LETTER TO FDA: MAJORITY OF US SENATE DEMANDS GMO LABELING

Press Release of U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer

For Immediate Release: March 12, 2012

Contact: Washington D.C. Office (202) 224-3553

Boxer, DeFazio Join Colleagues in Urging FDA to Require Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods  

55 Senate and House Lawmakers Call on Agency to Ensure Consumers Can Make Informed Choices About What They Eat

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) today joined with 53 other Senate and House lawmakers in sending a letter urging the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to require the labeling of genetically engineered foods so that consumers can make informed choices about what they feed their families. 
The Senate and House lawmakers wrote in support of a petition – supported by hundreds of organizations and businesses – that calls on the FDA to protect consumers’ rights by ensuring that all genetically engineered foods are properly labeled. Polls have consistently shown that consumers are surprised to learn that genetically engineered foods are not identified and they strongly support a federal requirement to label these products. 
The lawmakers wrote, “We urge you to fully review the facts, law, and science, and side with the American public by requiring the labeling of genetically engineered foods as is done in nearly 50 countries throughout the world. FDA has a clear opportunity to protect a consumer’s right to know, the freedom to choose what we feed our families, and the integrity of our free and open markets with this petition.”
In addition to Senator Boxer and Congressman DeFazio, the letter was signed by Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Bernie Sanders (D-VT), Daniel Akaka (D-HI), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Mark Begich (D-AK), Jon Tester (D-MT), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), and Representatives Richard Hanna (R-NY), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), George Miller (D-CA), Louise Slaughter (D-NY), Keith Ellison (D-MN), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Peter Welch (D-VT), Hansen Clarke (D-MI), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Sam Farr (D-CA), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Rush Holt (D-NJ), Chellie Pingree (D-ME), Jim McDermott (D-WA), Madeleine Bordallo (D-GU), James Moran (D-VA), John Olver (D-MA), Jared Polis (D-CO), Charles Rangel (D-NY), Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR), Pete Stark (D-CA), Howard Berman (D-CA), Robert Brady (D-PA), David Cicilline (D-RI), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Diana DeGette (D-CO), Bob Filner (D-CA), Barney Frank (D-NY), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Janice Hahn (D-CA), Michael Honda (D-CA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), James McGovern (D-MA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Jackie Speier (D-CA), John Tierney (D-MA), Mel Watt (D-NC), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Maxine Waters (D-CA), and Grace Napolitano (D-CA).  
The full text of the lawmakers’ letter is below: 
March 12, 2012
The Honorable Margaret Hamburg
Commissioner
Food and Drug Administration
5100 Paint Branch Parkway
College Park, MD 20740-3835  
Dear Commissioner Hamburg, 
We write to you in support of a recent legal petition, supported by over 400 organizations and businesses, to protect consumer rights and prevent consumer deception by requiring the labeling of genetically engineered foods. FDA’s regulatory regime for food labeling is inadequate and uses 19th century concepts to regulate 21st century food technologies.  
As you know, in its 1992 policy statement, FDA allowed GE foods to be marketed without labeling because they were not “materially” different from other foods. In that policy statement, the agency severely limited what it considered “material” to only changes in food that could be recognized by taste, smell, or other senses. The use of novel food technologies like genetic engineering on a commercial scale has so far slipped underneath FDA’s limited threshold for “materiality” because such technologies make silent, genetic, and molecular changes to food that are not capable of being detected by human senses. In its 2009 guidance to industry, FDA applied its outdated GE food labeling policy to GE animals without revisiting the scientific or legal merits of the standard. This decision is especially troubling given FDA’s current consideration of a GE salmon that would be the first genetically engineered animal for human consumption.
At issue is the fundamental right consumers have to make informed choices about the food they eat. Labeling foods doesn’t imply a product is unsafe or will be confusing to consumers as some may argue. The FDA requires the labeling of over 3,000 ingredients, additives, and processes; providing basic information doesn’t confuse the public, it empowers them to make choices. Absent labeling, Americans are unable to choose for themselves whether to purchase GE foods. Polls have consistently shown that consumers are not only surprised to know that GE foods are not identified, but that they want the federal government to label these products. Since the labeling petition was filed in October 2011, nearly a million comments have been submitted in support of labeling.  
The FDA has the opportunity and authority to do right by the American public. When issuing its rule requiring irradiated foods to be labeled, FDA stated in broad terms that a decision to require labeling is not just based on the physical changes to the food but also on whether consumers view such information as important, and whether the omission of label information may mislead a consumer. The fact that FDA has already adopted this broad interpretation of “material” facts demonstrates that it is a reasonable—and therefore permissible—interpretation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).  
We urge you to fully review the facts, law, and science, and side with the American public by requiring the labeling of genetically engineered foods as is done in nearly 50 countries throughout the world. FDA has a clear opportunity to protect a consumer’s right to know, the freedom to choose what we feed our families, and the integrity of our free and open markets with this petition. Thank you for your consideration.  
Sincerely,  
Cc: Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services Michael Taylor, Deputy Commissioner for Foods 

###

LONG ISLAND'S SUSTAINABLE FOOD ACCESS

Access to fresh, healthy, affordable, local food 

Food Equity

Over the past 14 years and throughout the course of over a dozen community planning projects, Sustainable Long Island has identified common issues among communities across the region. One of these common problems is the issue of food equity - the notion that access to fresh produce and healthy food options is not universal and that some communities are at a disadvantage in the regional food system. In light of the severe economic downturn in 2008 and 2009, the need to address the issue of food security in Long Island’s distressed communities became an urgent and pressing need. During the summer of 2009, Sustainable Long Island launched an assessment of the current food system on Long Island to identify challenges and potential solutions. The starting point has been this issue of “food equity.”
Communities with limitations in resources, disposable income, language, and transportation often have restricted access to, and knowledge about, a variety of healthy food options.
While there is general agreement that consumption of fresh, healthy foods such as fruits and vegetables and whole grains are necessary for health and nutritional well-being, some communities across the region, have negative health and economic consequences caused, at least in part, by a lack of access to high-quality food. Supermarkets, farmers’ markets, and community gardens tend not to be as readily available to people in low income, low access communities. The result can be an over-dependence on neighborhood convenience stores with limited offerings of fresh foods sold, frequently for a high price, leading to myriad health and nutritional and long-term sustainability implications.
Many Long Island residents now face barriers to accessing healthful and nutritious foods, and the current economic crisis has only intensified food insecurity; putting a growing number of Long Islanders at risk for hunger, limited food access, and related social, economic and health consequences:

• The USDA has found that 23.5 million people in America lack access to a supermarket within a mile of their home.
• Obesity, a diet related health outcome, is not evenly distributed across the Long Island population or region. An analysis of Nassau communities conducted by the Nassau County Department of Health indicates that obesity is associated with race/ethnicity; specifically, obesity is more common among blacks than whites.
• Food insecurity is increasing: Demand for SNAP/Food stamps has increased dramatically in the past several years, with enrollment rising 87% in Nassau and 108% in Suffolk between June 2007 and June 2010. Demand for food from emergency food assistance programs has also intensified, climbing 21% between 2006 and 2009.
• Supermarkets, farmers’ markets and community gardens tend not to be as readily available to people in low income, low access communities. The result can be an over-dependence on neighborhood convenience stores with limited offerings of fresh foods sold, frequently for a high price, leading to myriad health, nutritional, and long-term sustainability implications.
• Food agencies are unevenly located and hours of operation are sporadic. Suffolk County especially seems to lack the presence of soup kitchens. This may suggest significant access issues for some Suffolk county residents, especially those without cars and unable to travel significant distances to obtain assistance.
• Most remaining active farmland is concentrated in the North Fork of eastern Suffolk County. In 2007, 1,288 acres and 34,404 acres were in agriculture production in Nassau and Suffolk Counties respectively. In Suffolk County, 77% of all agricultural land was cropland and in Nassau County 21% was cropland.
  Source:   http://sustainableli.org/what-we-do/food-equity/

EVEN "BIG FOOD" MAY CAVE TO GMO LABELS; TOO EXPENSIVE TO FIGHT THEM

25 Jan 2013 10:03 AM

 

Are Walmart and Big Food pushing for GMO labeling?

By Tom Laskawy  25 Jan 2013

Shutterstock

Since food companies collectively spent over $45 million to stop Prop 37, California’s GMO labeling law, it’s hard to believe that they — and Walmart in particular — would turn around and push for a federal GMO labeling standard. But a trickle of reports, aspects of which we’ve now confirmed, suggests just such a turnabout.
Playing a state-by-state game of whack-a-mole with grassroots groups trying to pass laws across the country (as is occurring in Washington state, Vermont, New Mexico, and Connecticut) may simply have become too exhausting and costly for these companies. If so, such an about-face would vindicate GMO opponents’ strategy of a direct appeal to consumers. GMO-labeling advocates may have succeeded in beginning to drive a wedge between biotechnology seed companies, like Monsanto and Syngenta, and the food companies that have to sell what’s produced with their wares.
That’s because GMOs, for all the claims made on their behalf, actually provide very little benefit to consumers — one of the strongest arguments against them. GMO innovations to date have simply allowed farmers to plant vast acreages of commodity crops like corn, soy, and cotton with less labor (but not, despite industry claims, with fewer chemicals). It’s on this basis, perhaps, that food companies felt like the fight wasn’t really theirs.
I first learned of this possible labeling sea change through an article by Ronnie Cummins, head of the Organic Consumers Association, who caught wind of news that a group of food companies went into the FDA earlier this month to “lobby for a mandatory federal GMO labeling law.”
Cummins went on to speculate the following:

Is it possible that the threat posed by the growing grassroots GMO labeling movement has prompted a number of Fortune 500 corporations to abandon Monsanto and the biotech industry, and rethink the PR and bottom-line costs of clinging to their anti-right-to-know positions? After all, it’s not as if these companies are incapable of making GMO-free products. Though many Americans don’t know it, Walmart, General Mills, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Nestle, Unilever, Kellogg’s, Starbucks — even McDonald’s — are GMO-free in Europe, thanks to strict GMO labeling laws.

I have been able to confirm through sources close to attendees that such a meeting did occur on Jan. 11. It did not take place at the FDA, however, though FDA representatives did reportedly attend. The meeting was “sponsored” by the AGree Foundation, which is a coalition of foundations active in agriculture and co-chaired by former Clinton Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman and Gary Hirshberg, CEO of Stonyfield Farm Organics.
I was also able to confirm that, as Cummins claimed, a Walmart vice president did announce that the company would no longer take a lead in opposing GMO labeling efforts. Other food company executives agreed, saying that the fight had become too expensive, especially given the prospect of more state-level initiatives. And if Walmart moves to support, or rather to no longer oppose, GMO labels, others will certainly follow. (Walmart did not respond to my requests for comment.)
Of course, supporters of GMOs will likely cluck disapprovingly at the idea that food companies might turn on Monsanto. They are, after all, forever pointing to the potential genetically modified crops have to solve the various problems we face. But to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you plant with the GMOs you have, not the GMOs you might want or wish to have. And the ones we have don’t do any of the things proponents argue that we need, such as significantly boost yields, disease resistance, or nutrition.
In fact, existing GMO seeds do little more than enable chemical-based, fossil-fueled monocrops — the kind of farming that is least sustainable and most subject to climate shocks and resource limits. Nor do the products currently in the pipeline hold much promise. The much-heralded drought-tolerant seeds Monsanto released last year aren’t particularly drought tolerant. The big new GMO seed from DuPont currently awaiting USDA approval would simply allow farmers to douse it with a super-toxic Agent Orange ingredient.
The best you can say about GMOs’ consumer benefit is that by “simplifying” commodity agriculture, they keep commodity prices lower. But food companies will tell you that commodity costs are a small part of the retail price (most of which is actually marketing costs). So why on Earth should Walmart, Cargill, and General Mills keep spending hundreds of millions fighting Monsanto’s battles?
Still, it’s unknown whether anything will come of this “secret” meeting or if an industry-supported GMO label would be a weak, sheep-in-wolf’s-clothing version. For what it’s worth, Cummins did invoke the cautionary example of Japan, which enacted industry-sponsored GMO labeling that he considers chock full of loopholes.
But it may be that food companies realize that GMO labeling is an inevitability. After all, 61 countries already require it, and the World Health Organization’s food safety standards group has official, internationally approved guidelines for any country wishing to label GMOs. We’re the laggards on this issue, not the pioneers.
If I’m hopeful, it’s also because past history suggests the FDA will regulate upon request — if the right folks ask.
For example, in March 2012, the FDA rejected a petition from the Natural Resources Defense Council to ban the use of the endocrine-disrupting chemical bipshenol-A in plastic. The agency stated at the time that it didn’t have the scientific data to support a ban (despite calls for a ban from many experts, including leading endocrinologists). This decision wasn’t entirely a surprise, however. Two years earlier, the FDA claimed it didn’t have the authority to ban bisphenol-A, even if it wanted to. Which it didn’t.
But then a funny thing happened. It turned out that the industry group the American Chemistry Council, with support from food companies — all presumably sick of the bad publicity and boycotts related to BPA — had filed its own petition to ban BPA in baby bottles and other children’s products. And while the FDA rejected the NRDC petition, in July of 2012 it accepted the industry petition for a partial ban. It was a classic case of “You say, ‘jump,’ I say, ‘how high?’”
Of course, even if the FDA doesn’t immediately start a process to label GMOs, it’s good news that food companies are ready to opt out of the political battle. With battles over GMO labeling gearing up in states across the country, we’ll soon find out if food companies will make good on this threat to biotech interests.
Advocates, meanwhile, can clearly smell Monsanto’s fear. Dave Murphy, of Food Democracy Now and one of the main architects of the GMO labeling movement, promised in an email that “come hell or high water, we will have labeling by the end of 2014.”
Labeling may come even sooner than that, however. With the prospect of final FDA approval for the first genetically modified fish designed for human consumption, AquaBounty’s AquAdvantage salmon, some states are moving quickly. Missouri has introduced a bill that would require labels for any genetically engineered meat or fish. The FDA itself may feel compelled to require a label as the “price” for approving the salmon. And once one kind of GMO food is labeled, how long can it be before others are?

Tom Laskawy is a founder and executive director of the Food & Environment Reporting Network and a contributing writer at Grist covering food and agricultural policy. His writing has also appeared in The American Prospect, Slate, The New York Times, and The New Republic. Follow him on Twitter.
Source:  http://grist.org/food/are-walmart-and-big-food-pushing-for-gmo-labeling/?utm_campaign=weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter

HAWAI'IANS GREAT RALLY TO BANNISH GMOs

Reclaiming our imaginations (and land) from GMO/chemical companies

January 20, 2013 12:15 am  •  Andrea Brower - Special to The Garden Island  

Something big happened Thursday night at the War Memorial Convention Hall when Vandana Shiva, Andrew Kimbrell and Uncle Walter Ritte came to speak. I’ve never seen a no-more parking turnout for a political event on Kaua‘i — there were even more people than came to defend the island when former Gov. Linda Lingle tried to tell us that the Superferry was a “done deal.” So before I say anything more, huge mahalo to everybody who was involved in organizing.
Many critical topics were brought up by the highly informed and inspirational speakers: on consolidation of power and control in the food system; on the use of patents to privatize our common genetic heritage (and the piracy of genetic knowledge from farming communities around the world); on the fact that GMOs are “failing to yield” in every respect, and especially on their promise of feeding the world; on the dramatic increase in pesticide use that accompanies GMO technologies; on the grand experiment on our health that GMO companies are in the midst of; and on the many victories of our resistance to all of this crazy business. The talks Thursday night were about much more than GMO technologies; after all, it is no longer just GMOs that are being patented — Monsanto and Syngenta both now “own” breeds of conventionally bred melons, and there are thousands of similar patent applications awaiting approval. The evening was about the direction of a food system that is structured by one over-arching rule: to make and take profit at any expense.
But perhaps the most important point made by all of the speakers in their own ways was that things could be different, and very different at that. Vandana Shiva reminded us that the things we now consider normal — the colonial legacy of private property and concentrated land ownership, the ability of corporations to own and control life, and a capitalist logic that privileges the “laws of the market” over the natural laws of the biosphere — have not always been so. That these are in fact very recent historical constructs, and that our future need not be shaped in the same form.
The enclosure of our commons — our common resources, genes and even intellect — has been accompanied by an enclosure of our imaginations. The monocrops in our land reflect monocrops in our minds. We need to reclaim, re-imagine and redefine possibility from those who would like us to believe that “There is no alternative” (in Margaret Thatcher’s infamous words). In fact, it IS possible that a billion people do not go hungry on a planet that already produces enough food for at least 10 billion. It IS possible that agriculture contribute to solving the climate crisis rather than being its number one cause. It IS possible that we don’t force workers to choose between spraying pesticides that poison their children or putting food on the table to feed their children. And it IS possible to stop importing all of our food from the corporate food system and to start growing our own.
For the sake of our humanity and the future of human life on this planet, we must start questioning the unquestionable. Is the logic of capitalism — which would have us subordinate all aspects of life to the market — really the best or only way to organize our food (or really any other) system? Can we not imagine a food system, and indeed a society, structured around equality, cooperation and sharing, rather than one structured around incredible inequality, competition and hoarding?
Changing our food system is going to take collective political action that goes far beyond “voting with dollars.” Simply buying organic, fair-trade or even local will do very little to address the basic political economic structures that underlie the destructive global food system. Consumerism doesn’t challenge corporate power, just re-orients it toward new niche markets (check out who owns organics these days). It doesn’t address the trade and subsidy policies that create inequality and hunger, or the theft of our common genetic wealth, or the massive wave of farmland grabs happening around the world. While it may be an attempt to opt-out of supporting that food system, our vote of no confidence doesn’t actually change the system.
We need massive, sustained political action that is rooted in strong global solidarities.
Collective action for a collective world. To take just one example, the task of developing a vibrant local food system: we cannot, and should not try, to compete with a global capitalist food system that drives down prices at the cost of the environment, workers, and the health of all people. Instead, we need to connect and work with regions everywhere to change international, national and local policies to dis-invest from corporate agriculture in re-invest in agriculture that nourishes people and the land. This ultimately also means re-structuring an economic system that trends toward consolidation and concentration of power and wealth.
In short, we cannot simply “eat our way to a better world.” Building the better world we want is going to take a diversity of tactics, from legal action and labeling laws to direct action and an outright ban on using our ‘aina as a testing lab for GMOs. Thursday night was inspiring and truly awesome, but what matters is what we do next. Vandana Shiva made a very important concluding point — she is coming back to Kaua‘i not when we eat more organic or pass resolutions to label GMOs (perhaps important steps), but when we kick the GMO/chemical companies off the island. Plantation days are over — it’s time for big agribusiness to go. Hawai‘i, and the world, has much, much better options.
• Andrea Brower is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Auckland, studying the sociology of food, agriculture and social movements. She is a Kapa‘a High, Middle and Elementary school graduate.
Source:    http://thegardenisland.com/news/opinion/editorial/reclaiming-our-imaginations-and-land-from-gmo-chemical-companies/article_e9f1a2a8-62c4-11e2-b66c-001a4bcf887a.html

"WE ARE THE MANY: OCCUPY FOOD" -MAKANA's Song at Dr. Vandana Shiva's HAWAI'I Tour - Jan 2013

LET THIS BE OUR RALLYING SONG....SING IT LOUD, SING IT PROUD....ROUND THE GLOBE! LET FREEDOM TO CHOOSE HEALTHY FOOD RING!

HAWAII IS GROUND ZERO FOR  GMO CROPS.... POISONING THEIR PRISTINE ECOSYSTEMS & PEOPLES

1 in 4 FOOD DOLLARS GO TO......OUR GOOD FRIENDS FROM THE HIGH PRICE OF LOW COST "GOODS"

NO BRAINER: WOULD YOU BUY SMALLER, GOOD, FRESH APPLES AT BARGAIN RATES?

No bad apples: Grocery store cuts waste and cost by selling imperfect fruit

By Dana Gunders

Cross-posted from Switchboard, NRDC's staff blog

On the surface, it’s a common display. A bin of apples with a sale sign greets customers as they enter the grocery store. Behind the scenes, however, it’s unchartered territory. Those apples are too small to be considered sufficient quality, or grade, for retail grocery stores. They were destined to be juice, cattle feed, or maybe even landfill waste until a few crafty folks and a bold supermarket decided to break the grade barrier.
Meet FoodStar and its courageous partner Andronico’s Community Market, a small Northern California grocery chain. Together, they are taking a chance on the idea that maybe we consumers aren’t as picky as most supermarkets seem to think we are. Maybe we’d be willing to buy a slightly smaller apple that only has 37 percent red coverage instead of the requisite 40 percent needed to qualify as the “fancy” grade that stores usually buy (yes, it’s actually measured). Maybe we consumers would even consider it a score to get a bag of Pink Lady apples for just 69 cents per pound.
Last month, the Natural Resources Defense Council released a survey of farmers that indicated sometimes as much as 30 percent of fresh produce does not make it off the farm. This is a waste of nutrition in addition to all of the money and resources that went into growing that food. One key driver that causes fruits and veggies to be left on the field or fed to cattle is that they are not cosmetically perfect enough to meet the high standards that grocery stores mandate. Many retailers insist that fruits and veggies meet exact cosmetic criteria, including specifications for size, color, weight, and blemish level — leading to culling and incorporating waste as part of doing business. Waste, however, is not cheap. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that supermarkets lose $15 billion [PDF] each year in fruit and vegetable losses alone.
Andronico’s Jonathan Packman said of the project, “We’re proud to be working with FoodStar to launch this initiative, since it simultaneously addresses several problems in the food supply chain. FoodStar presented Andronico’s with an opportunity to partner on this concept to divert food from the waste stream and create a viable, marketable product.”

Hanoian

“This is very groundbreaking stuff, because a retailer has broken the grade barrier and passed along the significant cost savings to the consumer,” says Ron Clark, coordinator for the Farm Direct aspect of FoodStar and former director of the California Farm to Family program, which distributed 120 million pounds of rescued produce to food banks in 2011 alone. By breaking the “grade barrier,” he is describing the highly specified standard of quality and aesthetics that most supermarkets would not dare to go below for fear a customer will be disappointed with their produce offerings. As Packman explains, “While selling from the same open bin of apples that the grower sends to us may seem simple, it actually represents a significant departure from how things are normally done in the grocery business.”
These were perfectly good apples we’re talking about, just with a bit of a Goldilocks problem. They were one quality level below what grocery stores traditionally buy. They were also too small to be used as “peelers,” which eventually become apple pie, applesauce, and McDonald’s Happy Meal snacks. In fact, they were actually on their way to becoming caramel apples for Halloween, but were pulled off the sorting line because orders for caramel apples were not as large as originally thought. Given this predicament, the apples would normally have been sent to the juice market if there were demand, or to cattle feed or a landfill if not. By intercepting them, FoodStar and Andronico’s are ensuring that these apples are going to their highest and best use possible — feeding people fresh food, affordably.
There are a few key aspects to this plan that make it work. First, the featured product changes, which allows surplus product in the supply chain to be absorbed in the way it happens — spontaneously. One week it’s Pink Ladies, the next week Granny Smiths. Second, decisions are made to keep the cost down, such as selling the apples out of large bins instead of the shipper paying to box them and the grocery store paying to unpack them. And finally, savings are passed on to the consumer, effectively warning the consumer that they might have to be slightly more tolerant of imperfections they wouldn’t normally see on the shelf. By carrying the FoodStar brand and locating the product in a different place, Andronico’s avoids the risk that consumers will judge their whole produce offering on this product.
Though they’re only a few weeks into the program, Packman reports that “so far, it’s going really well; we have sold over two tons of apples already, while actually improving our overall produce sales.” Everyone wins in this scenario. For Andronico’s, it’s a way to bring in traffic and offer their customers a good deal. FoodStar, who sources the product, is able to provide good value with products that would otherwise go to lower uses or waste. The supplier is able to sell the apples at a better price. And for us consumers, we score a bag of apples for half the normal cost.
Apple pie, anyone?

Dana is a food and agriculture-focused project scientist for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), based in San Francisco. She blogs regularly about food waste here. 

Source:  http://grist.org/food/no-bad-apples-grocery-store-cuts-waste-and-cost-by-selling-imperfect-fruit/