,' biotech spokesman says

That the Food and Drug Administration is opposed to labeling foods that are genetically modified is no surprise anymore, but a report in the Washington Post indicates the FDA won't even allow food producers to label their foods as being free of genetic modification.

[That the Food and Drug Administration is opposed to labeling foods that are genetically modified is no surprise anymore, but a report in the Washington Post indicates the FDA won't even allow food producers to label their foods as being free of genetic modification.
(photo by Flickr user banlon1964)]
In reporting that the FDA will likely not require the labeling of genetically modified salmon if it approves the food product for consumption, the Post's Lyndsey Layton notes that the federal agency "won't let conventional food makers trumpet the fact that their products don't contain genetically modified ingredients."

The agency warned the dairy industry in 1994 that it could not use "Hormone Free" labeling on milk from cows that are not given engineered hormones, because all milk contains some hormones.

It has sent a flurry of enforcement letters to food makers, including B&G Foods, which was told it could not use the phrase "GMO-free" on its Polaner All Fruit strawberry spread label because GMO refers to genetically modified organisms and strawberries are produce, not organisms.

It told the maker of Spectrum Canola Oil that it could not use a label that included a red circle with a line through it and the words "GMO," saying the symbol suggested that there was something wrong with genetically engineered food.

"This to me raises questions about whose interest the FDA is protecting," House Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) told the Post. Kucinich has repeatedly introduced bills in the House that would require the labeling of genetically modified foods.

David Edwards, director of animal biotechnology at the Biotechnology Industry Organization, told the Post that "extra labeling only confuses the consumer. ... It differentiates products that are not different. As we stick more labels on products that don't really tell us anything more, it makes it harder for consumers to make their choices."

The Post notes that the debate over genetically modified salmon, which will be decided at an FDA advisory panel meeting this week, "comes at a time when Americans seem to want to know more about their food - where it is grown, how it is produced and what it contains."

"The public wants to know and the public has a right to know," New York University nutrition professor Marion Nestle told the Post. "I think the agency has discretion, but it's under enormous political pressure to approve [the salmon] without labeling."
© 2010 Raw Story

Monday, September 20, 2010


September 20, 2010
2:08 PM

CONTACT: Food & Water Watch
Darcey Rakestraw, 202-683-2467;
drakestraw (at)
National Consumer Organization: Halt Approval of Genetically Engineered Salmon Until FDA Conducts Tests on Long-Term Health Effects of Consuming Genetically Engineered (GE) Meat
78 % of Americans Don’t Want GE Salmon Approved Without More Research; Opposition Grows Stronger for Other Transgenic Meat
WASHINGTON - September 20 - Today national consumer organization Food & Water Watch will tell the FDA it must halt the approval of AquaBounty’s AquaAdvantage salmon until the agency could do its own studies regarding the long-term effects of human consumption of genetically engineered (GE) meat.

In its public comments today at the agency’s headquarters, the organization will note the results of a recent poll it conducted with Lake Research Partners showing that 78 % of Americans believe AquaBounty’s GE product should not be approved for human consumption. Opposition grows even stronger for genetically engineered meat, with 91 % saying the FDA should not allow transgenic pigs, chicken and cattle into the food supply until the agency could perform its own safety studies.

“The FDA is on the verge of approving a product that an overwhelming number of Americans will reject unless the agency can conduct its own studies showing that it’s safe, which it hasn’t done,” says Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food & Water Watch. “The FDA has publicly disclosed four studies that it considered in this process. One was nearly 20 years old, and the other three were from AquaBounty itself—that hardly qualifies as independent analysis of the safety risks involved with this untested method.”

Americans are in near unanimity in their disapproval of genetically engineered fish and meat in the marketplace. The unusually high number of people polled who disapprove of the FDA’s process of approving transgenic animals prompted Joshua Ulibarri of Lake Research Partners to note, “I can’t remember a time when so many people polled were of one mind on an outcome. It’s pretty clear that people are not buying what the FDA is selling here.”

To make matters worse for consumers, the FDA could put it on the market without requiring labeling. “Based on past experience with FDA’s regulation of GE food like soy, corn and other food products, there would be no way to tell real salmon from GE salmon at the supermarket,” says Hauter.

The FDA relies on the very industries that it regulates for the data that it analyzes when approving new drugs or genetically engineered animals destined for the food supply. The background documents released by the agency contain multiple examples of how the limited data supplied to the agency limited the conclusions that could be drawn.

The nutrition and allergenicity studies the FDA mentioned in its publicly released brief on the issue earlier this month looked at relatively small numbers of fish. The nutritional composition study looked at 144 fish. The allergenicity study included only six GE salmon (out of a total of 18 fish). Both studies were conducted by AquaBounty or its contractors.

“The FDA is relying on company data from only a handful of fish,” says Hauter. “Such flimsy science isn’t good enough to assure the public that this product is safe to eat. This approval should be halted until the FDA can show the public that it has done a thorough review to make sure this product is safe.”

For more information on the poll, please see the memo: Attitudes Toward the FDA’s Plan on Genetically Engineered Fish
Food & Water Watch is a nonprofit consumer organization that works to ensure clean water and safe food. We challenge the corporate control and abuse of our food and water resources by empowering people to take action and by transforming the public consciousness about what we eat and drink.